House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
Very briefly, Mr Speaker, if I may, I am aware of a serious incident having taken place in my city of Leicester, at De Montfort University. I know that people will be deeply worried and concerned. I will just say that I hope people use trusted sources of information, including online. Do not speculate; more information will be forthcoming. My thoughts are, as always, with my constituents and people in my city.
Artificial intelligence is creating jobs, such as the 15,000 new jobs in our five AI growth zones. AI is changing jobs, freeing up nurses’ and teachers’ time so they can focus on their professions. But AI will also displace jobs, as is the case with all technological change. Unlike the Conservatives in the ’80s and ’90s, we will never leave people to cope on their own and we will help them through the jobs transition. Our new future of work unit will bring together action from across Government, and we will upskill 10 million workers by 2030, with free AI skills for all, in the biggest single plan to upskill our nation since Harold Wilson’s Open University.
Lorraine Beavers
History shows that workers’ voices must be heard to ensure that advances in technology provide better living and working conditions. Will the Secretary of State tell me what conversations she has had with the trade unions about ensuring that working-class people gain from the innovation in artificial intelligence?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend, as always, is spot on. We are determined to ensure that the benefits of AI are felt by working people right across the country. That is why our new AI growth zones in north Wales, south Wales, Lanarkshire and the north-east are built on places that were the beating heart of our industrial success and which will now drive our technological success. Trade unions and workers will be at the heart of that. I am delighted that we are working with the TUC on this, and I have spoken to the general secretary. I am also pleased that Mike Clancy, general secretary of the Prospect union is on our new expert panel for the future of work unit to make sure that trade union and workers’ views are at the heart of this vital jobs transition.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Government’s failure to resolve the uncertainty around AI data mining and copyright is undermining the UK’s economic competitiveness. Will the Secretary of State accept that that failure is driving jobs in both AI and the creative industries abroad?
Liz Kendall
We are creating new jobs, with 15,000 from our AI growth zones alone. Culture Secretary and I deeply understand the need to resolve the issues around AI and copyright. That is why we have been meeting the creative sector and those from the AI industry so that we find a way forward that works for both our world-leading creatives and our world-leading AI entrepreneurs.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
I have spoken to a range of individuals and organisations about teenagers’ use of social media. Last month, I met families who have suffered unimaginable tragedy as a result of their children’s experiences online. In April, my Department will co-host an event with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children on AI’s impact on children. I have spoken to parents, teachers and young people, including in my constituency, and there will be much more to come through our consultation. There are different opinions about how best to keep children safe online, but we will take further action, and swiftly.
Christine Jardine
In Australia, the Government are playing a game of whack-a-mole as they struggle to keep up with young people switching between social media sites and new apps that have just been brought on board. I have spoken to people in the industry here and to parents who say that a blanket ban is not working. Will the Government consider a more varied approach, along the lines that the Liberal Democrats have suggested, with a licensing scheme based on certification for cinema screens?
Liz Kendall
I would say that it is early days in Australia, and we also know the action that France and Spain will be taking. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was present during my statement last week, when I set out that we will consult on a range of different options, including a ban on social media for the under-16s, raising the digital age of consent, overnight curfews and stronger age verification measures. We want to get this right and to work with parents, teenagers, and industry, but we will take further action to give children the childhood that they deserve and prepare them for the future.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
One year ago, Meta, TikTok, X, and Google all confirmed to my Committee that they hold themselves accountable to the British people through Parliament, and before Easter we will revisit the findings of our social media and algorithms inquiry in an evidence session with them. I mention that because it is clear that Governments across the world are urgently seeking ways to make tech platforms more accountable. As the Secretary of State consults on children and social media, will she confirm that any eventual ban should be in addition to and not instead of more effective regulation of those powerful platforms?
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for the work she is leading on this crucial issue, and I know how passionately she and the Committee, and many other Members of the House, feel about the role of algorithms, misinformation, disinformation and the impact on our democracy and the political process. We have launched a specific consultation on children’s online lives, and how to give them the best life online, just as we want for them in the real world. My hon. Friend will also know that I constantly keep these issues under review, because we want to ensure that AI and tech is used for good, and not to cause further problems in our society.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The public support a ban on social media for the under-16s, Conservative Members support a ban on social media for the under-16s, and Labour Members support a ban on social media for the under-16s. The Secretary of State has said many fine words about her concerns for children’s safety online, but what we now need is action. Will she take the opportunity to make clear her position: does she, or does she not, support a ban on social media for the under-16s?
Liz Kendall
I am very aware of the strong views on this issue. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that organisations such as the Molly Rose Foundation, the NSPCC, and others, think that there are problems with a social media ban for young people, and I want to listen closely to those views. I say to the hon. Gentleman that it was Labour Members who stood up to X and Grok, when the Conservative spokesperson said it was a “legal grey area”, when it was not, and accused us of being like the mullahs of Iran. I am proud of the action we have taken to keep kids safe online; let us see what the hon. Gentleman has done.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
We have already heard from thousands of stakeholders, including concerned parents, teachers and young people, who are all crying out for help against fast-evolving online harm. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed a world-leading approach to ban harmful social media, based on a future-proof, harms-based approach that is backed by 42 children’s charities and online experts. As the world wakes up to this seatbelt moment for online safety, now is the time for action. A consultation is not good enough, so will the Secretary of State please assure us that it will at least look at how we ban harmful social media for under-16s, rather than if we do it?
Liz Kendall
We are banning harmful content for children, and this Government have taken decisive action to protect children and young people from intimate image abuse, self-harm, cyber-flashing, and strangulation in pornography. Hon. Members across the House will continually ask me this question today, but I believe that a consultation—swift, with proposals before the summer—is the right and responsible way forward to hear different views, to try to build consensus where we can, and then to act decisively. I hope that the hon. Lady, who I know cares deeply about these issues, will work with us, including with her constituents, to ensure that we build the strongest possible framework for the future.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
The Government’s consultation on children’s use of social media and how we build a great life online for our young people will include the option of banning social media for under-16s. We will also look at other measures, such as raising the digital age of consent, breaks to stop excessive use or doomscrolling, overnight curfews, the enforcement of existing age verification laws—there is more to be done there—and addressing concerns about the use of virtual private networks. I have also said that I will take further action on AI chatbots when that is necessary. There are strong and differing views about this issue, which is why we believe that a swift consultation rooted in the evidence is the right and responsible way forward.
Fred Thomas
Every day that children are exposed to harmful and addictive content is another day of preventable harm. Yesterday, the Spanish PM, Pedro Sánchez, announced that Spain will ban social media for under-16s, pledging to protect children there from the digital wild west. Expectations are that the Government in Spain will begin passing legislation next week. Meanwhile, we know about France and Australia. There is accelerating momentum from our allies to move quickly and decisively on this issue. Can the Secretary of State confirm, as was indicated by a Minister in the other place a couple of weeks ago, that the Government are taking steps so that a ban could be introduced here at pace through secondary legislation, subject to the results of the consultation?
Liz Kendall
I am not one for hanging about. I want to act swiftly, and we will do whatever is possible on the basis of the consultation and the decisions we take to act as swiftly as possible.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I recently met a headteacher in my constituency who told me that social media use during school hours has reached the stage where some schools are weighing up budgeting for and investment in schemes to reduce phone distraction against investing into additional teaching staff. Her school is trialling the use of a new app that minimises distractions by controlling access to non-essential apps during the school day. Other schools have a system of secure phone-locking bags, but they are expensive. Before the results of the Department’s consultation are published, what interim measures is the Secretary of State considering to help schools to manage pupils’ access to social media on mobile phones?
Liz Kendall
My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary has made it clear, with new guidance and a requirement on Ofsted to inspect, that phones should not be used in schools. That is the action we are taking, because we think that is the right way forward. That is what teachers want. I know that some schools have found it difficult handling these issues with young people and parents, but the position of this Government—that we should not have phones being used in schools—is absolutely crystal clear.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Josh Simons)
I am answering today on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital Government, who is away on other duties. As of September 2025, more than 1.3 million premises in rural and hard-to-reach communities across the UK have already been upgraded to gigabit-capable broadband through Government-funded programmes. More than 1 million premises are included in the £2.4 billion-worth of signed Project Gigabit contracts. That includes a £175 million contract with Openreach to deliver gigabit-capable broadband across Scotland, including approximately 8,300 premises in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Torcuil Crichton
The figures are impressive, but 10% of constituents in the Western Isles cannot get more than 10 megabits a second. While I welcome Project Gigabit, the islanders tell me that the areas first being considered for connection already have good fibre connection. They are getting a fibre upgrade, while people perhaps just a few hundred yards off the main fibre cable running the length of the island are left hanging on a copper line. Will the Minister press Openreach to ensure that it makes these hard-to-reach connections and does not just rely on easy connections and big figures to convince Ministers that it is doing its job?
Josh Simons
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to press this issue. Project Gigabit delivers gigabit-capable broadband to parts of the UK that are unlikely to be reached by the commercial market alone. However, as Project Gigabit extends its coverage, it will increasingly also cover properties that already have superfast availability. For premises located in very hard-to-reach areas, we are continuing to explore how Government can further enable alternatives to fibre connections, such as through satellites and fixed wireless access. I urge my hon. Friend to remind his constituents that, through the broadband universal service obligation, consumers always have a right to a decent broadband connection of at least 10 megabits per second of download speed.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The new Project Gigabit contract for Cheshire, expected to be in place by the spring, will cover only around a third of the premises in Chester South and Eddisbury that currently lack adequate broadband. I have raised this issue repeatedly, but I am still without a clear answer. Can the Minister now set out what specific plans exist for the remaining 10,000 homes and businesses, mostly in rural areas, that are not included in this new contract? When can those premises realistically expect to be connected?
Josh Simons
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), we are currently looking at how we can further enable alternatives to fibre access, such as satellites and fixed wireless access. I am sure that the Minister for Digital Government will be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the specific issues in her constituency, as he would be for my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
With the groundbreaking steps in the Online Safety Act 2023, we are protecting children from illegal and harmful content online. The Secretary of State’s first step was to ensure that self-harm and suicide content were made priority offences. We have legislated to criminalise both the depiction of strangulation in pornography and the creation of non-consensual intimate images, making them priority offences. We have now launched a short, sharp consultation to protect children’s experiences online. Under this Government, children’s wellbeing is put right at the heart of our decisions.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The Online Safety Act was intended to protect children and teenagers from harmful social media content. The Molly Rose Foundation’s study found that, before the Act’s implementation, over a third of 13 to 17-year-olds had seen harmful content online, including self-harm, depression or eating disorder content. Young people in my constituency tell me that they still see this content, so will the Minister commit to publish a report examining whether the Online Safety Act is meeting its stated aim of keeping children safe online, while we wait for the Government’s response to their own consultation?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point. I have engaged deeply and frequently with the Molly Rose Foundation on this issue and wider concerns. We continue to ensure that the monitoring and evaluation of the Online Safety Act’s implementation is in progress—I am engaging regularly on that, and I am happy to continue the conversation.
Catherine Atkinson
I have heard from many parents in Derby who want to know that their children are properly protected when they go online, not left exposed to harmful content or addictive design features. I have also spoken to many young people who are also concerned about what they face online. Can the Minister set out how, in addition to listening to the voices of organisations representing children and bereaved families, which is vital, we put children and young people at the heart of this national conversation and ensure that their voices are heard too?
Kanishka Narayan
I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the depth and breadth of her advocacy for the people of Derby. I can confirm that I would be delighted to ensure that we continue the conversation with young people. I was at a school last week, and I will be in a school this week. I commit to the House that the Secretary of State and I will continue to put young people at the heart of all our decisions.
Danny Beales
I have been contacted by over 400 of my constituents who are calling for greater regulation of social media and young people’s use of it. There is disagreement about whether there should be a full or partial ban, and the exact age at which it should be introduced. Regardless of where the Government’s consultation leads, there will be a cliff edge, and young people will, at some point, start to engage with the digital world. With that in mind, what engagement is the Department having with the Department for Education’s curriculum review to give young people the skills, information and support they need to identify online harms and misinformation?
Kanishka Narayan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: regulation is one part of this issue, but we are also focused on the fundamental aspects of media literacy and education. We are engaging very closely with the Department for Education on a media literacy aspect of the national curriculum to ensure that our young people can spot misinformation and disinformation, and that they are prepared to make the most of online experiences.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Further to the question put to the Secretary of State by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), my teenage informant tells me that if you ask them the right question, most US-based search engines will tell you how to access the dark web. That is clearly undesirable, so what are we doing to stop it?
Kanishka Narayan
We are looking very closely at that. Of course, under the Online Safety Act, platforms already have a responsibility to make sure that young people are not able to access harmful content. In relation to wider access methods—whether virtual private networks or others—we are looking very closely at patterns of behaviour. So far, we have been pretty successful; after an initial spike in the use of some of those platforms, we have seen a levelling-off, which I very much hope continues. We will continue to monitor the situation.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
We are in a race for the future, and this Government are determined to seize the opportunities of AI to win for Britain and the British people. Last week, I announced our Lanarkshire AI growth zone, creating 3,400 jobs. On Monday, I announced that Barnsley will be the UK’s first tech town, and we have announced free AI skills for all, because if we want AI to work for Britain, we need Britons who can work with AI.
Matt Turmaine
This Labour Government are making great strides in deploying digital technologies to provide access to public services and bring them bang up to date. Will my right hon. Friend please outline how this will benefit the residents of my constituency of Watford, while also offering some reassurance to those who are not digital natives that they will still be able to access the public services they need?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend has always been a powerful champion for the good people of Watford. This Government are determined to make sure that national and local public services are more easily accessible online, through things such as the NHS app, and that people can get driving licences and information about benefits online. However, we are really concerned about those without digital skills. That is why we launched the first digital inclusion plan in a decade, including free digital skills training, which my hon. Friend’s constituents can take advantage of.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Amid the utter muck-storm of this week, it is World Cancer Day, when we should be thanking our incredible scientists whose breakthroughs give hope to patients at their lowest ebb. Does the Secretary of State think that her Government should charge VAT on medicines being supplied to those patients for free?
Liz Kendall
I am very proud that this Government have today announced their proposals to improve cancer care for people right across the country. It is essential that we get more people access to faster, better services, and I have always believed that we need to do that in the way that is fairest for people and that backs our great scientists to make even more improvements. That is why I am so proud of our life sciences sector plan, alongside the 10-year NHS plan.
Julia Lopez
I did not uncover any answer there. Charities and life sciences firms are telling me that this Government have begun to issue tax bills on free drugs, such that one company is stopping a compassionate access scheme and withdrawing two critical cancer drugs, and more could follow suit. This is a disaster for patients, a disaster for securing clinical trials, and a disaster for this Government’s cancer strategy. Will the Secretary of State and the Chancellor commit to stopping those bills as a matter of urgency, for the sake of patients and of our vital life sciences industry?
Liz Kendall
This Government are transforming life sciences through the biggest ever investment in research and development, and a 10-year NHS plan that will radically reduce the time for drugs to get to clinical trial. We are also ensuring that our pharmaceuticals sector has a proper deal, including with the NHS. That is how we get better services for patients, and I am proud of this Government’s record.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
Liz Kendall
Yes, I do. That is why this Government are expanding high-quality apprenticeships and technical pathways, such as the ones on offer in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We are investing £725 million to deliver more apprenticeships for young people and rolling out new apprenticeship units in priority areas such as engineering, alongside a £150 million partnership with mayors to connect young people to local opportunities. We are giving young people the skills, hope and opportunities they need to build a better life. That is what this Labour Government are all about.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Liz Kendall
We are already investing £500 million in our sovereign AI unit to back our brilliant AI entrepreneurs and start-ups, because we believe more competition in this area is good for Britain and good for the world.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
On World Cancer Day, we are publishing our national cancer plan to transform care for patients. It means investment in cutting-edge technology, so that our exceptional frontline staff can give world-class care. It funds more tests and scans, meaning faster diagnosis and treatment, and tailored treatment in specialist centres. We will cover the costs of every family whose child needs to travel for cancer care, because their focus should only be on recovery, not worrying about money.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Johanna Baxter
Up and down the country, this Government are restoring pride in place by investing in our high streets—the beating heart of our communities—yet in Paisley and Renfrewshire South, the SNP-led Renfrewshire council has done the opposite. It has sat on its hands while the owners of the Paisley Centre, who received planning permission to develop the centre some years ago, have sought support to transform our town centre. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is only the SNP’s lack of ambition and failure of leadership that is letting Paisley down, and will he work with me to restore pride in Paisley town centre?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a superb champion for Paisley. Her constituents deserve a Scottish Government who match her dedication. For our part, we have delivered a record funding settlement. We are investing £280 million in Pride in Place across 14 Scottish communities. We have secured shipbuilding on the Clyde for over a decade and have just announced an AI growth zone in Lanarkshire. The choice is clear: a third decade of failure under the SNP, or real change for Scotland under Anas Sarwar.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
The whole House will be disgusted by the latest revelations about Jeffrey Epstein. All of us want to see his victims get justice, but the political decision to appoint Epstein’s close associate, Peter Mandelson, as Britain’s ambassador to Washington goes to the very heart of this Prime Minister’s judgment. When he made that appointment, was he aware that Mandelson had continued his friendship even after Epstein’s conviction for child prostitution?
The Prime Minister
Let me start where I must: with the victims of Epstein. All our thoughts are with them. Our thoughts are also with all those who lost jobs, savings and livelihoods in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash. To learn that there was a Cabinet Minister leaking sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 crash is beyond infuriating, and I am as angry as the public and any Member of this House.
Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament and my party. He lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein, before and during his tenure as ambassador. I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near Government. That is why yesterday the Cabinet Secretary, with my support, took the decision to refer material to the police, and there is now a criminal investigation. I have instructed my team to draft legislation to strip Mandelson of his title, and wider legislation to remove disgraced peers. This morning I have agreed with His Majesty the King that Mandelson should be removed from the list of Privy Counsellors on the grounds that he has brought the reputation of the Privy Council into disrepute.
Mrs Badenoch
I asked the Prime Minister a very specific question. Did he know that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after the conviction? He says, “If I knew then what I know now”—but he did know. In January 2024, a journalist from the Financial Times informed the Prime Minister that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s house even after that conviction for child prostitution. Did the Prime Minister conveniently forget this fact, or did he decide that it was a risk worth taking?
The Prime Minister
As the House would expect, we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services. What was not known was the sheer depth and the extent of the relationship. Mandelson lied about that to everyone for years. New information was published in September, showing that the relationship was materially different from what we had been led to believe. When the new information came to light, I sacked him, but we did go through a due diligence exercise. The points that are being put to me were dealt with within that exercise.
In response to the Humble Address this afternoon, I intend to make sure that all the material is published. The only exemptions are anything that would prejudice national security—my first duty is obviously to keep this country safe, and when we drafted Humble Addresses in opposition, we always included an exemption for national security—or that would prejudice international relations. You and the House will appreciate, Mr Speaker, that in the course of discussions country to country there are very sensitive issues of security, intelligence and trade that cannot be disclosed without compromising the relationship between the two countries, or a third country.
So that I can be totally open with the House, I should also disclose that the Metropolitan police have been in touch with my office this morning to raise issues about anything that would prejudice their investigations. We are in discussion with them about that, and I hope to be able to update the House, but I do think I should make that clear to the House at this point, because those discussions are ongoing.
Mrs Badenoch
I will come to the Humble Address in a moment, but the Prime Minister cannot blame the process. He did know. It was on Google. If the Conservative research department could find this information out, why couldn’t No. 10?
On 10 September, when we knew this, I asked the Prime Minister about it at the Dispatch Box, and he gave Mandelson his full confidence—not once but twice. He only sacked him after pressure from us. I am asking the Prime Minister something very specific, not about the generalities of the full extent. Can the Prime Minister tell us: did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?
The Prime Minister
Yes, it did. As a result, various questions were put to him. I intend to disclose to the House—the national security and prejudice to international relations on one side; I want to make sure that the House sees the full documentation so it will see for itself the extent to which, time and time again, Mandelson completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein and lied throughout the process, including in response to the due diligence.
Mrs Badenoch
What the Prime Minister has just said is shocking. How can he stand up there saying that he knew, but that he just asked Peter Mandelson if the security vetting was true or false? This was a man who had been sacked from Cabinet twice already for unethical behaviour. That is absolutely shocking.
That is why, later today, my party will call on the Government to release all documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment, not just the ones the Prime Minister wants us to see; this Government are trying to sabotage that release with an amendment to let him choose what we see—the man who appointed Mandelson in the first place. Labour MPs now have to decide if they want to be accessories to his cover-up. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that he will not remove the Whip if they refuse to vote for his whitewash amendment?
The Prime Minister
The first exemption is in relation to anything that could compromise national security. That is not a small matter, and many Members on the Opposition Benches will know precisely why that needs to be an exemption. When we were drafting Humble Addresses in opposition, we always made sure that that exemption was included because we knew how important it was to the then Government. I do not think I have seen a Humble Address without that exemption. Just to be clear, to vote to release something that would prejudice national security is wrong in principle.
The second exemption is in relation to things that would prejudice international relations. There will be discussions about security, intelligence and trade that are highly sensitive to the two countries involved, and to third countries. [Interruption.] Well, the Opposition have to ask themselves whether they want to vote to prejudice our national security. In fairness, I do not think that they do.
Let me reassure the House that the process for deciding what falls into those categories will not be a political process; it will be led by the Cabinet Secretary, supported by Government legal teams. They will be looking at the question of prejudice and they will be making that decision.
The only additional thing I want to put before the House, because there was a discussion this morning with the Metropolitan police, is that we are in discussions with them about any material that they are concerned will prejudice their investigation. We are at an early stage of that discussion, but I did not want the House not to know that that discussion is going on.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is talking about national security. The national security issue was appointing Mandelson in the first place. What he has said about the Humble Address is a red herring. Let me tell those Labour MPs who were not here in the last Parliament: Humble Addresses already exempt genuine national security issues. This is not about national security; this is about the Prime Minister’s job security. His amendment lets him withhold anything to do with international relations, but this whole appointment is to do with international relations, so if Government Members are voting for it, they are voting for the cover-up. If the Prime Minister is serious about national security concerns, he should ask the Intelligence and Security Committee to decide which documents should be released. Will he commit to doing so here and now?
The Prime Minister
I have set out the process. It will not be a political process. It will be led by the Cabinet Secretary, supported by the Government legal teams. I am pleased that the right hon. Lady, I think, now accepts that at least the first exemption that we have written into the amendment—in relation to prejudicing national security—is the right one.
Given the breadth of what has been asked for, we are doing everything we can to make sure that this information is fully transparent and disclosed, but the right hon. Lady and Opposition Members behind her will understand from their own experience in government the sensitivity of information about security, intelligence and trade relations that is inevitably caught in exchanges of this nature, and it is right that anything that prejudices—not touches on, but prejudices—international relations is protected within the disclosure.
Mrs Badenoch
If that was really the case, the Prime Minister would not mind if the ISC had a look. Let us be clear: he says the involvement of the Cabinet Secretary makes the process non-political, but that does not make it independent. What we want is an independent look. The ISC is independent, whereas the Cabinet Secretary works for him. We know that there will be a cover-up, because this matter implicates the Prime Minister and his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, a protégé of Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister chose to inject Mandelson’s poison into the heart of his Government on the advice of Morgan McSweeney. His catastrophic lack of judgment—he is telling us now that he did know—has harmed the special relationship. It has endangered national security—it is not the Humble Address; it is him—compromised our diplomacy, and embarrassed our nation. After all this, does he have the same full confidence in Morgan McSweeney that he had in Peter Mandelson?
The Prime Minister
Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team. He helped me change the Labour party and win an election. Of course I have confidence in him.
Whatever is slung across this Dispatch Box, I do not think it is right for the Cabinet Secretary to be denigrated in that way, or to suggest that he would be involved in a cover-up. There is the politics that comes over the Dispatch Boxes, but I honestly do not think it is right to impugn the Cabinet Secretary in that way. I suspect that, in their heart of hearts, many on the Conservative Benches would agree.
I am as angry as anyone about what Mandelson has been up to. The disclosures that have been made this week of him passing on sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 financial crash are utterly shocking and appalling. He has betrayed our country. He has lied repeatedly; he is responsible for a litany of deceit, but this moment demands not just anger but action, and that is why we have moved quickly by referring material to the police, publishing legislation so that we can remove titles from disgraced politicians, and stripping Mandelson of his Privy Counsellorship. That is what the public expect, and that is what we will do.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend? She campaigns tirelessly to stop these antisocial, dangerous bikes terrorising communities. Our Crime and Policing Bill will mean that police can seize bikes without issuing a warning, and can destroy them. Product safety law means that authorities have the powers to intervene to stop the sale of unsafe e-bikes, but I share her determination to get these bikes off our streets.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister for your responses to my tribute to Jim Wallace on Monday, and may I urge the whole House to read the wonderful tributes paid to Jim in the other place yesterday?
I have been thinking about how victims of Jeffrey Epstein, and the victims’ families, must feel. We are hearing more and more stories of rich, powerful men currying favour with a paedophile sex trafficker; for example, we hear of Peter Mandelson sending Government secrets to help Epstein enrich himself further. Mandelson was made ambassador to the United States, even after his links to Epstein had been extensively reported by both the Financial Times and “Channel 4 News”. Given that the Prime Minister now admits that he knew about those links before he gave such an important job to one of Epstein’s closest friends, can he tell us whether he thought at all about Epstein’s victims?
The Prime Minister
We looked at the material. There was a process, and the right hon. Gentleman will understand that there was then a security vetting exercise as well. That is why I started by saying that all our thoughts are with the victims of Epstein. The right hon. Gentleman is right to express anger at the material that has recently come out in relation to sensitive information in the aftermath of the ’08 crash. Yesterday, working with the Cabinet Secretary, we referred the material to the police, which has led to the criminal investigation that will follow.
Ed Davey
I think the victims of Jeffrey Epstein deserve far better than that; they deserve Peter Mandelson not being appointed in the first place. We do not even know the full extent of the British establishment’s involvement in Epstein’s appalling crimes, or how many British girls and young women were trafficked by him, so we need a full public inquiry, both to get justice for the victims and to protect our national security. The Polish Government think Epstein may have been spying for Vladimir Putin. Is the Prime Minister concerned that Peter Mandelson may have been leaking state secrets not just to a paedophile American financier, but also a Russian agent?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman talks of a public inquiry. Obviously, the focus now has to be on the criminal investigation, which has started. As he knows, that investigation will go wherever the evidence leads it. I have made it absolutely clear that the Government will co-operate, as he would expect, with that criminal investigation, wherever it goes.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, and confirm that we are looking at how we can strengthen the support in place for these children, so that no child falls between the cracks. Free breakfast clubs mean that every child is fed and ready to learn. I am delighted to see that there are three more in her constituency, as she says. I also want to mention Rushbrook primary academy, Oasis Academy Aspinal, Longsight community primary and St Bernard’s Roman Catholic primary school, Manchester. All will soon be operating free breakfast clubs in Gorton and Denton.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The victims and survivors of Epstein and his circle of the over-privileged elite are at the forefront of my mind here and now. Mandelson, we now know, described Epstein’s release from prison after he was sentenced for child sex offences as “Liberation day”. This man’s association with Epstein was known when the Prime Minister personally appointed him as the UK’s ambassador to the USA. How can we trust the Prime Minister’s judgment, and if we question that, how can we trust him enough for him to remain Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
Can I join in the right hon. Lady’s disgust at the comments she just read out? To be absolutely clear, the scale and the extent of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein was not disclosed—on the contrary. It was not just not disclosed; Mandelson lied throughout the process and beyond the process. He lied, he lied, and he lied again to my team.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The deal we have struck with the EU means lower prices at the check-out, more choice on the shelf, and more money in people’s pockets. It is good for British fishers and farmers, who face less red tape selling our world-class produce into a crucial market. It comes alongside the opportunity for young people to work and travel across Europe, the work that we are doing to cut energy bills, and closer work on defence. All of that is opposed by Reform and the Tories, who sold the myth, botched Brexit, and left families and businesses paying the price.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Let me be absolutely clear about this: as soon as there were any allegations of wrongdoing by Phil Shiner, I had absolutely nothing to do with him.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am delighted that Aldershot will be hosting Armed Forces Day; it has a hard-working Labour MP and Labour council. Our historic defence spending uplift must be an engine for growth and jobs in the United Kingdom, which is why we have committed to spending an extra £2.5 billion with small and medium-sized enterprises. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital that we work in lockstep with our allies, particularly in Europe, to enhance and align our defence capabilities, and we are therefore working at pace to identify the most effective mechanisms for greater multilateral co-operation.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to ending the use of all asylum hotels; there are now just under 200, compared with the 400 under the previous Government. Where military sites are used, the safety and security of local communities is our priority.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
It is because of strong local Labour MPs like my hon. Friend that towns like Hartlepool, treated as an afterthought by the Conservatives, are having their future restored. We are making billions more available so that councils can properly fund social care, and we are driving down the cost of living for parents and their children, including with three free breakfast clubs in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and more than 3,000 children there no longer incapacitated by the two-child limit. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising that matter; I know how important it is for her constituents. We have taken measures in relation to strengthening oversight and the control we have, and we will not hesitate to go further. I will make sure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank the commanding officer and crew of HMS Duncan for their service, and I also thank my hon. Friend. I remember meeting the brilliant workforce in his region, and I know that the Defence Ministers will be delighted to do the same. Our record defence spending is supporting jobs and growth across the north-east. We invested £200 million in Octric Semiconductors in his constituency last year. As we increase defence spending, the north-east will play a major role, securing good, skilled jobs for generations to come.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member is right to raise that. Obviously, we will support the police with their investigation, but we will also press on with our work to halve violence against women and girls, which is very much about putting in place the support that is needed for all victims of violence. That is a crucial part of our work and I hope that we can work across the House in support of that.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in her pride in the vote to lift half a million children out of poverty, after hundreds of thousands were plunged into poverty by the Conservative party when they were in government. On her point about temporary accommodation, she is right that every child deserves a safe, warm and secure home. We are investing a record £3.5 billion in homelessness services and £950 million in local authority housing funds to deliver better quality temporary accommodation.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for his question and for his tireless campaigning on behalf of Christopher and also Fiona, who, as he points out, is with us today. Christopher’s death was a tragedy, and I agree that we owe it to Fiona—I am glad that she is here to hear this—and to other families to get this right. I can reassure him that work is under way to examine what action is necessary to prevent further such tragedies. That comes alongside our intention to consult on the liberty protection safeguards this year. I will make sure that the hon. Member is fully updated on the work as it progresses across government. I will ask that he makes sure that Fiona and others are updated as well.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. As negotiations are ongoing, we remain committed to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 and supporting new innovative technologies, as he will be pleased to know. The EU accepts that there will need to be areas where we retain our own rules, and we will always prioritise British interests as we negotiate our SPS agreement.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I have been campaigning for a Lincoln dental school for some years. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, thanks to the hard work of, among others, Professor Juster, Professor Read and Susie MacPherson, Lincoln medical school is now in a position to take on its first cohort from 2027. Will the Prime Minister provide the necessary funding for this cohort of students to start to help improve the oral health of people right across Lincolnshire?
The Prime Minister
I am pleased to hear the news about the dental school in the hon. Member’s constituency. We have put in further funding for dentistry. We were left with dental deserts across many parts of the country, but we are fixing that problem.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
As the Prime Minister has pointed out, today is World Cancer Day. As outlined in our cancer plan, early detection and diagnosis is vital. Will the Prime Minister agree to consider the campaign by my constituent Gemma Reeves, who is a nurse at the Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother hospital, to ensure that breast cancer screening is available for all women over the age of 40, and will he meet her to discuss how such a change would save lives?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely support that, and I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss it. Early diagnosis is so important for all cancers, and we must do everything we can to ensure that early diagnosis is the norm by default.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
I recently met one of the bravest women I know. Elizabeth was 14 when she was raped in Rotherham. She is one of the survivors of the rape gangs—one of the biggest national scandals in our history. While her first rapist, Asghar Bostan, was convicted and sentenced, she was, shockingly, subsequently allegedly abused by police officers serving in South Yorkshire police. One of those officers remains on active service today. Elizabeth made complaints through Operation Linden, but none of them was followed up. She rightly feels betrayed and failed by the very institution designed to protect her. Will the Prime Minister meet Elizabeth, rape gang survivors and me to commit that those who committed and covered up these abhorrent offences are put behind bars, where they belong?
The Prime Minister
I am deeply concerned about the facts that the right hon. Lady has outlined. If she could give us all the details, I will make sure that there is a follow-up meeting in relation to her concerns.
Points of Order
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today’s Opposition day debate will focus on Mandelson and his relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. However, it will not cover his relationship with another alleged paedophile, murderer, gangster, specialist in bribery and corruption, and Putin favourite: Oleg Deripaska. That relationship may be just as bad as the one he had with Epstein. As European trade commissioner, Mandelson made decisions favouring Deripaska’s company by $200 million a year. Mandelson avoided proper investigation by lying about the timing of his relationship with Deripaska. How can we find out what investigations were carried out before Gordon Brown and his Government appointed Mandelson as a Minister? Do you agree that this House needs to see that information, and if so, how can we obtain it?
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member, and I know that he will pursue this through the many avenues available. He might wish to catch the Chair’s eye during today’s debate in order to raise those issues. The issues that he has raised are very serious and will be taken seriously. I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench have heard his comments.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister, who has now left the Chamber, said that each Humble Address that his party laid in opposition mentioned national security. However, I have checked the two most recent Humble Addresses laid by the Labour party when it was in opposition, and all Labour Members should be aware that the words “national security” do not feature even once, because it is not necessary in an Humble Address. So how can we get the Prime Minister to correct the record when he has chosen just to leave the room? [Hon. Members: “Call him back!”]
Mr Speaker
Don’t be ridiculous.
I say to the hon. Lady that she had put this on the record—[Interruption.] I do not want to continue the debate. She has put it on the record, so it is there.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister, in response to my question, appeared to deny ever being instructed by the disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner, yet I have here the 2007 case of Al-Jedda v. the Secretary of State for Defence, where it quite clearly says that the appellants were instructed by public interest lawyers including one Keir Starmer QC. Perhaps the Prime Minister might want to return to the House and clarify his earlier remarks.
Mr Speaker
I am not here to continue a debate. You have put it on the record, and we will leave it at that.
Human Remains (Prohibition of Sale, Purchase and Advertising)
Wednesday 4th February 2026
(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Human Remains (Prohibition of Sale, Purchase and Advertising) Bill 2024-26 View all Human Remains (Prohibition of Sale, Purchase and Advertising) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit giving or receiving a reward for the supply of, or for offering to supply, human remains or any object partially consisting of human remains; to prohibit advertising the sale, exchange, or offer of sale or exchange, of human remains or any object partially consisting of human remains; to make provision for specified exemptions from those prohibitions; and for connected purposes.
In short, this Bill is about the buying and selling of human remains. To most people, the thought of buying a bag full of human bones, a shrunken skull or a piece of human leather would be unthinkable. In fact, most people would never have thought that this was something they could purchase, but it is. A growing trade in human remains is taking place through social media, on e-commerce sites, at in-person auctions, in curiosity shops and at oddities markets. Human bones, hair, teeth, skin and other organs are frequently sold by private traders to other private individuals, entirely without regulation.
I want to put on record my thanks to the members of the trading and sale of human remains taskforce of the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology, who brought the scale of this abhorrent trade to my attention. They work tirelessly to confront, expose and ultimately bring an end to the private sale of human remains. I also want to thank the African Foundation for Development—AFFORD—which, with the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations, produced the “Laying Ancestors to Rest” report, which addresses the ethical, cultural and historical concerns surrounding African ancestral remains, many of which were taken during colonial rule and continue to be displayed and sold at auction today.
I must apologise in advance to Members and warn anyone with a weak stomach, because some of what I am about to describe is truly stomach-churning. Members of the taskforce have documented and shared examples of sales that they have tracked over the years. These include human skulls and skeletal bones, partial or whole; shrunken skulls; elongated skulls; a Papuan Gulf trophy skull; a child’s shrunken head; and skulls that still have hair and soft tissue attached. They have encountered shops selling lucky dip bags of bones, from small boxes for £50 to larger boxes for £90. They have also come across the sale of wet sample human organs preserved in specimen jars, including foetal hearts and lungs and even slices of human brain.
For Members wondering what on earth someone would want with these remains, there is a substantial market for decorative objects made from human remains. One could purchase a wind chime made from a human skull cap with ribs and clavicles, a candlestick made from stacked human vertebrae, a human finger crucifix pendant, a skull fitted with brass nails for teeth and turned into a lamp, necklaces made of teeth or even wallets fashioned from human leather, and all of that is entirely legal.
I should stress that this is by no means the full extent of the sales that take place. While the human remains taskforce does an excellent job of tracking what it can, there are undoubtedly hundreds more sales that go unnoticed. To my knowledge, the taskforce is the only body that actively attempts to police this trade. In 2026, one can sell a piece of human remains or an object partially consisting of human remains with no checks on how those remains were acquired and no verification of how old they are, who they belonged to, whether consent was given or what the buyer intends to do with them.
The biggest obstacle sellers face is not the law, but the user rules of social media platforms and e-commerce sites such as Instagram, Facebook, eBay, Gumtree and Etsy. Even then, sellers routinely circumvent those rules by misspelling words, mislabelling real names as replicas or advertising collections without explicitly stating an intent to sell before completing transactions through private messages or in person. The most serious repercussion sellers are likely to face is an account suspension, and we all know how easy it is to simply set up a new one. Ultimately, the only hurdle sellers face is platform moderation; they face no legal barrier at all. In-person sellers face even fewer obstacles, with no oversight of the human remains sold in curiosity shops, flea markets or satanic markets.
The UK is not wholly devoid of regulation, however. The Human Tissue Act 2004 makes it an offence to hold human remains that are less than 100 years old for certain scheduled purposes without a licence, but it does not expressly prohibit commercial sale beyond very narrow circumstances. It is silent on the sale of remains as curiosities or private objects outside regulated contexts. At present, we have stronger licensing rules for animal remains than for some human remains. That is what my Bill seeks to address.
Beyond this being an incredibly disturbing trade, there is a clear moral and ethical case for banning it. There is no reliable way to establish how remains were acquired—whether they were looted or grave-robbed—their age or whether any consent was given by the individual themselves or by their relatives or descendants. During the colonial era, ancestral remains from communities across the world were stolen from battlefields, looted from graves, taken as trophies or curiosities, or used in the now discredited racist pseudoscience of phrenology, which sought to claim inherent inferiority based on skull shape. Many remains still in circulation are sold as so-called antique medical skeletons, having been imported in the tens of thousands during the 20th century until the export bans from India in 1985 and China in the 2000s.
I have been informed that the underground trade continues. Imagine seeing your ancestor’s body parts listed at auction as decorative objects. That was the case for some when the skull of a tribesman from Nagaland was auctioned online in the UK as part of a “curious collector sale”—one of thousands of items taken by British colonial administrators. In fact, that has been the case for many African and Asian remains, as is outlined in the “Laying Ancestors to Rest” report. Long after colonial rule and our acceptance that racism is wrong, we continue to deny the people affected dignity, even in death.
Some may argue that remains that are hundreds of years old raise fewer concerns, yet there is good reason to believe that some remains being sold are far more recent than is claimed. Labelling them as antiques does not make it so, and serious questions remain about provenance. A case currently before the US courts involves a man accused of grave-robbing and selling remains online. While we have not seen such a case here, it would be naive to assume that similar practices could not be taking place.
I should be clear that there are legitimate circumstances that the Bill would not prohibit. For example, cost recovery for medical research, teaching and scientific use would remain regulated through existing licensing and ethical frameworks. Nor would it outlaw respectful bereavement practices, such as memorial jewellery containing a lock of hair, where consent is clear. The Bill carefully distinguishes between consented memorial items and the commercial sale of unprovenanced remains.
I believe there is universal agreement across the House that the sale of human remains, particularly where their origin, age and acquisition are unverified, should not be allowed to continue. Although import and export restrictions exist, legislative oversight has allowed domestic sale to remain perfectly legal. This Bill corrects that oversight, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Siân Berry, Carla Denyer, Jeremy Corbyn, Ms Diane Abbott, Apsana Begum, Dawn Butler, Zarah Sultana and Clive Lewis present the Bill.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 379).
Opposition Day
Lord Mandelson
(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s Ambassador to the United States of America, including but not confined to the Cabinet Office due diligence which was passed to Number 10, the Conflict of Interest Form Lord Mandelson provided to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), material the FCDO and the Cabinet Office provided to UK Security Vetting about Lord Mandelson’s interests in relation to Global Counsel, including his work in relation to Russia and China, and his links to Jeffrey Epstein, papers for, and minutes of, meetings relating to the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, electronic communications between the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff and Lord Mandelson, and between ministers and Lord Mandelson, in the six months prior to his appointment, minutes of meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers in the six months prior to his appointment, all information on Lord Mandelson provided to the Prime Minister prior to his assurance to this House on 10 September 2025 that ‘full due process was followed during this appointment’, electronic communications and minutes of all meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers, Government officials and special advisers during his time as Ambassador, and the details of any payments made to Lord Mandelson on his departure as Ambassador and from the Civil Service.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing time for this Opposition day debate on presenting an Humble Address.
I think the whole House has been shocked and disturbed by the revelations that have emerged once again over the past few days. Peter Mandelson, it seems, helped Jeffrey Epstein and his associates to make money. That money was used to run Mr Epstein’s paedophilic prostitution ring. Those who broke the law to give that information helped to make him rich and powerful, and they share in some of the responsibility for the crimes that were committed, because they gave him the power that he abused. No doubt for some of those involved, this was just a heady game of who had the best contacts and who could make the most money, played by a small set of men who took their thrill from existing outside the rules. It seems that the more this thread is pulled on, the more that network unravels, and the more shameful the whole episode appears.
Generally, three main things must concern this House. The first is the now-emerging conduct of Peter Mandelson when he was a member of the previous Labour Administration between 2009 and 2010. I understand that that is now subject to a police investigation, and it is good to see that the Government are co-operating fully with that investigation. I am sure that, when the police have finished their inquiries, there will be future opportunities for us to discuss the matter in this House.
The second issue, of similar import, is the judgment of the Prime Minister in appointing Peter Mandelson to our most senior diplomatic role.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making excellent points. It is a surprise not to see the Prime Minister answering these questions himself. At the end of the day, he made the decision to appoint Mandelson to the post of ambassador, so he must explain his decision-making process, and what he knew and when. Why is he not here?
Mr Speaker
Order. In fairness, that is not a problem for Mr Burghart to address. Who responds is a matter for the Government.
Alex Burghart
I am glad that it is not my problem, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend is right: the appointment of this man was absolutely the Prime Minister’s responsibility. Today we are trying to dig into exactly what the Prime Minister knew, whether any information was kept from him, and, if so, who kept it from him.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
This is a serious issue, and my hon. Friend is dealing with it appropriately. He will have heard, as I did, the Prime Minister refer to the fact that the “extent of the relationship” between Mandelson and Epstein was “not known”. The common view among Members across the parties at the time was that any relationship should have precluded Peter Mandelson from the appointment to be His Majesty’s ambassador to Washington. Does my hon. Friend share that view?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point—one that is central to our considerations and to which I will return.
I have mentioned the conduct of Peter Mandelson while he was a member of the last Labour Government, and the Prime Minister’s judgment in appointing him, but I will also touch on Peter Mandelson’s conduct while he was our ambassador in Washington.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the shadow Minister and the Conservative party for bringing forward this matter for consideration. What we are listening to and what is happening is absolutely incredible. May I suggest that the five years during which Mandelson was EU trade commissioner should be part of the investigation as well? A full investigation should include every t that was crossed and every i that was dotted by Peter Mandelson. That is what this House and this nation want.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The more we pull on this thread, the more we seem to find. All Peter Mandelson’s dealings, as a politician and as a businessman, should now be laid out for the House and the country to consider.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I sit, called for Lord Mandelson to appear before us on multiple occasions to explain the circumstances and process of his unusual appointment. He did not adhere to that request. Does the shadow Minister agree that Lord Mandelson’s failure to come before the Committee sends the signal that the Government wanted to hide something, that there were issues in the appointment and vetting process, and that, had there been transparency in the early stages of his appointment, we would have avoided sending someone wholly unfit to fulfil one of the UK’s most senior diplomatic roles?
Alex Burghart
That is a significant representation from a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It must be said that a failure of transparency at each stage of the process appears to have compounded the problems that the Government are now dealing with.
What do we know now about the Prime Minister’s judgment and the process in No. 10 around this appointment? We now know that the Prime Minister was aware that Peter Mandelson had an ongoing friendship with Jeffrey Epstein that continued beyond the conviction for awful offences against children. Not only was that in the public domain, but a Financial Times journalist told the Prime Minister about it in January 2024. The Prime Minister admitted in the House today that it was part of the briefing note that he received from the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team. We fully expect the report compiled by that team—the due diligence report—to appear for this House to consider.
Reports on that document have appeared in the New Statesman this morning. We are told that the due diligence report contains warnings of
“potential conflicts of interest surrounding Global Counsel”,
the lobbying firm established by Peter Mandelson, in which he retained a stake of around 28%. We know that Global Counsel had Russian and Chinese clients, about which, according to the reports in the press this morning, the propriety and ethics team had serious concerns. We know—or at least we are told in the press—that the due diligence report also referred to Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, stating clearly that Mandelson’s relationship had gone over the point of conviction, and drawing attention to the fact that Mandelson had used Epstein’s hospitality in America and Paris while the latter was in prison.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The shadow Minister is absolutely right in his summary of all Jeffrey Epstein’s misdoings. We heard some shocking revelations during Prime Minister’s questions, such as the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson as ambassador despite knowing about his relationship with Epstein. Does the shadow Minister agree that the Prime Minister’s position is becoming increasingly untenable?
Alex Burghart
There is no doubt that the Prime Minister’s judgment is being called sharply into question at this moment. It is becoming harder to see how any of us can rely on his judgment in future.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Alex Burghart
I will give way one more time, and then I must make some progress.
Dr Murrison
The Prime Minister’s judgment is most certainly in the frame. What about his candour? Does my hon. Friend remember that on 16 September, the Prime Minister himself introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which at its heart has a duty of candour? Did we see candour displayed at Prime Minister’s questions today?
Alex Burghart
As my right hon. Friend knows, the Government developed an appetite for candour and then lost their appetite. That Bill has disappeared into the ether. Too much candour would do this Government harm.
Alex Burghart
I will give way in a moment; I would like to make a little progress.
It was reported this morning in the press that in September, following Peter Mandelson’s sacking, there was a Cabinet Office investigation into any further wrongdoing. Will the Paymaster General confirm whether he is aware of such a report and at least assure the House that, if such a report comes to light during his investigations, that will be published in response to this Humble Address?
The Conservatives fully understand that the Government have a duty to protect national security and our international relationships—of course they do. They must also understand, however, that security and our international affairs are completely entwined with this issue. The Paymaster General will have seen this morning that the Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, has announced that Poland, one of our strongest allies in Europe, will examine the paedophile’s links with the Russian intelligence services. As he said,
“More and more leads, more and more information, and more and more commentary…all relate to the suspicion that this unprecedented paedophilia scandal was co-organised by Russian intelligence services.”
Thousands of the documents released over the weekend refer to Putin and thousands more to Moscow. We know that Epstein recruited young Russian women and we know that he held parties in Russia. In some emails, I understand, Epstein said he could offer “insight” on Donald Trump to Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. Those are all the ingredients of classic kompromat and this House cannot be deprived of consideration of such issues in the case of the Mandelson papers.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It has been for years a matter of mystery and speculation where Epstein acquired his vast wealth. Does my hon. Friend think that the Russian connection may provide the definitive answer to that mystery?
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend is quite right that this is exactly one of the issues that must now be investigated and done so very seriously, not just by this Government but by our allies in other jurisdictions. Though we do not yet know for certain how the money came to Epstein, we do now know where some of it went. Understanding its ultimate source will help us construct a picture of this very complex and devious web.
Sir Oliver Dowden
At the heart of what we are talking about is this. Do we accept the amendment from the Government about
“national security or international relations”?
My hon. Friend and I have both served in the Cabinet Office and I am sure that he shares my sympathy with the need to protect national security. However, there is a vast difference between protecting national security—for example, in direct intelligence reports from agents on the ground or intercept—and subjective judgments made about things that may be embarrassing for national security or international relations. That is why the Leader of the Opposition was precisely correct in saying that we need some independent mechanism. Why on earth can we not agree that the Intelligence and Security Committee should look at each of the exemptions? If it feels they pass the threshold, that is fine and we will accept that, because we need to protect national security—but it cannot be to spare the Labour party’s blushes.
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend, who was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and who knows more about national security than almost anyone in this House, is right. The Government’s judgment and their behaviour are under investigation here. It cannot be the case that the Government can then decide what is disclosed. Fortunately for the House, there are mechanisms available to us, not least the ISC, which would do a very good job on behalf of the Government, working with them to decide what information could and could not be released.
Built into the Humble Address mechanism itself is an understanding that national security is protected. There is no need—
Alex Burghart
I promised to give way to my old adversary the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) first. Then, I will happily give way to the hon. Lady.
Jeremy Corbyn
I compliment the hon. Member on the content of his speech so far. This inquiry will have massive ramifications. It is an inquiry into the gilded circle surrounding Mandelson, which extends very broadly around this House and the civil service, the business community, the media and internationally. Is it not time that we had a novel form of inquiry which is not undertaken solely by Parliament or the civil service, but which is a much broader, more public inquiry that will look into the whole issue? This is a basic corruption of our political system that we are looking at in the behaviour of Peter Mandelson.
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Gentleman appears to be correct in that there is certainly an indication that serious corruption may have taken place. In the light of that, the House must consider closely what the best means of getting to the bottom of all these relationships and influences will be.
Claire Hanna
The House is getting a lesson that many families in Northern Ireland, such as those of Sean Brown and the victims of Stakeknife, have learned over decades that national security is routinely deployed to cover the blushes of the UK Government. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is now arriving at that point. Would he support a wider review of his party and the Government’s application of “national security” to all sorts of disclosure cases?
Alex Burghart
Without wishing to be distracted from the motion at play, I have seen Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland of all parties in successive Governments try hard to ensure that there is maximum disclosure for the people of Northern Ireland, while ensuring that national security is not compromised. I am afraid that I see things through a slightly different prism from the hon. Lady.
Alex Burghart
I will give way one more time and then I intend to make some progress.
Dame Meg Hillier
There is a well-worn route for dealing with these matters, through Humble Addresses and otherwise. Previous Humble Addresses, when the Labour party was in opposition, would sometimes name a Select Committee. I was on the receiving end of that as the then Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. I genuinely want to ask the hon. Gentleman this: why did the Opposition not put in the Humble Address that this matter should go to a Select Committee? I think that there are still ways to use the Committee corridor to scrutinise anything that may be more sensitive than that which can go into the public domain.
Alex Burghart
I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees with us that the ISC should be used in this context. I am glad that there is agreement between her and me that those on the Government Front Bench should use the ISC to act in this way. I hope that other Labour Members will take the same view as that extremely experienced parliamentarian.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that?
Sir Jeremy Wright
Since my hon. Friend mentions the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am a member, may I put this to him? The purpose of the ISC is not to act as some filter to decide what should go to the rest of Parliament; it is to act on behalf of Parliament to consider material that Parliament, for good reason, cannot see. This is a motion about whether the Government should disclose all the relevant material to Parliament. In that context, is it not a perfectly usable and familiar mechanism for Parliament in circumstances such as these, by which the Government may disclose anything that they do not believe the whole Chamber can see to the Intelligence and Security Committee?
Alex Burghart
My right hon. and learned Friend speaks from a position of experience. He is entirely right; the House is fortunate to have the ISC and that is one of the functions that it can perform. The Government can have reassurance on national security and the House can have reassurance that no material is being kept from it that the Government might find embarrassing.
In his remarks, will the Paymaster General, who I know will have had nothing to do with this and who I know is a man of integrity, think seriously about the options of gisting and the role that the ISC can play in that and make sure that the Government are not marking their own homework? It is important that our constituents and this House have confidence in what the Government provide us with.
Before I hand over to other Members, let me move briefly on to the conduct of Lord Mandelson while he was our ambassador in Washington, which I think is relevant to our debate because it again exposes the Prime Minister’s lack of judgment in appointing him. There is obviously strong evidence to suggest that Mandelson behaved entirely inappropriately when he was Secretary of State under the last Labour Government, but equally big questions are now outstanding about what was happening in 2025 in Washington—as I said, this is relevant now. On 27 February 2025, the Prime Minister, while in Washington, visited the American data and AI company Palantir at its headquarters. The meeting did not appear in the Prime Minister’s register of visits; it only came to light later.
Palantir, we should remind ourselves, was a client of Global Counsel, the company in which Peter Mandelson had a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir received from this Government a £240 million deal. That deal was granted by direct award. Given the allegations now coming to light about Mandelson’s conduct, will the Minister assure the House that the Cabinet Secretary will review the circumstances around the award of that contract, and assure himself that there are no other such contracts, no other undisclosed meetings, and that the Government will go through all communications and messages that Mandelson sent out while he was ambassador, some of which we must assume, were sent to old business contacts, a potential few business contacts, and so on?
The Prime Minister knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained an unhealthy relationship with a man who was a convicted paedophile, and he appointed him to the role of ambassador anyway. Everybody in this House should be shocked by that. It must be concluded that had the Prime Minister been pressed on that point at the time, the appointment would not have been made, because the Prime Minister knew, his aides knew—but the appointment was made anyway. What else did he know? Only after this Humble Address, and only if the Government treat it in good faith, will we know that. I very much hope that we do not find that there are gaps in our security and vetting process. If there are, the Government will be able to fix them. I think it also likely that we will see reports that consistently raised concerns which were swept away. It will then be the duty of the Government to disclose who swept them away, and why. Ultimate responsibility must rest with the Prime Minister. It is time for him to take responsibility.
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I beg to move amendment (a), at the end to add
“except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations.”
Members will be aware that the Government came to the House on Monday for an update following the release of 3 million pages of documents by the United States Department of Justice regarding Jeffrey Epstein. As the Government said on Monday, and as I reiterate now, Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted paedophile and a despicable individual who revelled in abusing the vulnerable and destroyed the lives of countless women and girls.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will complete my introductory remarks, and then I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
What Jeffrey Epstein did was unforgivable, and every time his crimes are in the public eye, victims must relive their trauma. His victims are at the forefront of my mind, as I am sure they are for all right hon. and hon. Members in this debate. The Prime Minister has said that anyone with relevant information must come forward and co-operate with investigations, so that Jeffrey Epstein’s victims get the justice that they have been denied for so long. As for Peter Mandelson, his decision to maintain a close relationship with a convicted paedophile, including discussing private Government business, is not just wrong, it is abhorrent.
Stephen Flynn
I thank the Minister for giving way. I am curious. Earlier we heard the Prime Minister state that he knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Did the Minister also know, and if so, did he express any concerns to the Prime Minister at that time about his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the second point, I played no personal role in the appointment process, but as the Prime Minister said, the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship was not known at the time of his appointment. As soon as that came to light, the Prime Minister acted decisively and sacked Peter Mandelson.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Given the public disgust, the sickening behaviour of Peter Mandelson, and the importance of transparency, in 2022 I proposed a Humble Address, seeking information about personal protective equipment, which the Conservative party resisted—my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) mentioned that earlier. Should the ISC not have the same role now, keeping public confidence in the process?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Let me pick up this point, which I know a number of right hon. and hon. Members have raised. In the first instance, the process will be conducted and led by the Cabinet Secretary, with unimpeachable integrity—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) shouts “cover-up” about the Cabinet Secretary, and he really should consider that remark, I think. Secondly, this will be conducted by Cabinet Office lawyers.
The House is asking, fairly, a broader question about scrutiny, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and there is a role, as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said, for Select Committees in how they scrutinise this, as well as existing powers for the ISC in terms of scrutinising this—[Interruption.] I am hearing what the House is saying, and I will take that point away.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will take one more intervention, and then I have to make some progress.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
It is disappointing that neither the Opposition nor the Government have referenced the important role that the ISC could have here. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee—I have spoken to its Chair, the Lord Beamish, and we heard earlier from its deputy Chair—we feel that the Committee should be involved to help this process on behalf of Parliament, and I urge my right hon. Friend to speak to No.10 to ensure we get that, and that it happens quickly.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As I think I have already said, I will take the point away. My hon. Friend knows from our personal details on a different matter my respect for the Intelligence and Security Committee and its work.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way to the former Deputy Prime Minister, then I have to make some progress.
Sir Oliver Dowden
The point here is not about impugning the integrity of the Cabinet Secretary; the point is about confidence in this House. The temperature in the House seems to be that most people feel that involving the ISC will give both this House and, more importantly, the public confidence in the process. It sounds as if the Minister is sympathetic to that point, so will he confirm that he is sympathetic to it, and that he will be making the case to Downing Street for that tweak?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I was not accusing the hon. Member for South Suffolk of impugning the Cabinet Secretary; my point was that the process is official-led and decided on by Cabinet Office lawyers. On the broader point that the House is making, I can do no more than say I hear what Members are saying, and I will take that point away.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way once more to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, but I must make some progress.
Simon Hoare
I am grateful to the Minister—he knows that the House knows that he is an honourable gentleman in every sense of that term. The mood of the House is clear, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) has set out, as have others, the role of the ISC, and the expectation that it discharges these serious and sensitive matters on behalf of the House, and that the Government have confidence. During the course of the debate may I invite him to go back to No.10, take advice, and not press his amendment this afternoon? I think that would reflect the will of the House and allow people to start moving these issues forward. To press the amendment today would, I suggest, be a retrograde step for the Government and their reputation.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As I said to the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), I will take the first point away. I disagree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on the importance of the amendment, which I will come back to in moment. There are really important public policy issues that I want to deal with in that respect.
Let me return to the thrust of my speech.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way in a moment.
Let us be clear: no Government Minister of any political party should have behaved in the way that Peter Mandelson did, and it was absolutely disgraceful. The alleged leaking of crucial documents to help millionaires to profit in the middle of the global crash and lying to contemporaries, the Prime Minister and the public are both shameful and shameless.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Let me finish this point; I will take some more interventions in a moment.
Peter Mandelson will now account for his actions and conduct. That is why the Cabinet Office has referred this matter to the police. The Metropolitan police has released a statement confirming that it has
“received a number of reports into alleged misconduct in public office including a referral from the UK Government.”
The statement also confirmed that the Metropolitan police has started a criminal investigation in relation to potential misconduct in public office offences and that it will
“continue to assess all relevant information brought to our attention as part of this investigation and won’t be commenting any further at this time.”
The House will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on that particular development.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are getting very carried away with the way in which the work of the Metropolitan police is being thrown around. I am meant to have been contacted, but neither I nor the House has been contacted. The House will understand that I am not responsible for the ministerial answers—let me put that on the record and see if we can tidy this up a little.
For the avoidance of doubt, I understand that there is an ongoing police investigation into this case. However, no charges have been brought. The House sub judice resolution does not apply. In that context, it is up to the Ministers how they reply, but the House rules do not prevent them from answering fully. Please do not hide behind the possibility that something is not factual—let us get this on the record. I have still not had a phone call on this matter.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I hear precisely what you say, Mr Speaker, and I entirely accept that interpretation of the sub judice rule. I am certainly not hiding behind that; indeed, I will come on to some remarks about this issue in a moment.
Mr Speaker
Order. Maybe I can help a little. I think the answer was, “We can’t do this, because there is a police investigation.” We have to recognise that that is not a reason, so do not let us play off each other. I have made my point from the Chair.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will take one intervention from a Member on the Government Benches, then I will take one from a Member on the Opposition Benches.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I made this point on Monday, but it is really important to make it again. The vast majority of Members in this House come here to represent our constituencies, and people across this House will recognise that I do my best to represent Harlow as much as I possibly can. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Does the Minister agree that the reason why the case of Peter Mandelson is so damning and upsets so many people across this House is because when that individual was in the other place—potentially when he was in this place—he was not representing the people he was supposed to represent? Instead, he was representing a vile paedophile. Does the Minister also agree that the reason for the strength of feeling across the House is that Peter Mandelson is letting down all of us?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes. The public rightly demand the highest standards from those in office and from Ministers. We should be held to the highest standards, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Peter Mandelson fell far, far short of those standards, and his behaviour has been revealed to be appalling. As the Prime Minister has said—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister has been giving way and will give way, but you cannot all stay on your feet shouting, “Will he give way?” Let us give the Minister some time; he will take your interventions when he feels he is in the mood to take them.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), then I will take another intervention.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
At the point immediately prior to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, the UK had a respected ambassador to the United States already in Dame Karen Pierce. Given that fact, the known abhorrence of Jeffrey Epstein and the appalling previous judgment of Peter Mandelson, why did the Government still decide that, on balance, it was a risk worth taking to appoint paedophile-adjacent Peter Mandelson to the post of ambassador?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
May I pay tribute to Dame Karen Pierce? She represents the finest of our foreign service.
Governments do make political appointments to these posts; that has happened, and it is a long-standing practice for a small number of posts. The Prime Minister has already said that if he knew then what he knows now, Peter Mandelson would not have been anywhere near the Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and then my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).
Dame Meg Hillier
I am no longer the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
It seems that we are in something of a muddle here. Had the Opposition named the ISC in the Humble Address, as has happened in the past, there would have been no debate in this House. Putting all the information openly in the public domain could have risks, but there are well-worn filters through Parliament, such as through Committee corridor—various Committees could have locus in this space—to properly and sensitively handle information that, in my time, has never leaked from a Committee. Does the Minister agree? That would ensure that we on Committee corridor are holding the Government to account on behalf of Parliament. There is consensus that everybody wants as much information as possible in the public domain so that we can get to the bottom of what has happened in this egregious situation.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the existing mechanisms of scrutiny, and I give her great credit for her work. As I have said in response to Opposition Members, I will take that point away.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
On the point about Peter Mandelson letting people down, let me say that the people let down the most are the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Does the Minister agree that we would not be discussing this disgraceful situation if it had not been that people listened not to the women—the victims—who came forward in the first place, but to men in power, men with deep pockets and men advising those in power? Do we not need to put the victims at the heart of this, not just ourselves?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is the victims—the women and girls who were victims of the trafficking and the appalling, abhorrent behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein—who should be at the forefront of our minds.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will make a bit of progress, then I will give way a few more times.
Not only has the Cabinet Office referred the evidence about Peter Mandelson’s time as a Minister to the police, but we are taking action going forward, in the Hillsborough law before this House, to introduce a duty of candour for all public servants that will make it an offence to lie to the public. We will make it a criminal offence to do anything but act with openness and integrity when things go wrong. That is the action that this Government are taking to prevent future cover-ups and injustices. It is a statement of intention that we want to enshrine that capacity to speak truth to power. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said, the voices of victims should be at the forefront, not, as in this case, a group of powerful men. We are putting an end to the situation in which powerful people are able to avoid justice.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in one moment.
The Government should rightly be tested and questioned by this House, but the action that is taken by this Government is crucial now. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Secretary to review all available information regarding Peter Mandelson’s contacts with Jeffrey Epstein during his period as a Minister and to report back as a matter of urgency. After an initial review of some documents, the Cabinet Secretary made the decision to refer the matter to the police, with the Prime Minister’s support. I should say that the Government stand ready to provide any support that the police require as part of their investigation.
On that note, I will give way to the Father of the House.
Sir Edward Leigh
We are all agreed on the character of Lord Mandelson, but I am not sure that we will make much progress if we are just repeating ourselves on that, because we all agree. The reputation of the House is at stake, and what the Opposition have to do is hold the Prime Minister to account. I have listened very carefully to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister. He and the Prime Minister have been asked on repeated occasions whether, when this appointment was made, the Prime Minister knew that Mandelson had continued his relationship with Epstein after the first conviction. That is a very direct question. The reputation of the House is at stake, so will the Minister now answer that question?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Prime Minister answered that question at Prime Minister’s questions. He was lied to about the depth and extent of the relationship.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I stand here acutely aware that I am the Member of Parliament for Hartlepool, and I think today I speak for Hartlepudlians when I look at the evidence before us and say: undoubtedly, Peter Mandelson is a traitor. On that basis, it is important that the public have confidence in this process. Does the Minister agree?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I absolutely agree; my hon. Friend expresses the anger felt by many across the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will make some more progress, before giving way a few more times.
Members will recall that back in September—in the light of the additional information contained in emails written by Peter Mandelson that were released at the time—the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador with immediate effect. The emails released showed that the nature and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that which was known at the time of his appointment.
The issue over which Peter Mandelson was withdrawn from Washington was information not available at the time that the due diligence was done. A due diligence process was conducted by the Cabinet Office, and a security vetting process—they are different—was also carried out. Since entering government, we have already taken action to strengthen the process for making direct appointments for ambassadors specifically, and for direct ministerial appointments more generally.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
There is clearly concern about Government amendment (a)—that it does not go far enough to enable scrutiny of those documents that might be withheld. Across the House, there is a growing consensus that the Intelligence and Security Committee could provide a way forward for the independent scrutiny of those documents. Could a manuscript amendment be tabled to that effect—something we can all join together and vote for, so that we can take this serious matter forward?
Mr Speaker
A manuscript amendment would be a matter for the Chair. As the Chair, I would be sympathetic to what the House needs to ensure that we get the best.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Well, I hope that the House always takes me at my word when I say that I will take these matters away with me.
The Cabinet Secretary will be taking independent advice on the decisions he takes through this process, and he intends for that advice to take two forms. First, he will have the advice of an independent KC throughout the process, and secondly, there will be scrutiny of his approach by the ISC. I hope that gives the House the necessary reassurance.
I have some past experience of drafting Humble Addresses on different matters in this House myself. The Opposition motion is clearly extensive—I think the House recognises that—but it is imperative that the Government protect sensitive information that could damage national security or relations with our international partners.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I remember the Humble Addresses that were tabled in this place during the Brexit years. The Minister will know that, in opposition, we never felt the need to put national security or international relations on the face of a motion itself, because that was an implied protection.
Can I ask the Minister two things? First, he helpfully said that the ISC will be involved in scrutiny of the process. Does he mean the process by which the Cabinet Secretary looks at documents, or will the ISC itself be able to see documents? Secondly, I think we all understand what the Minister means by “national security”, but could he tell us what he means by “international relations”? It is quite a broad term, so I would welcome some clarity.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I think my hon. Friend and I have similar memories of that particular Parliament. To give an example, in the motion relating to Lebedev, we included the words,
“in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security.”
When I was involved in drafting Humble Addresses, I was very precise about that.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I am really grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know that he takes the role of the ISC very seriously, and I appreciate that he is trying to help the House with what he has just said. However, he will appreciate that the difficulty for the House is that it needs to decide what to do in relation to the motion before it today; Members on both sides will have to decide how they should cast their vote. Although there is some reassurance in the fact that the Intelligence and Security Committee will be involved in the Cabinet Secretary’s process, that will not be possible before we have to reach a decision on this motion.
The principle here is surely this: the whole House cannot see everything. I have sympathy with the Minister in relation to national security material and, I am bound to say, rather more sympathy than my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) with regard to potentially sensitive material on international relations. Following the comments made by Government Members, including the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), is not the answer today that those on the Opposition Front would accept their motion including the concept that, if material is sensitive, it would be supplied only to the ISC, not to the whole House, but that everything should be disclosed to the House either via that route or via a route to the whole House?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Beyond the deadline to amend the motion—a familiar situation that the right hon. and learned Member and I have found ourselves in before—I want to say something very clearly. I hope the House takes my previous answer on this as having been given in good faith—
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister just said that the deadline has passed to table an amendment. Can you confirm, Mr Speaker, that you just told the House that you would be sympathetic to a manuscript amendment, which would not be subject to that deadline?
Mr Speaker
The Chair is able to select a manuscript amendment, for which there is a high bar. There is a lot to clear up and I am sure that things can move forward, but in a nutshell, the answer is yes.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I hope the House takes in good faith what I have sought to do in the course of my speech, let alone in the course of the debate. I think that scrutiny of the process is very important.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
No.
The scope of the motion could also include thousands of documents. It is obviously in the national interest to protect national security, and to be transparent and act with urgency—I completely accept that—but it is important that we now take time and care to balance those elements.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Let me make some progress, and I might come back to interventions.
The Government have tabled amendment (a), so that documents are published unless they prejudice national security or international relations—I know I was asked a specific question about international relations—because of course such documents might contain information about our relationship with our international allies and how we have approached them. It is obviously important for Governments to keep that information confidential, because it is in the national interest. I am also very conscious of another issue: I am definitely not seeking to hide behind the cloak of the Met police investigation, but of course we will also have to bear in mind the fact that documents might prejudice that investigation. That is something that we will continue to speak to the Met about.
We will of course do all we can to comply with the motion, as amended, and we will update the House accordingly. I also want to say to the House that, while the process of going through a significant number of documents might take a little time, it is important that the Government start the disclosure process—to the extent we can—today. That is what the Government will do in response to the debate and to the very reasonable questions that are being asked.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am someone who rewards effort, so as the right hon. Gentleman has put in such effort, I will give way.
Dr Murrison
May I return the compliment by telling the Minister how much I admire his ability and generosity in giving way? I think he is doing an exceptional job.
I understand where the Minister is coming from in relation to Government amendment (a). Perhaps I can describe an example of something that he may wish to see passed through the ISC that cannot be made publicly available—that is, which of our foreign allies had something to say about the appointment of Peter Mandelson to Washington. I appreciate that the Minister is never going to say precisely who that ally might be, but the nature of that correspondence is surely a matter of public interest, and therefore is of interest to this House, but it is not something that can be bruited abroad. The ISC provides the very obvious solution to discovering what representations were made, and what material was passed between our allies and the Cabinet Office, before this appointment was made. Can the Minister make that commitment?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I hope the House has seen, even over the course of this debate, the constructive approach I have tried to take on the role of the ISC in this process. That is precisely what I have done.
I want to turn now to another aspect of this matter, which is the peerage. Another action the Government are determined to take is to strip Peter Mandelson of his title, as the Prime Minister has set out. Frankly, I think people watching this debate will be bemused, because there is no other walk of life in which a person is unsackable unless a law is passed. We will therefore introduce primary legislation. The Government have written to the Chair of the Lords Conduct Committee to ask the Lords to consider what changes are required to modernise the process of the House in order to remove Lords quickly when they have brought either House into disrepute. The Government stand ready to support the House in whatever way is necessary to put any changes into effect.
Being in office is a privilege—every day is a privilege. That is why there is anger across this House about Peter Mandelson and his actions. The test for the Government in these circumstances is the action we take to respond. As I think has also come through in this debate, our utmost thoughts are with the victims: the women and girls who suffered at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein. Behind the emails, the photographs and the documents are many victims who were exposed to this network of abuse. They should be our priority in this matter, and I am sure they will be for the rest of this debate.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
We are having this debate today solely because of the women and girls who found the courage to come forward and speak about the abuse they had endured over years at the hands of rich and powerful men. Without these women’s bravery in speaking up about their experiences at the hands of a paedophile sex trafficker and his friends, none of these shocking revelations would have come out. We owe these women justice, and we owe it to them to make changes to create a system that works.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Member is right: victims should be at the heart of this process. The allegations against someone who the Prime Minister and Ministers put full trust in are also absolutely shocking.
Jeffrey Epstein was a sick child predator and a sex offender. He visited Hillsborough castle on at least one occasion. Does the hon. Member agree that this House and the Government should have a full review of his activities while there, and an audit of his visitors during that time? The victims deserve answers.
Lisa Smart
I agree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of some of the individuals we are talking about today. We will be supporting the Leader of the Opposition’s motion to request the information that is sought. The Liberal Democrats would go further, looking to a public inquiry in order to get to the detail that the victims deserve.
The revelations about Peter Mandelson’s conduct raise profoundly serious questions about judgment, national security and accountability. The leaked emails suggest that while serving as a Cabinet Minister, he shared sensitive Government information, sharing details about the 2008 financial crisis, market-sensitive bail-out measures and potential asset sales. These allegations point to potential misconduct in public office, aimed at helping those involved to enrich themselves. They certainly warrant the police investigation that was announced yesterday, but also reveal catastrophic failures in the systems meant to protect our national interest.
The emails highlight a fundamental lack of accountability that exists within our current system. The Prime Minister has rightly called Peter Mandelson’s conduct a betrayal, and has submitted material to the police and requested draft legislation on removing peerages. These responses are necessary, but it has taken the Government far too long to get to this position. Mandelson was appointed ambassador to the United States by this Government and this Prime Minister even after his links to Epstein had been extensively reported by the Financial Times and “Channel 4 News”.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
In evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee after Mandelson had been withdrawn from Washington, the Cabinet Secretary said that a summary of the developed vetting and conflict of interest report was given to the Prime Minister prior to Mandelson’s appointment, and the Prime Minister appeared to confirm that at the Dispatch Box earlier. The Government and the Prime Minister have repeatedly said that it was the extent of the relationship that somehow altered the appropriateness of his appointment. What message does my hon. Friend think it sends to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, and to the many victims of rape, paedophilia, sexual assault or sex trafficking, that anyone with a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein should be deemed appropriate to be our representative in Washington?
Lisa Smart
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I am not sure what extent of friendship with a known, convicted sex trafficker is appropriate for somebody who is to be put in our most senior diplomatic position. In 2019, Channel 4’s “Dispatches” interviewed a witness who saw Epstein, while he was in prison for child sex trafficking, take a phone call from Mandelson. Mandelson asked for a favour—to meet the then chief executive officer of J.P. Morgan. All this information was in the public domain.
Dr Evans
The hon. Lady’s point is exactly right: this information was in the public domain, often in the US. One of the questions that the Government have not answered is whether the US was asked if there were any concerns. This relationship was public—we knew that it existed—so was the US asked for any information, or about any concerns it had? I have not heard the Government explain that point; has the hon. Lady?
Lisa Smart
I am sure that I have been listening as intently as the hon. Gentleman. There are so many questions that it is right for the Government to answer, and we believe that a public inquiry, after any police investigation has concluded, is the way to get to the bottom of them. There are questions swirling around about which advisers said what, when, but the decision to hire Mandelson was ultimately the Prime Minister’s, and he must be held responsible for that.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The Minister said that Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes were “unforgivable”. Does my hon. Friend think that the Prime Minister appointing said known paedophile was forgivable?
Lisa Smart
I think my hon. Friend is referring to the appointment of the friend of a known paedophile, rather than the appointment of a paedophile.
Lisa Smart
That is an important clarification to make. Rightly, there are questions surrounding the judgment displayed by the Prime Minister in appointing Peter Mandelson to the position of UK ambassador to the US. Those questions are wholly valid, as are the questions being asked about current Cabinet Ministers who also chose to maintain friendships with Mandelson—there are rumours of him popping in and out of some offices at will. I must say, I noted the facial expressions of some Government Front Benchers during Prime Minister’s questions earlier.
Of course, many questions were raised about Mandelson before his appointment. Questions were raised about him during the 2009 expenses scandal. He was forced to resign from Cabinet twice for unethical behaviour, and we understand that the security services raised serious concerns about his appointment last year, yet he was still appointed to one of our most sensitive diplomatic positions. This is not a case of one unforeseen problem; it is a pattern of warning signs that were ignored. This Labour Government promised to break with Conservative chaos, but instead we see the same failures—inadequate checks, reactive crisis management, and an inability to prevent obvious problems. You do not restore public trust with heartfelt apologies after things go wrong; you do it by having proper systems that stop scandals before they happen. Labour has failed to maintain public confidence, and it must do better.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Obviously, people here want to get to the bottom of this, in terms of the accountability of the Prime Minister and other elements in No. 10, and of course they want to get to the bottom of what Peter Mandelson has done. However, the public understand that this is not just about a number of rotten apples in the system—it is systemic. It is about those who have wealth, power and access, and how they treat young girls and women, and us, the public. They take us for mugs. Does the hon. Lady believe that this goes wider than just a few bad apples? It is systemic, and that is what needs to be addressed. That is what the public want.
Lisa Smart
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I wonder whether he has looked at my notes and read about the systemic changes that we Liberal Democrats would like. I agree with him that this goes far beyond a few bad apples. There are systemic failures in our country that we need to seize this opportunity to address.
Successive Administrations have failed to address fundamental weaknesses in our system of government that further threaten public confidence. I will do as the Father of the House urges and focus on how we make progress. We must make reforms to the ministerial code, as it is clearly not functioning. The code is a set of rules and principles, and acts as guidance for Ministers, rather than having a legal basis, so Ministers who breach it face no legal consequences. When breaches of the ministerial code are investigated, even by independent advisers, the Prime Minister can decide whether to listen or not, so “accountability” becomes almost meaningless. Will the Minister consider using this troubling episode in our national story as a catalyst for much-needed change and enshrine the ministerial code in law?
The Liberal Democrats believe that if we are to go some way towards restoring vital public trust in our democracy, we need to make fundamental reforms to this House and the other place. Members of the Government clearly share that sentiment, as we have heard various Ministers on the airwaves over the past couple of days saying that the Government recognise the urgent need to reform the Lords, and may bring proposals forward at pace. Can the Minister lay out further details of the Government’s plans to legislate, especially given growing concern about public trust in our democratic institutions and the integrity of this Parliament?
The Government hold a substantial majority in this House, and they can push through legislation rapidly, as we saw only last week with the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill. The same process could be used to make urgent changes to the other place. Ministers need to set out the legal mechanisms available for suspending or removing a peer, the timetable for any planned legislation, the progress of cross-party discussions that have been mentioned in the press, and how confidence in the upper Chamber will be restored. If there is no clarification, uncertainty risks further eroding public confidence in Parliament and our democratic institutions.
On the motion and the Government amendment, we Liberal Democrats firmly believe that transparency is vital. The very least that the Government can do is release the information requested, so we will support the motion, but we would go further. We do not even know the full extent of the British establishment’s involvement in Epstein’s appalling crimes, or how many British girls and young women were trafficked by him. We call for a full public inquiry, with the power to compel witnesses, both to get justice for the victims and to protect our national security.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
On the information available, does my hon. Friend share my discomfort about the fact that the situation became clear to us only after this mass release of information by the Department of Justice in the United States? While I understand the Government’s reluctance to release information that may well harm international affairs, that does not seem to be a concern for the US Government.
Lisa Smart
The best disinfectant is often daylight. I am strongly in favour of transparency; I welcome it, including about the information that is being requested today.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
The hon. Lady’s point about the wider establishment is important. Individuals like Sir Richard Branson clearly offered to help Epstein launder his identity and reputation by suggesting public relations advice on how he might recover from his prosecution. We have gentlemen like Bill Gates, whose wife has bravely spoken out, saying that one of the reasons she left him was his links to Epstein. How do we make sure that such men, who continue to have extreme power, face some sort of justice?
Lisa Smart
The hon. Lady is entirely right to talk about the very well-known men—and it is men, wealthy, powerful, greedy men—who should be held accountable for their actions. We should all welcome the transparency that is being sought today. We should have in mind the victims and survivors, and the need to prevent young girls and women from becoming victims and survivors of similar crimes. We should do all we can to prevent that, and should take the responsibility that we have seriously.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) mentioned in Prime Minister’s questions, as did the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) at the Dispatch Box in this debate, that the Polish Government think that Epstein might have been spying for Putin. The British public and Epstein’s victims deserve to know whether a UK Cabinet Minister was leaking secrets to not only a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, but a Russian agent.
We Liberal Democrats recognise the vital importance of safeguarding national security, and we genuinely welcome the openness that the Minister displays about looking at using the ISC to get to the bottom of some of this. However, there are already safeguards to protect national security. Those include the National Security Act 2023, which restricts the disclosure of information where that would harm the safety or interests of the UK. By tabling their amendment, which uses international relations as a reason to keep secret the information that they have, the Government are trying to wriggle out of their obligation to tell the truth, and we will not support it.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The transparency point is really important. Peter Mandelson was a Labour politician and this is a Labour Government. It may be that Peter Mandelson was an isolated bad apple, and that no one knew anything about what he was doing until this document release last week, but the public will wonder, and they will question. If a Labour Government cover up things by being anything less than fully transparent, the public will wonder who they are covering up for, and why.
Lisa Smart
A series of Administrations have not been as open as they could be, and have made poor choices about the behaviour of some of their Members, which has ended up in scandal and disgrace. I completely agree, if the hon. Lady is making the point that public trust in our institutions and our Government is vital; we must all take that seriously. There is a sorry legacy of recent Governments who behaved less than impeccably in a number of ways. We strongly support using this whole sorry episode as a catalyst to bring about much-needed change.
Dr Murrison
The Prime Minister has said that it is all okay, because the Cabinet Secretary will command this review. Does the hon. Lady agree that while the Cabinet Secretary is a person of impeccable repute, he cannot be objective, because he has been involved in this matter? It is almost unfair to put this on him. What mechanism can the hon. Lady devise that will deal with that, other than giving the great bulk of this information, because international relations will cover the great bulk of it, to the ISC?
Lisa Smart
The right hon. Gentleman has clearly been reading Liberal Democrat press releases, because we believe that a public inquiry would be a far more effective way of getting to the bottom of this matter. I am delighted that he made that point.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Member is making some excellent points. Does she agree that all the inquiry systems that have been discussed so far are influenced or participated in by people who have been within the golden circle of Peter Mandelson? Do we not need something novel and different, such as an independent, judge-led or judiciary-led inquiry that examines the whole thing in the round, similar perhaps to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war?
Lisa Smart
I am always delighted to get agreement from across the political spectrum, and I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman: an independent, judge-led inquiry would be the right way to go.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
On the shortcomings of what the Prime Minister proposed from the Dispatch Box earlier, the Cabinet Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee back in November:
“The only information which was not already in the public domain at the time is a reference to official records which have since been disclosed”.
We have obviously learned this week that was not the case, so the Cabinet Secretary is plainly not the right person to lead this Government investigation. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Lisa Smart
My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well. I believe that an inquiry in public, which could take evidence in camera, when appropriate for reasons of national security, would be the right way forward. I encourage the Minister to consider where we go from here.
Transparency must be prioritised over the potential embarrassment that any of these documents could cause. Surely Government Members must see that. The intentionally broad wording of the Government amendment would permit the Government to keep any correspondence hidden that they think might embarrass them or our allies—that means Trump and his cronies—or that might paint the Prime Minister somehow as weak. That is surely a relevant factor when considering international relations. It must not be allowed to do so, and we will be voting against the pretty shameless Government amendment.
There are rumours that Peter Mandelson is still receiving a salary, or payments from the UK Government, potentially including his ambassador’s salary severance pay and/or a pension from his time as a Minister. I would be grateful if, when winding up the debate, the Minister could confirm whether any of that is the case.
Alicia Kearns
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary on 5 December, asking when Peter Mandelson’s pay had stopped, how much the severance pay was, and whether taxpayers have had to foot the bill for it. Although that was well over two months ago, I have received no response. How can we have any confidence that this investigation will be carried out properly when the Cabinet Secretary will not even answer basic questions about how Mandelson was paid and how much it cost us all?
Lisa Smart
I strongly agree with the hon. Lady. Transparency is what the public deserve, and it is what we in the House demand.
This whole sorry tale is about more than the failures, greed and corruption of one man, or even whole swathes of rich, powerful men who conspired to abuse their wealth and power over many years. It is about judgment, and also about a system that has long been not fit for purpose, and an establishment that wants to keep things just the way they are because that suits their needs. We should use this shocking situation to bring about the changes that our country needs, that trust in politics demands, and that those brave women who spoke out deserve.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I would like to start by acknowledging the victims of Epstein and the powerful men around him: vulnerable, abused women and girls who were sold and traded. Since the publication of Epstein’s papers, we have learnt so much more. An email from Jeffrey Epstein to Peter Mandelson, dated 28 October 2009, reads as follows:
“new york? brown? cuban-american…have you made any decisions?”
A few minutes later, Peter Mandelson responds:
“why are you awake. these questions are all related – desp for CuAm but can only get to NY at a time when people feel G”
—that may be Gordon Brown—
“won’t have some sort of breakdown…still working on it, therefore”.
There are so many questions to be asked about that. One of the suggested answers might be that this is not just about young women.
Emily Thornberry
I will come to that, because it is important, and it is important to put it in context.
Since then, we have seen not just that, but treachery of the worst kind. The question is: how did we get here? How did a man like that become Britain’s ambassador to the United States? We must begin by taking ourselves back to the time when Donald Trump was elected, and consider how challenging and difficult it was to know who was the best choice for ambassador. There was a choice: we could have continued with the ambassador who was already there, Karen Pierce. She had been invited to Mar-a-Lago many times; she had connections with Donald Trump’s circle; she was an older woman; she was a powerhouse; she is great at making friends; she wears mad shoes. She is one of a generation of senior, older women, too many of whom are no longer in the Foreign Office and have been replaced by boys. At the time when Labour was elected, all the other six members of the G7 were represented by women, as was the United Nations. Now there is only one.
We had a choice between deciding to ask Karen Pierce to continue to be the ambassador and going in another direction. The question was: what was the right way to do it? We chose Mandelson because it was seen as an imaginative response, and I welcomed it as an imaginative response. Personally, I would have continued with Karen Pierce, who is a woman I know, trust and admire, but if a different direction was to be taken, it was a choice that was imaginative and one that made some sense in the context of Donald Trump becoming President.
On 3 November, when we discovered more information about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, we asked Chris Wormald, the Cabinet Secretary, and Oliver Robbins, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to come before the Foreign Affairs Committee to give evidence, because we were concerned about how this had happened. Clearly, so much background information about Peter Mandelson was out there but did not seem to have been considered properly before a decision was made, so we asked how it had happened. We were told that the first thing that had happened was due diligence. Due diligence meant fast-stream civil servants having the opportunity to search open sources, so they go to Google and they look, and that threw up reference to Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
I said to Sir Chris Wormald—this is question 313 in the transcript—
“It is really important to be clear about this—I am sorry to keep banging on about it—but was the Prime Minister told that Peter Mandelson had stayed at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse in 2009, when Epstein was in prison for soliciting an under-age girl?”
Perhaps this is because of my background as a lawyer, but there seems to me to be a difference here. To stand by a friend who has been accused of something shows one sort of character—it shows a certain strength—but to continue to be friends with them after they have been convicted, and to stay at their house, shows a completely different type of character. That, to me, was a nub point, so I wanted to know whether the Prime Minister had been given that information, which was publicly available—although, I have to say that it had passed me by; I knew of the friendship, but that is different from knowing that the friendship had continued post-conviction. I think it is really important to establish that difference, and that was something we asked about in the Committee hearing. The answer was, “I am not going to tell you the contents of the due diligence report.”
Alicia Kearns
I understand that the right hon. Lady is saying that the information that Peter Mandelson had maintained a relationship with a then convicted paedophile passed her by. However, she does have an entire committee of Clerks who will have advised her. She also says that she said that this was an imaginative appointment. I am afraid she actually said that it was an “inspired appointment”. I know, because I spoke out against the appointment. Will she please tell me whether her Clerks at any point shared with her concerns about the background of Epstein and his relationship with Mandelson, and whether she will therefore now say that she regrets calling it an “inspired appointment”?
Emily Thornberry
Anyone who either made the decision or said that it was a good thing must regret it, of course, but we must remember that the appointment was made on the 18th and I made those comments two days later. During those two days—in the run-up to Christmas—the Clerks were not the people I referred to first. Work was done thereafter, and the reason for that work was that we wanted Mandelson, once his appointment had been announced, to come before the Committee to be questioned. We felt that it was very important that he should appear before the Committee in an open hearing, where we could ask him questions, such as the ones that I put, and a record could be made.
Emily Thornberry
May I just finish?
For instance, I said this:
“if you had come before us, we would have looked on the internet—we would have googled—and we would have found that Channel 4 had done a documentary, ‘The Prince & the Paedophile’, that clearly highlighted Mandelson’s links with Epstein. We would have given consideration to the Financial Times and Guardian reports in June 2023 that referenced the JP Morgan internal investigation. In those reports, what was most damning of all was that Epstein was sentenced in 2008 to 18 months’ imprisonment for soliciting an underage girl, and Peter Mandelson goes to stay in his townhouse in Manhattan in 2009. At that time, Peter Mandelson was the Business Secretary. So we have the Business Secretary staying in the townhouse in Manhattan of someone convicted of paedophilia.”
We would have asked those questions, and whatever answers would have been given, whether they were honest or not, would have been out there in public.
The problem, I think, was that a decision was made in the haste of Donald Trump’s election to go for an “imaginative”, “inspiring” or “alternative” person to go to the United States, and not enough time was spent on it. The decision was therefore made to appoint, subject to—
Several hon. Members rose—
Emily Thornberry
No, please, let me finish. [Interruption.] I want to finish what I am saying.
Emily Thornberry
So the decision to appoint was made. There was supposed to be some due diligence before that happens.
I can help the House by explaining what that “due diligence” meant. As I have said, that was looked at by civil servants on the fast stream. We asked, “When you did the due diligence, what detail of the results was given to the Prime Minister?” I said that it was very important that we were given information about what the Prime Minister had been told at that point, because the friendship with Epstein was generally known about, but the ongoing friendship and the specific point about him having stayed, while a member of Cabinet, in Epstein’s New York townhouse was, to me, a very different matter. I wanted to know whether the Prime Minister had been let down by not being told that particular point. In the end, we cannot expect the Prime Minister to do all the due diligence himself—he does have a country to run. He relies on those around him to give him proper advice, so that he can then work on that advice and make decisions on that basis.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emily Thornberry
Seven Members are seeking to intervene. If I may, I will perhaps take two interventions.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
This whole debate centres on the judgment, and trust in the judgment, of our Prime Minister of this United Kingdom when he decided to appoint the monster—when he decided to appoint Mandelson as our ambassador to the US. The right hon. Lady has just confirmed that the Cabinet Secretary refused to answer questions about vetting, yet the Prime Minister is asking us to trust the Cabinet Secretary to make decisions about the release of documents and information. Does she agree that it must be right that the Intelligence and Security Committee makes those decisions, as opposed to a Cabinet Secretary in whom we no longer can have trust?
Emily Thornberry
Again, for the record, I asked the Cabinet Secretary why he was not prepared to give that information to us, and he gave two reasons: first, because he felt that he had a duty of care to the candidate; and secondly, because he was not going to put information about his advice to No. 10 into the public realm.
I think that the proposed amendment makes a great deal of sense. We can see a lot of bustling around going on in the background of the Chamber at the moment, so let us see what comes from that. I will take one other intervention.
Dr Johnson
The right hon. Lady is making strong and clear points about the relationship between Epstein and Mandelson. The Prime Minister was clear at Prime Minister’s questions that he knew the relationship was ongoing, and he knew that at the time he appointed him. What sort of ongoing relationship with a non-related convicted paedophile is acceptable to the right hon. Lady for someone who is meant to represent our country on the world stage?
Emily Thornberry
I think I have made it clear that, for me, there is a difference between being a friend of someone who is accused of something and then putting distance between oneself and that person if they are then convicted. I think a decision should be made at that point. That goes to a matter of conscience and the right way to proceed. That is my view.
Emily Thornberry
I will not take any more interventions.
I have explained what our Committee was told about due diligence and how that happened. Normally what would then happen is that an interview would be done with a panel, and questions that arose during due diligence would be put to the candidate during that interview. But that did not happen in this case because it was a political appointment. So if anyone had any concerns about Peter Mandelson and his background, or any of the things that people are now concerned about, those would not have been formally put to him during any form of interview process where minutes were taken and we could now look at what those conversations were. That, I think, is a really important piece of information to put before this House so that people understand how this happened.
We have due diligence—fast-streamers looking at the internet—nothing being put to Peter Mandelson, and then the decision being announced. The decision was announced in the middle of December, as we have heard, and then they wanted to do it really quickly, presumably so that he could be at the President’s swearing-in. Also, once the announcement was made, Karen Pierce would have lost power and influence, because it would have been known that she was not continuing in post, so it was important to move as soon as possible.
The next stage was vetting, which is done by the Foreign Office. The question I have for Ministers is this: given that the announcement had been made and that speed was needed, was pressure put on the Foreign Office to get through the vetting quickly? Was there, to coin a phrase, a need to “get on with it”? That is an important question to ask and one that we need an answer to, but we must also be realistic. Once it was known that Peter Mandelson was going to be the ambassador for Britain, it would have taken huge bravery and introduced potential risk to withdraw him from the appointment if anything had come up at the vetting stage.
Mike Martin
As Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, does the right hon. Lady know what the then Foreign Secretary—the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—knew at that time? Does she think that that should also be brought to the attention of the House in this release of documents?
Emily Thornberry
The point is that the due diligence and vetting are done by civil servants and are not supposed to involve politicians, and the decision was made in No. 10. That is how it works, as I understand it, so the views of the then Foreign Secretary may not be directly relevant.
Mike Martin
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way once again; she is being very generous. What is the point in civil servants doing due diligence if that information is not given to politicians when they make the decisions?
Emily Thornberry
No, it is given to those who are making the decisions—as I understand it. The due diligence is done by the Cabinet Office. It does due diligence on a number of candidates, and then the decision is made as to which candidate will be put forward. Then it is announced. Then the vetting is done by the Foreign Office, and that information is handed back. I believe that that is the process. I think it is important, for clarity, that people know the process, because if we are about to get a large amount of information, it is important to understand how it worked.
Simon Hoare
The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee is right in that respect. I will just quote from a letter from the Cabinet Secretary to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I chair:
“Due diligence is generally carried out by the appointing minister’s department (in this case it was carried out by the Cabinet Office on behalf of No 10) so is not usually shared with other departments, and was not in this case.”
That answers the question of whether the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was involved; this was purely the Cabinet Office and No. 10, so the right hon. Lady is right. I just thought that that quote might help her in her argument.
Emily Thornberry
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Yes, I have read the letter—I am afraid I did not have it at my fingertips—but I think it is important to put all this information before the House.
The next question is, what does “vetting” mean? I appreciate that there are other processes that we cannot go into here, and it would not be appropriate to do so, but I hope it will be of help to the House to share another answer from the Foreign Affairs Committee session. In question 269, I said:
“The foundation of it seems to be that they have a form to fill in, you take it in good faith that they are filling that in correctly, and then you check what it is that they have said, so if they have omitted anything, no one is looking outside what is on the form.”
Sir Oliver Robbins then said:
“That is broadly correct, yes.”
That is vetting.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I will touch on vetting in my contribution later, but as someone who was vetted by the Foreign Office many years ago, I would like to seek clarity as to whether Peter Mandelson went through the full vetting process that a normal member of the diplomatic service would undergo ahead of taking up such a post, or did he simply undergo what is known in political terms—in Chief Whip terms—as the “pet process” undertaken by the Cabinet Office, because full vetting takes a long time?
Emily Thornberry
I understand what the right hon. Lady is saying. Obviously, I do not know. All I can do to help the House is point out that when it was announced in mid-December that Lord Mandelson would be the ambassador, pressure was being applied to make sure that we were all clear that he was going to be the ambassador in time for the swearing in of the President a month later. The Committee did everything that we could to try to get to the bottom of how many questions were asked and what the questions were, and we all did our utmost to try to get to the truth of this. If Members read the transcript, they will see that we were not “mandarined”.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s explanation of the process, because many people outside it wonder what information is shared and what process is gone through. It is hard to believe that the information held by the Department of Justice in the US was not shared with our security services or disclosed in the process, given the security clearance that is required for a post of this nature. On that basis, and to eliminate any accusations of cover-up or conspiracy, is it not the right path to have the Intelligence and Security Committee look at this and thin the evidence that comes forward?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the right hon. Member responds, let me say that we have a very healthy number of Members wishing to contribute, so can we make sure that interventions are short? I assume that you will be coming to your conclusion shortly, Dame Emily Thornberry.
Emily Thornberry
Throughout my contribution, I have tried to explain the attempts that the Foreign Affairs Committee has made. The most important thing is that we asked several times. We asked straightaway in January, and we asked in February. We asked many times to have Lord Mandelson in front of the Committee, because we would have been able to ask those questions.
We would perhaps not be in the mess that we are in now if the Foreign Affairs Committee had been able to do its job properly, and we expect that the next political appointment, if there is one, will be put before the Committee so that we are able to ask questions in a way that is not necessary for appointments of people within the Foreign Office. If the Government want to appoint someone who is a politician, politicians should ask questions on the record, so that we know what we are getting, what contribution they can make and the risks that are being taken. We would have asked about Epstein and loans, and the answers—truthful or not—would have been on the record.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Humble Addresses are very difficult for the Government of the day and for Chief Whips. The Minister for the Cabinet Office, who has just left the Chamber, tabled many Humble Address motions that I dealt with. They are difficult from a legal point of view, and from the position of protecting the rights of the Executive to have independent advice. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, sometimes those judgments are handled in a way that, retrospectively, might have been different.
The national security element is obviously extremely important, and I pay tribute to all our intelligence services for the protection they give our country, but I believe that this Humble Address is quite different from any other that has been put before Parliament. This Humble Address is about corruption at the very heart of our democracy. In my view, the corruption does not relate to the current Government, although there are obviously differing views on their judgment and so forth. For me, this Humble Address is the route by which we will start to get to the bottom of what looks like a level of corruption that we have not seen in this Parliament in recent times. How we handle that and move forward is critical to all of us, and it is vital for public trust.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Julian Smith
I am not going to give away.
We heard earlier about a discussion between members of the ISC and the Government, and I know that conversations are taking place via the usual channels, but I say to Government Front Benchers that what I have heard from the House today is that it wants the Government to cede control of the relevant documents to either the House or the ISC, regardless of whether those documents relate to national security or foreign policy. I have also heard that the House is very cognisant of the fact that this place will not see all the documents. The ISC may see many of those documents and we will not see them, but the issue for the Government is whether they can make the next step to cede control of those documents to this House and the ISC.
Alicia Kearns
I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. From my perspective—I wonder if he agrees with me—if the amendment had said that anything that was secret or top secret needed to be withheld, that would be a very different argument. However, the use of the very vague terminology of “national security”—which has never been used in a previous Humble Address by the Opposition, as I made clear in a point of order after Prime Minister’s questions—is a nonsense, and the idea of “international relations” is completely vague.
Sir Julian Smith
I agree with my hon. Friend on that point. I am aware that one of our Five Eyes allies gave a warning about Peter Mandelson. I do not know whether that is true, but I know that as a humble Back Bencher. The House now needs to know, because this is a House matter. If we do not deal with it satisfactorily, we will all be condemned by what has gone on. I urge Ministers to ensure that, in the next hour or so, the discussions focus on not just ISC involvement, but ISC oversight of all sensitive diplomatic or security-related documents.
My second point is about the nature of the Humble Address itself. It is very tempting for the Government of the day to take a narrow view of what the Opposition have asked them, but as we heard from Opposition Front Benchers, there is evidence, or at least there are allegations, about Peter Mandelson’s time in Washington. That relates to who attended embassy parties and how UK Government contracts came about last year. In my view, we should now address all these issues and get them out in the open, so that we can fully understand not just what happened and the judgment of the Government, but what was behind the threats and what our allies were worrying about, which included China, Russia and many more things than just the corrupt act itself.
This Humble Address should be regarded by the House, and particularly by the Government, as a vehicle. It is a vehicle for protecting our democracy, and for beginning to unpick exactly what happened, on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I want to start by saying that I remain extremely supportive of the Government. I am proud of what we have achieved together in a short space of time. We have delivered massive investment into the NHS and schools. Those are all positive steps, and we are taking meaningful steps to reduce inequality, lift people out of poverty, and support families through the cost of living crisis in an increasingly uncertain world. We have also committed ourselves to tackling violence against women and girls with a seriousness and ambition that are long overdue.
Just yesterday, Members from across the House came together to vote to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, including Members from Reform, the Lib Dems and other parties. I was proud to walk through the Aye Lobby, and I was proud of this House overall, yet that tangible progress has been almost entirely overshadowed by the growing scandal surrounding Mandelson. That should concern every one of us in this House, because we stood on a promise to do politics differently this time. We said that we would turn the page on the scandals, the secrecy and the sense that there was one rule for the powerful and another for everyone else. We said that we would restore trust in public life. Once lost, trust is extraordinarily hard to rebuild.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The hon. Member will be aware that, earlier on today, the Prime Minister made the concession from the Dispatch Box that he knew. Is this not a question of trust in the Prime Minister, given what he knew when he made his decisions? That is what makes it so serious for this Government.
Matt Bishop
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think we are talking about trust across the House, so that includes every Member of this House, and across both Houses.
The Government’s violence against women and girls strategy is one of the proudest achievements of this Parliament. It is the product of years of tireless campaigning by survivors, advocates and frontline organisations who have fought to have their voices heard, but that work and that trust is fragile, and it risks being profoundly undermined when we appear unwilling to apply the same standards of transparency and accountability to those closest to power as we demand elsewhere. How can we stand in this Chamber and say to victims that we believe them and that we will stand with them, while refusing to release full documents relating to serious concerns about one of our own? How can we ask victims to trust the system if the system appears unwilling to scrutinise itself?
The files released last weekend further highlighted what many already fear: there exists a despicable elite network operating with proximity to power, entangled in international criminality, and shielded for far too long by status and influence.
Matt Bishop
Anybody linked should be investigated—simple.
If we are not fully transparent about how we vetted the ex-US ambassador in the face of such scandal, how on earth can we expect victims to come forward in future? How can we expect them to trust institutions that seem designed to protect the powerful rather than the vulnerable? I think of the survivors I have met in my constituency and since being elected. I think of the advocacy groups who have worked alongside all of us across the House: organisations such as the Hollie Gazzard Trust, Sarah Taylor from PEEPSA—Prevent, Educate and Eradicate Post Separation Abuse—and campaigners who have poured their lived experience into shaping the VAWG strategy. How can I go back to them and look them in the eye having voted for an amendment that has the potential to conceal the behaviour of powerful people and their potentially criminal relationships?
Jim McMahon
On that point, quite a lot in the disclosures naturally raises questions about probity. The issue about power and control, and of having information that can compromise, is that once you are compromised you are compromised, and every decision can be compromised. That really does highlight the importance of independent oversight of the evidence. I hope that when the Minister returns to the Dispatch Box, he reflects on that in his response.
Matt Bishop
Yes, I completely agree. I will get on to the ISC in a second.
What would I say to those victims? That transparency matters, except when it is inconvenient? That accountability applies, except when it is uncomfortable? As a party, we promised to halve violence against women and girls. We promised to put victims at the heart of everything we do. Yet today we are being asked to accept an internal review into how the close friend of a known paedophile was vetted—an internal review carried out by the very structures that failed to prevent this in the first place.
Alicia Kearns
I wish to credit the hon. Gentleman for the speech he is giving today. Very early in my career, I voted for something and I could not sleep that night. Never since have I voted for something that has made me feel ashamed of myself, and I will never do it again. It takes bravery to do that so early in the hon. Gentleman’s time in Parliament. It is really important. I hope his colleagues on the Labour Benches, in particular the new intake, stand behind him, support him for the decision he has made and do not criticise him, because he is doing what he believes to be right. All credit to him, because we know how difficult that is, from having governed for so long. I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he is saying and what he is doing today.
Matt Bishop
I thank the hon. Member for her words.
How can we mark our own homework on matters of such gravity? I want to be clear. I understand the position the Government find themselves in. I understand the concerns that have been raised about embarrassment, reputational damage, and national and international security. They are serious considerations and should not be dismissed lightly, but if vetting decisions were influenced by compromising relationships, we have a far bigger problem—one that demands scrutiny, not silence; one that requires us to re-evaluate how this country operates on the international stage, and whether transparency and accountability are truly guiding principles or merely slogans.
An independent review by the ISC, coupled with a commitment to release documents, subject to independent legal advice, is not an unreasonable request. The public are not naive, and if such a process is deemed unfavourable by the Government, they will draw their own conclusions. I am not making any accusations today. I am asking reasonable questions on behalf of my constituents and victims who are watching this debate closely. Will No. 10 be candid? Will it show humility? Will it choose transparency over defensiveness?
Let me be equally clear about something else: I do not believe the Opposition tabled this motion with victims at heart. We can all see the political point scoring at play, but the motivations of the Opposition do not absolve us of our responsibility. Given the strength of feeling among victim and survivor groups—and, frankly, given my own conscience—I cannot in good faith support a position that risks further eroding trust in our commitment to justice. Power and trust go hand in hand. The responsibility that comes with holding public office must never be understated. We are entrusted—all of us—with shaping national policy, representing our communities and safeguarding the most vulnerable. That trust must be earned every single day.
So today, not because it is politically convenient to me but because it is morally necessary, I am voting with the victims, I am voting with the survivors and I am voting for the principle that no one, however powerful, should ever be beyond scrutiny.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop). I will return in a moment to a point that he was just making.
I have the great privilege of being the father of three wonderful teenage daughters. Any parent or relative will feel their stomach turn and churn at the thought of vulnerable young women being trafficked and used as playthings for the sexual gratification of warped and twisted minds who thought they were above the law, to whom the rules did not apply, and who thought they could get away with it because of who they were.
I suppose the surprise as it relates to Peter Mandelson is that we are surprised. He was a man who seemed magnetised to money like a moth to a flame, and who had caused considerable and significant embarrassment and discomfort to previous leaders of his party. The current Prime Minister decided that, in some way or another, it was only the extent of the relationship that should be the determining factor, whereas the existence of the relationship at all should have precluded Peter Mandelson from an appointment to be our ambassador in Washington.
I want to pick up on a point raised by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean, and to which I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) was also referring. My conscience—I do not say this particularly smugly—is a bit clearer than my hon. Friend’s, if she is referring to the same vote, because there was a vote in this place. Those on the Treasury Bench need to remember this, because there are certain votes and motions in Parliament that become a Thing, with a capital T. They become an event. They set the scene that makes the atmosphere for the coming months and weeks of a Government. I think that this issue, and how the Treasury Bench responds later, is one such Thing.
Owen Paterson was and is a friend of mine, as well as a former parliamentary colleague. We were asked to vote for something which effectively would have got him off a very painful hook. I, along with 12 other Conservative MPs, against a lot of whipping, voted against the then Government amendment to effectively, de facto, exonerate him. It was the most difficult vote I ever cast, as he was a friend both political and personal, but it was a vote that I have never regretted, because it was the right thing to do. When all the party allegiances, the to-ing and fro-ing and the whipping and everything else is over, at the end of the day—I hope this does not sound too folksy, Mr Speaker—we all need to be able to look in the mirror, and at our families, our friends and our constituents, and say, “I always tried to do the right thing. I may not always have done so, but I always tried.”
I think the right thing for the Government to do is to withdraw their amendment. The mood of the House is incredibly clear. We heard wise advice from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), a former Attorney General and a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee; I do not think anyone could refer to him as a partial politician in this place. His integrity speaks for itself—as does that of the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds).
Anybody with a partial hearing of political interpretation will have gleaned the mood of the House: while respecting national security and other issues, which is a perfectly legitimate concern of the Government, this House vests in the Intelligence and Security Committee, to be discharged by senior Members of this House and the other place—Privy Counsellors all—the duties that those of us who are not Privy Counsellors or on that Committee cannot do for potential security reasons. We vest our faith and trust in that Committee, and it has never leaked. The Government can therefore follow that path in good faith and with trust. I hope that a manuscript amendment will be both forthcoming and accepted by you, Mr Speaker.
The hon. Member for Forest of Dean mentioned party politicking on this issue, and I am afraid I disagree with him on that; I do not think there has been any. I agree far more with my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith). Take away the party tags, the labels and the rosettes, and this is something that, for the vast majority of our fellow citizens, speaks to the operation of the state, the effectiveness of this place and the reliance our fellow citizens can put upon us in this place to do the right thing in difficult times, even when it is difficult to do so. Members on the Government Benches should talk to their Whips, use the usual channels and ask the Government to withdraw their amendment.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, does he agree that the amendment as drawn would, in effect, just throw a cloak over the very issues that many right hon. and hon. Members of this House want to see dealt with, and that the way to resolve those sensitive issues is simply to engage the Intelligence and Security Committee? Is that not the best way forward?
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Why else would we have an Intelligence and Security Committee with that remit? It is not as if we are retrospectively trying to establish a Committee of the House to do a specific job. It exists to do this sort of job, among other things. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench have listened.
On Monday, in response to my question on his statement, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the House that it would be much better to deal with the removal of Lord Mandelson’s title via the procedures and Standing Orders of the House of Lords than by legislation. He also told the House—in complete and utter sincerity at the time, I am sure—that it would require a complex hybrid Bill, which was not an analysis I shared. My understanding is that a simple Bill to amend section 1(2) of the Life Peerages Act 1958 to apply a cessation date to the honour of a life peerage would be all that was required. We have passed important legislation for Northern Ireland and other issues in a day’s sitting before when the mood of the House was clear.
I think the Prime Minister indicated today at Prime Minister’s questions that he had tasked his team—his officials—with drafting legislation. There is an appetite for urgency in this place, and allowing this issue to suppurate and drip will not be the answer. I ask the Minister in his summing up—or, if he wishes to intervene on me now—to give us a timetable as to when this House will see the Bill and to confirm that Government time will be found to take it through in a single day. That would be very helpful.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
There are many questions on the behaviour of Mandelson that are unanswered and that need to be answered, but I welcome that the Government have promised to remove his peerage. That is right. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that a Bill should also come before this House to remove Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of succession?
Simon Hoare
I think, Mr Speaker, that we usually prefer for matters relating to those sorts of things not to be dealt with on the Floor of the House.
Mr Speaker
To help the House, let me say that because this now relates to a person who is not a member of the royal family, the situation is completely different.
Simon Hoare
Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hospital pass has just gone through the shredder. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, in all candour: yes. The likelihood of Mr Windsor ever putting a crown on his head is so remote as to be unimaginable, but for clarity and probity, I agree with him. I do, however, think we should deal with the matter in hand today.
The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has written to Sir Chris Wormald, the Cabinet Secretary, asking him to appear before us. This follows a letter we wrote last October, to which we received a reply on the 30th of that month. The way of vetting a political appointment to be an ambassador was woefully inadequate. I welcome the fact that No. 10 has put in place new procedures, but that is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. It is either naivety or, worse, some form of complicity that the legitimate and obvious questions that should have arisen for any political appointee, but particularly Peter Mandelson, were not asked. I think it is extraordinary that the views of the Foreign Secretary were not invited on this appointment. I also find it very strange that vetting is undertaken only after the announcement of an appointment—that is a most bizarre way of dealing with things. I am pleased that the Government have realised that things need to change.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right to look at the process, but I do not think that it provides any cover for the Prime Minister’s decision. If the story in the New Statesman today is true, the Prime Minister was directly sent a report that
“clearly stated that Mandelson’s relationship with the paedophile continued after his conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution. It contained links to photographs of Mandelson with the paedophile, and drew particular attention to evidence that Mandelson had stayed at Epstein’s apartment while he was in prison.”
Candour has been talked about a lot today. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should hear from the Minister today whether that report in the New Statesman is true and whether the Prime Minister received that report? That takes away any idea of the extent of the relationship—the extent of the relationship is as laid out in that report.
Simon Hoare
My right hon. Friend is right, but if this motion is passed unamended this afternoon, all those papers will be available either to this place or to the ISC, and then we will know.
We are all aware of these sorts of things. Somebody will set a hare running at some point and we will say that we think this, that and the other. I have heard, for example, that Peter Mandelson was at Labour party headquarters each and every day in the run-up to the general election and that he was intimately involved with the selection of candidates—I can see a couple of Labour Members nodding as if to say, “Yes, I knew exactly what was going to happen”—and that in essence, the ambassadorial position was a thank you present: “Thank you for getting us back into No. 10—here’s your final gift from the public purse. Go and be our ambassador to Washington.”
In the general scheme of things, that is perfectly fine, but I think we deserve to see the paperwork that shows the paper trail. It is not unusual for political appointments to be made in that way, but that is in the abstract. In this specific case, it is unconscionable, and it is surprising given the fact that the Prime Minister flaunts, with some degree of credibility, his previous role as a senior lawyer and his ability to tell right from wrong. And by God, did we not hear that when he was Leader of the Opposition? Whenever a Conservative committed even a minor misdemeanour—if they put something plastic in the paper recycling box—by God it was a hanging offence: “They should all be taken outside, hanged, drawn and quartered” and so on.
Being in government is obviously different, but the reason the appointment of Mandelson befuddles everybody is that the argument that the Prime Minister has deployed is that the full extent of the relationship and friendship with Epstein was not known. The fact that there was any relationship with Epstein post conviction should have precluded Mandelson’s appointment. Why? Because an ambassador is not a representative of the Government. The position is His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States of America, so it brings in the impartiality of the Crown as well. There are therefore serious questions to ask about the operation of No. 10 and about how the Prime Minister exercises his judgment.
Alicia Kearns
There does seem to be amnesia about this. When Mandelson was made ambassador, it was well known that he continued the relationship with the convicted paedophile post his conviction, and there were simpering emails already in the public domain saying things like, “Oh darling one, all should be forgiven.” The suggestion that it only recently became unacceptable for him to be ambassador is wrong. If Labour Members want to suggest that it was not well known, let me tell them that colleagues like me raised it in this Chamber on the day that he was appointed, and I was greeted with jeers and boos from the Labour Benches. No one said, “Absolutely, maybe there are concerns”. Should that amnesia perhaps be reconsidered?
Mr Speaker
Order. It is not me who will say when it is 4 o’clock, but I would gently say that this is Opposition day and the Opposition may want to extend the time available for this debate. I am very bothered that not many people will get in given the rate that we are going at. I leave it to Members to take care of time.
Simon Hoare
Conscious of that, Mr Speaker, let me say that I agree with my hon. Friend, and then conclude with two asks of the Government. First, will they confirm when a Bill will be introduced and that it will be passed speedily in both Houses before the Easter recess; and, secondly, although it is not my job to speak on behalf of those on the Labour Back Benches, I ask the Government to read the Chamber. Allowing the Government Chief Whip and others to press this amendment would, as the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) has said, send such a bad message to our constituents and to victims—not just of Epstein and Mandelson but to the wider victim community—that when push comes to shove, officialdom somehow or another circles the wagons and finds a vehicle to filter and to protect.
As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said, the best thing that we can have is transparency. The best disinfectant is sunlight. We need as much sunlight on these papers as possible, and we can start to make some progress this afternoon. Do not press the amendment and publish the Bill.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Let me first take a moment for us to remember those women and girls who were silenced, marginalised, degraded, objectified and discarded—collateral damage in the pursuit of pleasure for a network of men who thought that the rules did not apply to them. The correspondence between these men from across the political spectrum, from Steve Bannon to Noam Chomsky, is soaked in misogyny, and it is the misogyny that we women do not actually hear on a day-to-day basis. I am talking about the casual, relentless women hatred shared between men.
We know well the misogyny directed directly at us. There are many of us here in this House who work hard to expose that misogyny as we are witness to it, but the misogyny hidden from us needs exposing. That is why the transparency to which the Government say they are committed is so important. If we say we believe in tackling power imbalances and in ensuring that the law works for everyone, we cannot stay silent, and the hatred and the offences must be seen so that they can be tackled.
One man in particular is apparently guilty by association rather than actually involved in those particular acts, and he is the one who is the focus of the debate today, but it is also true that what has been revealed from these documents is that there appears to have been, over a number of years, horrendous breaches of trust and potential criminal activity amounting to misconduct in public office. I would like this Government, this House and our political class to take this moment to acknowledge that, while this is an extreme and egregious example of an individual believing that the rules do not apply to them, such behaviour cannot continue without the consent—active or passive—of others, and that this is the moment that we will agree that passive or active consent to allow such behaviour in public life will end.
Stephen Gethins
I have raised the point about the Prime Minister, but there is a broader point here. Lord Mandelson was appointed to the Lords. For 115 years, Labour has been promising to get rid of the Lords. The Conservatives and other parties have appointed people to the Lords who we should be getting rid of. Please—is now not the time to take the opportunity to scrap the Lords?
Ms Billington
I accept that there are wider constitutional implications for what we are talking about right now, and I will turn to some of those later. We also know, however, that there is a long track record across politics, not just across the political spectrum but across decades, where people’s talent—predominantly men’s talent—has been seen as a justification for appointment, regardless of their behaviour or their character, and we do need to consider behaviour and character.
Dr Mullan
I think that, by refusing to believe the victims over Jeffrey Epstein, Mandelson is an example of misogyny, and I think the Prime Minister, by deciding to appoint someone who remained friends with Epstein, is an example of passive consent. Does the hon. Member agree?
Ms Billington
I will continue to explain in my remarks why I think this is a moment where we need to draw a line under that passive and active consent that we have seen for far too long across all political spectrums and across the decades, where people have turned a blind eye to bad behaviour.
We need to know, and to apply our judgment to, whether somebody is suitable for public life not just because of their talent, but because of their probity. We have many systems in this place, in our Government and in our wider political environment that are supposed to protect the public and our institutions from people who do not have the appropriate probity for public life.
My concern and the concern of many of my constituents, of people across the country and of my colleagues in this House is that, in some ways, individual people’s apparent talent for politics is seen as something that justifies turning a blind eye to their character, their associations and their judgment. I know and understand the importance of acting to ensure that national security is not put at risk. I only wish that we could all be so sure that the former ambassador to the United States had similar concerns.
I am less convinced by the language of “international relations” in the Government’s amendment. I seek clarity from the Minister for the justification for such a broad term, especially when, by the very virtue of the nature of the relationships that should be under scrutiny via the transparency to which the Government say they are committed, the relationship between our country and others may well have been exposed to risk. Will the Minister explain how the Government will distinguish between material that is prejudicial to national security and international relations, and that which is not?
There are deeply concerning reports in the media that the Government amendment is a convenient catch-all to prevent material from being published. For that reason, I seek assurances from the Minister that the Government have a plan to facilitate maximum transparency by handing over relevant sensitive documents and communications to the relevant Select Committees. The Paymaster General said that there should be scrutiny by the ISC of the Cabinet Secretary’s approach. However, that is not the same as the Committee being given the material and having full oversight of it.
I am sympathetic to the expressions of concern by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop). People voted Labour for change. People are convinced that we are all the same. This is a moment when probity in public life is on the line. The Government can go one of two ways: we can have a culture of certain people being “worth the risk”, or decide to draw a line under that, and agree that there will no longer be situations in which individuals, because of connections or talent, are exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of us.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
In this Chamber, just under three hours ago, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom made a long overdue and welcome admission. For months, he, various Labour Members, Ministers and members of the Cabinet have told us all to ignore our eyes and our ears. The Prime Minister has said that he was not aware of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, but today he admitted at that Dispatch Box that he did.
Mr Speaker
Order. I can inform Members that this debate will now run until 7 pm to allow more Members to speak. Sorry for the interruption, Stephen Flynn.
Stephen Flynn
Four hours is plenty for me, Mr Speaker.
This is a dark and disgusting day for this Chamber and for each and every person living on these isles, because their Prime Minister admitted that he knew about the relationship. Of course he knew; in The Guardian in 2023, Rowena Mason wrote about the court documents that had been released in the United States of America, which referenced the fact that Jeffrey Epstein had maintained a relationship with two individuals prominent in British public life. Members will know them. They were Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister knew, just as he knew when Jim Pickard of the Financial Times asked him in January 2024 about the relationship. He has seen the photos that each of us in this Chamber has seen of Peter Mandelson in luxury accommodation in New York alongside Jeffrey Epstein.
Stephen Flynn
I will not, I am afraid.
The Prime Minister knew that the two had a relationship, yet he ignored it. He ignored each and every victim of Jeffrey Epstein when he chose to appoint Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States of America.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
Stephen Flynn
No, I will not.
Today’s debate is important because we will get to the bottom of what Peter Mandelson did—I will come to that—but also because we in this Chamber cannot forgive or forget the judgment of the Prime Minister when he chose to make that political choice. It was a choice that Labour Members have told us repeatedly was a political risk. It was not a political risk. It was a betrayal of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, because Peter Mandelson knew when he continued the relationship that the man was a convicted sex offender.
Stephen Flynn
I said I will not. The hon. Member can sit down and listen to my speech today, as his colleagues should have done on many occasions in months gone past.
The Prime Minister has let down not only himself but his office and the public—a public to whom he promised change. He said that he would tread lightly on their lives. Do any of the public believe that today? Do any of them have confidence in his judgment? Are the Labour party seriously saying to the public that they still have confidence in the Prime Minister’s judgment—that we can trust him to make the big decisions, when he cannot even accept that a relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein should have stopped Peter Mandelson becoming the ambassador to the United States of America?
Dr Arthur
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. I really do think that he is misreading the mood of the House. We are trying to find consensus on what is being debated. He talks about articles in The Guardian and what was in the public domain, but he will know that last year, John Swinney stayed in Peter Mandelson’s house in Washington. He does not always stay with ambassadors, but he chose to then. If John Swinney knew about this—it was in the public domain—why did he stay with Peter Mandelson, and why did he not answer questions on this yesterday, when he was asked them five times?
Stephen Flynn
What a desperate and foolish intervention. I would have let the hon. Member intervene earlier, if I had known that was coming. He knows fine well that the First Minister of Scotland does not appoint the ambassador to the United States of America. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom does. I thought that for once we had consensus in this House, and agreed that the Prime Minister lacked judgment by appointing Mandelson. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member disagree and think that the Prime Minister should have appointed him?
Stephen Flynn
Yet another one—the hon. Member excels himself.
On Monday, the Prime Minister was at the Dispatch Box, and I asked him two questions. I asked him to make an unreserved apology to each and every victim of Epstein for his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson. He chose not to. I then asked him if he agreed, at that moment, that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a police investigation, because I had just reported him to the police. He chose not to agree; he said:
“Only the SNP could go about this in this way”.—[Official Report, 2 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 34.]
Here we are, two days later, and Peter Mandelson is being investigated. Importantly, the Prime Minister has still not said sorry. That is an abdication of his responsibility, as he has had numerous occasions to apologise. It is another betrayal of those victims.
We must support this motion to ensure that the treachery of Peter Mandelson is not ignored, and to properly understand why the Prime Minister took the decision that he took. Let none of us be in any doubt: these discussions about manuscript amendments and motions, and how we decide on anything, will not matter as much to the public as the Prime Minister’s lack of judgment. That will lead to his departure from No. 10.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
Being a Member of Parliament is a huge privilege that brings with it a huge responsibility—a responsibility that Peter Mandelson made an absolute mockery of. He let down those on our Benches, this entire House, and the country more widely. His arrogance, sense of entitlement and abuse of power was disgusting to see, but what I am really worried about is this: this story of women and how they are let down is being watched by women across the world, and they are seeing their story of abuse through the lens of powerful men—Prime Ministers, former princes and politicians. Women victims must be at the centre of whatever happens next.
I am glad that the paedophile Epstein’s files are being released, and I am glad that there is cross-party consensus that more information should be made public, and that anyone who knows anything should declare it. However, I will not lie; I am angry that victims and survivors have had their anonymity ripped away because of the careless way that their information was handled. I am angry that men trafficked, exploited and raped women, while others turned a blind eye at best, and covered it up at worst.
However, I am also unbelievably, incredibly grateful. We are here today because women used their voice. They were brave. They are not alone, and they were never alone in their abuse. At the time when they were being trafficked in the most horrendous way, my community had the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe, often because older men thought that young, vulnerable women were absolutely fair game. I feel a huge responsibility to use my voice, and I encourage others to use theirs, but while speaking up is so important, it is sometimes so difficult that the cost is life itself. That stays with me. I want to use my platform to share the words of Virginia Giuffre:
“I am sorry to say that for all that’s happened, more action is needed. Much more. Because some people still think Epstein was an anomaly, an outlier. And those people are wrong. While the sheer number of victims Epstein preyed upon may put him in a class by himself, he was no outlier. The way he viewed women and girls—as playthings to be used and discarded—is not uncommon among certain powerful men who believe they are above the law. And many of those men still go about their daily lives, enjoying the benefits of their power. Do you know why the world is as bad as it is? It is because people think only about their own business, and won’t trouble themselves to stand up for the oppressed, nor bring the wrong-doers to light…My doctrine is this, that if we see cruelty or wrong that we have the power to stop, and do nothing, we make ourselves sharers in the guilt. I hope for a world in which predators are punished, not protected; victims are treated with compassion, not shamed; and powerful people face the same consequence as everyone else. I yearn, too, for a world in which perpetrators face more shame than their victims do and where anyone who’s been trafficked can confront their abusers when they are ready, no matter how much time has passed. We don’t live in this world yet.”
I say: thank you. I thank her, and I know that we will use the power that we collectively have in this House to right historic wrongs, and that we can start talking about what is happening to women and girls across the world and challenge it together, because shame must change sides.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). Actually, in writing my speech, I had people like her in mind: the Labour MPs who I know are genuinely passionate about tackling violence against women and girls. They use that passion to criticise us, and what we did or did not do in government—and I respect that—and sometimes to criticise their own Government. It is those MPs that the Prime Minister is trying to throw under the bus today. It is those MPs who I do not think would ever have agreed to the judgment the Prime Minister made, that it was “worth the risk”. This is not some hidden or secret position that the Government took; a Minister said on the record in an interview that the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was “worth the risk”.
What does that mean? What are we talking about here? What was it worth? It was worth disrespecting, denigrating and betraying the victims of Jeffrey Epstein by appointing someone who chose to associate with a convicted paedophile. That is the risk that the Prime Minister chose to take. I do not think it is a risk that the hon. Member for Bolsover would have taken, or the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), or many of those other Members; they would have made a different judgment.
There is a pattern here, and those of us on the Opposition side of the House know what it is like. When Prime Ministers are weak and struggling to maintain their authority, they will go further and further in doing things that their own Members do not want them to do, in order to save their own skin. Members can come to regret supporting that.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
My hon. Friend talks about it being worth the risk, but this is not just about denigrating those victims; it is also about those Labour Back Benchers that the Prime Minister is marching up the hill. It is worth the risk for him to march them up the hill, then do a U-turn later and finally admit after many months that he knew all along?
Dr Mullan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), and I say this as a Back Bencher who stood up to my Government because I realised what was happening and was not willing to be dragged into those situations. I do not speak from a position of self-righteousness. I have been in that position and I did what I thought was the right thing at the time. I suggest to Labour Members that they think very carefully about this, because we had an admission today. After months of trying to get it out of the Prime Minister, it was drawn out of him by the Leader of the Opposition that he knew that Peter Mandelson had continued his association with a convicted paedophile when he appointed him as ambassador.
Jim McMahon
I want to reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s interventions during the course of the debate, which have added to it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) earlier suggested a manuscript amendment relating to the Intelligence and Security Committee. If that was to come forward, would he support it?
Dr Mullan
I would like to see the detail of it, but that was a helpful intervention from the former Deputy Prime Minister. I think there is a way forward for us, potentially.
I also want to highlight that it was not just this one issue of whether the Prime Minister knew that Mandelson was in touch with a paedophile. We also know what was publicly reported. Before Mandelson was appointed, Epstein was discussing Government business from jail, if we can believe the reporting. What more could we have known? We are Five Eyes partners with the United States. We share the most secret and confidential information with the United States, so what was preventing the Government from approaching the US Department of Justice prior to the public release of these emails and asking whether there was anything in them that we needed to know before we appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador? We could have asked those questions, and I would like the Minister to say whether we did ask them and to give us any response we might have had. We are talking about what has been in the public domain, and the Government could have had that information beforehand.
Pete Wishart
Does the hon. Gentleman share my opinion that Labour Members just do not seem to get it? There is rising anger right across the country, and it is directed at Jeffrey Epstein and all the things that have been going on, but this is now primarily becoming focused on the Prime Minister. His position is becoming increasingly untenable but they are not seeing what is happening in the commentariat and the press. This is happening in real time.
Dr Mullan
I think some Labour Members do get it, which is why we are seeing furious activity with the usual channels at the moment. I think there is a whole movement of those Members who are not going to be willing to support the Government in voting for their own amendment today. I think some of them get it, and the rest of them need to catch up quickly. Those first movers who spoke out and were clear that they were not going to support it will be able to hold their heads up high.
Let us also be clear about Mandelson’s disrespect for this House. We have heard from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She has now left the Chamber, but I will refer to her remarks. She gave a pretty poor account of why she wholeheartedly endorsed his appointment. As Chair of that Committee, she is supposed to be independent and to act on behalf of the House. She was happy to explain all the reasons why she felt that the vetting was not complete and the processes were not up to scratch. Why, then, did she not say at the time that this person should not have been appointed? We know that other members of the Committee said the same thing, and they were similarly thrown under the bus by the Chair of the Committee, who endorsed the appointment. I think that is also a disrespect to this House.
Wendy Morton
Does my hon. Friend agree that this boils down to judgment, whether it is the Prime Minister’s or that of others on the Government Benches? So much was known about Peter Mandelson even before he was appointed. Surely someone should have got their head out of the sand and said, “Hang on, folks. This isn’t right.”
Dr Mullan
As I said, both the Prime Minister and, as we understand it, his chief of staff decided that it was worth the risk. There was lots of distraction today at Prime Minister’s questions from a Prime Minister who did not want to accept that it was his judgment on the line, including on further police investigations, and on other things that Mandelson had done and things we did not know about. What we all knew, and what the Prime Minister knew, is that Peter Mandelson continued a friendship with a convicted paedophile when he made him the ambassador to the United States of America.
Graham Stuart
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to tell us at the Dispatch Box whether the New Statesman report today is true—that the Prime Minister was directly told that Mandelson stayed in Epstein’s flat while he was in prison, and therefore that the extent of that relationship was absolutely clear to the Prime Minister when he made the decision to make that appointment? I know—because I spoke to some of them at the time—that so many Labour Members were uncomfortable but felt obliged to go along with it.
Dr Mullan
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there are many other questions that we want answered by the Government. That is why we want to pass this Humble Address so that we have access to all the information. We have heard from ISC members and other Select Committee Chairs about how we can do that in a way that protects national security, so the idea that we cannot do so without breaching national security is complete nonsense.
I ask Labour Members: what will the public think? How will this look to ordinary members of the public? Labour Members may well put forward technical arguments, and the Government might brief on various reasons why, because of technicalities, they cannot pass this motion and how it is all too difficult, but the public will come away thinking that some Labour MPs—not all of them—are willing to collude and support a Prime Minister who exercised catastrophically poor judgment at the expense of victims of violence against women and girls. It was the stated aim of this Government to tackle that and have it as a key tenet. That will reflect poorly on them, and the public will know exactly what has gone on here: a rescue operation for a flailing Prime Minister who, I think, is on his way out. When Prime Ministers are on their way out, they fight and kick and drag other people along with them. If Labour MPs allow the Prime Minister to do that, they will come to regret it, because once he is gone, he will move on and do new things, and they will still be MPs seeking re-election at the next election, having been tarnished and damaged by the things he did to save his own skin.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Of course, the thoughts of everyone in this House are with the victims and survivors of Epstein’s appalling, horrific abuse, but the motion we are discussing focuses on something very particular: not just what is known now or what has been revealed in the past few days—conduct for which Peter Mandelson needs to face the toughest consequences—but what was known at the time of his appointment to the hugely important role of this country’s ambassador to the United States of America.
In 2023, the Financial Times reported that:
“in June 2009, when he was the UK business secretary, Mandelson stayed at Epstein’s lavish townhouse in Manhattan, while the financier was in prison for soliciting prostitution from a minor.”
That was 18 months before the Prime Minister decided to appoint Peter Mandelson to the role. At Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister said that he knew before appointing Peter Mandelson that he had maintained a relationship with Epstein. People not just in this Chamber but outside it are asking how on earth, given what was known and what has been admitted was known, did Peter Mandelson end up being appointed by the Prime Minister as ambassador to the United States of America.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it appears that the Prime Minister turned a blind eye to what was already known about Peter Mandelson’s association with the appalling sex offender Jeffrey Epstein because, effectively, he wanted to cosy up to Donald Trump? Does he not agree that it looks very much like the wording of the Government’s amendment—
“except papers prejudicial to…international relations”
—effectively says that the Government do not want to release anything that might affect the Prime Minister’s ability to cosy up to Donald Trump? Does he therefore agree that the Government must withdraw their amendment to the motion? Furthermore, does he agree that we need to do more than just deal with this; we also need to address the lack of public trust in politics and in this House? To do so, we need to deal with things like political donations, the pollution of misinformation, and the urgent need for reform of the other place and, indeed, of electoral mechanisms in this Chamber?
Richard Burgon
I agree with the hon. Member. If the Government are foolish enough to push their amendment, which I do not think they will, I will of course vote against it because it would operate to stop us getting the full and complete truth about this matter. I will come on to some other points and make some progress, as I know that other colleagues want to speak.
The public are asking how on earth Peter Mandelson ended up being appointed by the Prime Minister to the role of ambassador to the United States of America, given what was known and what was in the public domain, and given that the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box today that he did know.
Something that must come into this—and it is not a distraction—is political culture. By that, I mean the political culture that has developed within the Labour party. That might seem tangential, but how have we ended up in a situation where a nasty factionalism has operated to such an extent that the Prime Minister and his advisers have promoted and protected Peter Mandelson when so many honest, decent Labour people around the country have been unreasonably punished and prevented from standing for office? We have all heard of Labour councillors who were not allowed to stand for council, perhaps because they had liked a tweet from a member of the Green party or some such. We all saw how Andy Burnham was prevented from even standing for Parliament, and that was pushed by the Prime Minister. Yet at the same time, Peter Mandelson was promoted.
Ways were found round other people standing for fairly minor positions, but a way was found by the Prime Minister and his advisers to push Peter Mandelson over the line and into the office of ambassador to the USA. The reason for that, or one of the reasons, is quite simple: a nasty political factionalism. The reason that Peter Mandelson is looked upon so favourably by the Prime Minister and the people around him is that he made his name kicking the left of the Labour party, and boasting about it. I believe that, at the very least, that clouded their judgment, and it meant that they could find ways around what was in the public domain—find excuses to push him over the line.
When this matter was discussed some months ago in the Chamber, I asked how Lord Mandelson could retain the Labour Whip, given what was known, while hon. Friends were suspended for voting to add the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap to the Government’s programme in the King’s Speech.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government are serious about their commitment to transparency, internal Labour party materials and communications of any shape or form that involve Peter Mandelson must be preserved, released and included in any upcoming or ongoing investigation?
Richard Burgon
I agree with my hon. Friend’s important point. I say for the record that she was treated terribly by the party, by people around the Prime Minister and by people in the party bureaucracy, while those same people found reasons to turn a blind eye to or make excuses for what was known about Peter Mandelson.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Does the hon. Member agree that, at a time when trust across the UK is at a low, what the public—and victims and survivors—out there will see is the wagons being circled, no matter which party is involved? Trust is the real casualty today. Does the hon. Member agree that that is what is at stake?
Richard Burgon
I totally agree with the hon. Member’s powerful point. It is no wonder that trust in politicians is at an all-time low. This affair shines a light on the role of the rich and powerful, and the relationship between some at the top of politics and some of the richest and most powerful men in the world. Peter Mandelson has always had, I would say, an unhealthy fascination with the super-rich and the powerful. After all, it was he who said that he was
“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.
In this serious debate, we need full honesty. As I alluded to earlier, one of the main reasons that Peter Mandelson was let off the hook and eased into one of the most important offices that he could be given by the Prime Minister was his role in internal Labour party factional affairs—that is just completely wrong. Let me quote Peter Mandelson:
“I work every single day in some small way to bring forward the end of his tenure in office.”
He was referring, of course, to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) while he was leader of the Labour party, at a time when Lord Mandelson was a Labour party member. That is the reason Mandelson was let off the hook. People were so grateful for the job that he did again and again to kick the left of the Labour party that they—
Richard Burgon
I will give way shortly. I think the Prime Minister would be delighted if I gave way now, because I am coming to an important point.
The reward for the factional role that Mandelson boasted about and revelled in was a blind eye being turned, even though the Prime Minister knew about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The reality is that Peter Mandelson would not have made it on to a panel of Labour party local election candidates, or as a Labour party parliamentary candidate at a general election, yet because of his factional role and his relationship with the super-rich—which stinks, quite frankly—he was eased into the position of ambassador to the United States of America. That is the truth, whether or not people choose to admit it.
Mike Martin
This important debate deals with corruption on an international scale, and with women and girls who have been victimised over years. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to lift his eyes above factional Labour politics and to focus on the issues at hand?
Richard Burgon
The hon. Gentleman may not have understood the point that I am making—perhaps that is the Liberal position on these things; I do not know. What I am talking about is the fact that victims of sexual abuse were put second to factional politics. The point I am making is that this dirty, grubby internal factional behaviour overrode those considerations—so, in fact, I do not disagree with him. That is the point that I am making: the lives of survivors should have been put first. The risk that Peter Mandelson posed to national security, and his deep inappropriateness for the role of ambassador to the US, should have been put first. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me, but that is the very point that I am making.
The public deserve the truth—the full truth. They need to know who argued for Peter Mandelson despite what was known about his relationship with Epstein, who argued for him to be pushed over the line into the role of ambassador to the United States, who warned against it, and what role the advisers around the Prime Minister played. That is fundamentally important. We cannot have a situation that the public quite rightly view as totally unacceptable. We need to know exactly how this happened and nothing should prevent that, because the public are completely baffled and disgusted.
The point has been made that we need to clean up our politics. Of course, that means no jobs for the boys when they are deeply inappropriate and deeply unsuitable for them, and it means looking at the role of big money in politics. Mandelson was infatuated with the rich and powerful in the same way that he was infatuated with the factional politics within the Labour party. Those things resulted in his being appointed to the position of ambassador despite what was known.
A manuscript amendment may be tabled and it may satisfy Members on both sides of the House—I do not know—but no manuscript amendment will rub away this crisis. No manuscript amendment and nothing that can be said in this House will remove the fact that the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America, despite what was known at the time, is literally indefensible. It is really telling that not a single Member on either side of the House has tried to defend that today, although some have defended it previously.
I come back to the point that we cannot have appointments in this country suborned as a result of people’s friendships or the role that they have played in internal party factions. That puts the national interest at risk and it can put national security at risk. The Prime Minister said “country first, party second”. What we cannot have is faction first, country second. I think that that is what happened with the indefensible decision to appoint Peter Mandelson to this important role, despite the fact that it was in the public domain that he had continued his relations with Epstein while that man was in prison for soliciting child prostitution.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
No matter which party we represent, no matter what deeply held differences we have and no matter how different our beliefs, everyone in this Chamber—indeed, anyone who serves the public—does so in the interests of this nation. We all signed up to serve our country, to do the best by Britain. Peter Mandelson has broken that vow.
From politicians to civil servants, we all commit to the Nolan principles of public life. We promise to serve the public with integrity, objectivity, selflessness, accountability, openness and honesty. The principles state, without qualification:
“Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest…Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work…Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner.”
Peter Mandelson has broken every one of those principles.
Every single Member of this House and the other place swears an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. Before we take our seats, Members of Parliament stand in this very Chamber and swear to
“be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”
In years gone by, that Oath was to Her late Majesty the Queen. It is an oath to the Crown, but it is also an oath to this country. It is a solemn pledge of loyalty to this nation and its people. Peter Mandelson has betrayed that Oath and betrayed Britain, and the evidence is there for all to see in the Epstein files.
Peter Mandelson distributed critical sensitive material about this country and its affairs. He conspired to work with foreign elites against this country’s interests, and against the policy of the Government he served. He gave some of the most privileged information to some very privileged people with the means and power to wield it. His actions could be classed as disloyal and duplicitous even if the recipient of the information was of good standing, but in this case the recipient of Peter Mandelson’s leaks was a convicted paedophile. Privileged information was passed not only to a very privileged individual, but to a disgraced criminal—a grooming-gang master from a grooming gang for the powerful and elite. Perhaps in the fullness of time, Epstein will be viewed as one of the worst grooming-gang masters this planet has seen. In doing so, Peter Mandelson has disgraced himself. His actions and his lack of candour are shameful in the extreme.
But it is not Peter Mandelson’s actions that we should be concerned about. Earlier, I omitted one Nolan principle—the final one, which is leadership, and that is precisely what has been lacking from this Government since their formation. This Nolan principle requires public servants to
“challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.”
Why was Peter Mandelson’s behaviour not challenged by the Prime Minister before his appointment? Why was Peter Mandelson allowed to assume a key role when his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein was known?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, grounded as it is in the Nolan principles. Does he agree that if the Prime Minister had appointed someone who went on to breach all the Nolan principles to a position as serious as that of ambassador to the United States, that would be a serious issue to deal with, but the fact is that he appointed a person who had already broken all the Nolan principles before his appointment, as well as doing so after it? I think that makes the Prime Minister’s position untenable.
John Lamont
My right hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister’s position, particularly after his remarks during Prime Minister’s questions earlier, raises serious questions about what he knew and when, and why on earth he made the appointment.
I have been doing this job as a Member of Parliament since 2017, and previously I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament for 10 years, so it is almost 20 years. Throughout that time, I have been aware of the rumours and speculation about Mandelson. Indeed, he was sacked from the Cabinet on two occasions for misconduct, and throughout his political life question marks have been raised about his credibility, his conduct and his scruples. Why was Peter Mandelson able to get away with distributing sensitive privileged information while in office? The questions over Peter Mandelson’s character, and his loyalty to this country, have to be answered.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Like the hon. Gentleman, I have been a Member of this place for longer than I care to remember, and throughout that time I have seen powerful men go unchallenged and cause havoc in our country as a result. He and I will want to change that for good, because this goes well beyond any partisan concern. Does he agree that it is therefore time to revisit the role of this House in scrutinising appointments, and particularly the capacity of Select Committees to object? Too many people have known for too long that a number of controversial characters are not fit for public office. It is time to bring the disinfectant of democracy back into that process—does the hon. Gentleman agree?
John Lamont
The obvious question that stems from the hon. Lady’s point is why on earth the Prime Minister made that appointment when there was so much information about the toxic nature of Peter Mandelson. What on earth was the Prime Minister doing? The Secretary of State for Business and Trade, a Cabinet member, was doing the rounds saying that it was “worth the risk”, so clearly, even in the higher echelons of the Cabinet—not least the Prime Minister—there were concerns about this appointment, yet nobody did anything about it. This individual, who had this association with a predator and grooming-gang master and was subsequently caught sharing sensitive information with him, should never have been anywhere near the important office of our ambassador to the United States.
There are so many questions that the Government need to answer, but there are crucial questions that the Prime Minister has to answer. For me, the Prime Minister’s conduct in this matter is completely unforgivable.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I place on record that my thoughts are with the women and girls who were victims of Epstein and his cronies. I am also deeply concerned for those who suffered incredible loss through the financial crisis in 2008.
This House is at its best when we can find common ground and put aside party politics for the good of our country, and I believe that we are seeing that today. As the deputy Chair of both the Standards Committee and the Privileges Committee, I take that responsibility seriously, and I believe colleagues would say that I always act without fear or favour. Standards in public life and the Nolan principles are not optional to me; they guide my work every day. As politicians, every single one of us in this place must be guided by them every single day.
Our national security is of paramount importance, and I know that nobody in this House would want to undermine that. During the Hillsborough law debate, it was made clear that there are existing legal protections for national security. At moments like this, we are reminded of the importance of and the desperate need for the Hillsborough law and a duty of candour. During this debate, it has been clear that allowing the ISC to have oversight is unquestionably the way forward. At a time when public trust and confidence in politicians and politics are at an all-time low, we must individually and collectively lead the way and assure the public that there is no hiding place for those who seek to betray our country for their individual greed.
Mandelson has a chequered history in my party. Some might say that he has been like a cat with nine lives, being sacked from numerous positions. I cannot think of a more self-serving and self-absorbed politician than Peter Mandelson: a man who leaked market-sensitive information to a convicted paedophile and sex offender while the people of this country queued outside banks and building societies, wondering if their life savings had gone; a man who has benefited so much from being in this nauseous, disgusting web that he cannot even remember his account being credited with $75,000; a man who had no respect for our national security and international relations, because his nose was firmly in the trough.
As a party, we must investigate the culture and those who have enabled Peter Mandelson to thrive for decades, constantly putting his own needs above those of our country and party. Leadership is about integrity, principle and vision. Those are the values of my Labour party, and we must embody them now more than ever.
I am really sad to say that I am ashamed of the amendment the Government tabled. We have to do much, much better. I implore my Government to withdraw their amendment and let the ISC deal with the issues, because that is the right thing to do. Therefore, if it is not withdrawn, I must with a heavy heart vote against my Government’s amendment. I wrote to the Chief Whip earlier today to let him know my intentions.
Dr Mullan
Rumours abound that a manuscript amendment will be tabled to bring forward something that Labour Members feel they can vote for. Does the hon. Lady agree that Labour Members should not forget the fact that the Government were willing to try to make them vote for the original amendment?
Paula Barker
I think I have made it clear what I think of the Government amendment.
I will end by saying, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) did, that the Prime Minister said consistently during the general election campaign that we must always put country before party. He promised the country that this Labour Government would put country before party. I implore my Government to ensure that that is what they do today.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
This debate is crucial and seminal, but first and foremost it must be about the victims of the horrible web that Epstein created —the abuse, abduction, raping and secret imprisonment of women, who were apparently flown in and out of major cities around the world for the convenience of rich and powerful men. It is utterly disgusting, depraved and abominable behaviour on every single level, and every Member who has called it out is absolutely right to do so.
Epstein was not revealed yesterday; he was not convicted last week; he was not convicted last year. He was first convicted 18 years ago. It is not as if his record was not extremely well known. It seems that we are debating it now only because of the inclusion of Peter Mandelson in the ghastly, nasty, vile, horrible web that they created.
We have a duty to do something important today, and I for one support the Opposition motion. I hope that we vote on it, rather than coming to some crabby deal between the Government and the Opposition through a manuscript amendment that would kick the whole thing into the long grass, a long way away, on the pretence that we cannot discuss these issues because that might affect security or international relations. Almost anything can affect international relations. It sounds to me like the Government simply trying to get out of things.
The question is fundamentally one for the Prime Minister, and it is a bit odd that he is not here for the debate. It is a bit odd that he has not spoken in the debate and that all he has done is say what he did today at Prime Minister’s Question Time. I cannot believe that, when he was about to appoint Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to Washington, he was not made fully aware of all of Peter Mandelson’s record. The Prime Minister would have known about the number of times that Peter Mandelson was forced to resign, even from the Tony Blair Government, because of his behaviour. He would have known Mandelson’s record as an EU Commissioner, and of his interesting relationship with global dealers in minerals and many other things. He would have known all of that, yet he still went ahead and appointed Mandelson as ambassador to Washington, apparently despite advice from the Foreign Office and others. What a shame, what a disgrace and what an appalling appointment to make. We do not even know whether Mandelson is still being paid by the Foreign Office.
Today, we have to be very stern and clear that there needs to be the fullest possible inquiry into all of this. Parliament is not competent to undertake this inquiry. The Cabinet Secretary and the civil service machine are not competent to do so. They have all been ensnared in this gilded, friendly web of Mandelson and his business, political and social contacts, where favours were done and contracts were apparently awarded. That ghastly company Palantir was trying to get hold of our national health service, apparently at the behest of Mandelson and others.
None of us here are competent to undertake that inquiry, which is why I intervened earlier—I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for giving way—on how it should be conducted. I think it has to be judicially led, independent and, for the most part, in the public eye—rather like when the Government were eventually forced to undertake the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war; that is the nearest parallel I can find—because it needs to expose the whole web that Mandelson created, and the power play that he operated within the civil service, the political establishment, the media and so much else.
The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) made a wonderful and very powerful speech. I thank him for his reference to what Mandelson said and did about me when I was Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Labour party. I can confirm to the House that under my leadership, Mandelson had no role, no influence and no part to play, because I do not trust the man or believe him. We need to make that very clear, because his role in British politics has been basically malign, undermining, and a very corrupting influence altogether.
When we look at our politics, we need to look at the role that big money, patronage, and turning a blind eye to crime play in it, because what we end up with is the national embarrassment of Mandelson being the ambassador to Washington, apparently on the basis that it was a risk worth taking in order to please Donald Trump. I do not know whether it succeeded in pleasing Donald Trump, but I did notice that at one of his endless press conferences, he could not remember who Mandelson was, so I am not sure how big the impact on the President was. Today is a day of shame for our politics—shame that we have got into the situation that has now been exposed.
Epstein was very, very powerful and very, very wealthy. Obviously, there needs to be more examination of that. More files have been uncovered than even Julian Assange managed to uncover through Wikileaks, and those files are going to be read and studied for a long time to come. There are lots of people all around the world who were dragged into this ghastly web based on dishonesty, lies, corruption and patronage. It is up to us as MPs to ’fess up to what has happened and to make sure there is a genuinely open, independent inquiry. When it comes to the standards of democracy we have in our society, and the levels of patronage that continue within it, we need to look at ourselves in the mirror.
Graham Stuart
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. He referred to the speech on factionalism made by his colleague on the Labour Benches, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), and made the point that we need an independent inquiry. One of the reasons for that is the number of staff from Labour Together, a factional group within the Labour party, who were appointed to civil service posts directly after the general election, including one—Jess Sargeant—who was appointed to the Cabinet Office’s propriety and constitution group. Labour Front Benchers should not say, “Don’t question the impartiality of the civil service.” They undermined the impartiality of the civil service, and we need an independent inquiry if the public are to know that we will get to the truth.
Jeremy Corbyn
The right hon. Member makes a very fair point. Of course, the role of factions within parties is enormous—we have seen the role that Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney and others have played in sidelining, silencing and getting rid of very good, active people within the Labour party. Ultimately, it is the Labour party that loses as a result. I was extremely grateful for the role that Peter Mandelson played in the last election in Islington North: he came along and canvassed, and we won with 50% of the vote. That is the only useful thing he has done for a very long time that I can remember.
As I say, the right hon. Member’s point is a very fair one. It is right that Ministers and Governments should be able to bring political advisers into government with them. I remember discussing all this with Tony Benn in the 1970s; his view was that the civil service was intrinsically conservative and reactionary, and that there needed to be voices in there who were prepared to speak up for an alternative policy. I understand that point, but there has to be some kind of limit to the role of the political adviser in running the civil service—that is the Rubicon they must not cross. It is reasonable for them to advise the Minister, and they may have a very strong view or a view that is very different to that of the civil service. That is fair enough, but they should not be running the civil service. If we believe in an independent civil service, we must practise what we believe, even though it is probably quite uncomfortable for Ministers at various times.
I conclude by saying to the Government: do not come to some deal today just to get past today. Do not just get through today and think, “Wow, we got through that mess.” Members of the Government should not just put in their diaries, “Horrible day in the Commons, but tomorrow is another day. We’ll move on.” Let us have the open, public inquiry that is necessary. Let us have an understanding that we will turn the page on the era of patronage, and of close relationships between commercial pressure groups and lobbying—in the Lords, here, in the media and in our society. We should strive to build the open, fair, democratic society that we should all believe in. Those who suffered to get us universal suffrage and democracy did not do it so that we could develop a corrupt political system; they did it because they wanted an open, democratic, accountable system that benefited the poorest in society, as well as everybody else. Let us pass the motion today—no deals. We must inquire with real seriousness into the horror show that we have heard about.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I must inform the House that a manuscript amendment to amendment (a) has been tabled by the Prime Minister, and I have selected it. For the convenience of the House, the manuscript amendment adds the following words to the end of the amendment:
“which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament”.
Copies of the manuscript amendment are now available in the Vote Office. I will call the Minister to move the amendment formally when winding up the debate.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I have been waiting for three hours to speak in this debate, and I wanted to talk about consensus, but it seems that my speech comes just one place too late in the list.
I will start by following on from the point that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made about recovering Mandelson’s pay, or at least stopping the pay being awarded to him. My constituents in Edinburgh South West want to go further and recover Mandelson’s pension, too. I thank the Opposition for bringing forward this debate. It is right that we debate these issues; people in my constituency certainly expect us to.
On consensus, I think where we are at is that the SNP, the Greens and the Lib Dems back the original Humble Address. I am not sure whether Your Party backs it —perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was just speaking on his own behalf. The Conservatives seem to accept that their Humble Address was a little reckless, and they want to support the involvement of the ISC. The Government have now shown leadership and brought that in. I think that is where we are at. [Interruption.] Members can feel free to correct me. Do they want to correct me? I am happy to take an intervention.
I expected to hear a little more today about what Mandelson may or may not have been getting up to during the era when Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown were trying to save our economy. I have huge respect for Gordon Brown. He is a man of real integrity. Alistair Darling is a predecessor in my seat, and he was a man of great integrity and someone whom I really respected. I think we can all agree that Mandelson was the complete opposite of those two great men and political leaders of my era. I do not doubt that once the criminal investigation is completed, there will be the public inquiry that some people are talking about.
It is right that we have focused on Mandelson’s links with Epstein today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) made absolutely clear why that is so important.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has just said that he thinks it is absolutely right that this House focuses on Peter Mandelson’s links with Jeffrey Epstein, and I welcome him for suddenly coming to that conclusion. Can I therefore ask him why the Prime Minister felt it necessary to appoint Mandelson as the US ambassador when—we know this after this afternoon’s revelation—the Prime Minister knew that Mandelson still had a relationship with Epstein?
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
We know the decision that was made. Peter Mandelson was appointed ambassador when it was known that there was a relationship with a convicted paedophile, but it was “worth the risk”. So what is “worth the risk”? What level of relationship with a paedophile is acceptable? Is it coffee in the morning, or dinner at night? There should be no relationship with a convicted paedophile.
Dr Arthur
Hopefully the documents will explain what happened. Hopefully.
I know I do not look old enough, but I have been around for a long time. I can remember Mandelson’s first lap, and his second lap, when he went to the Lords. Now there is this third lap. My general perception of him is not of someone I would trust. I would not buy a second-hand car from him. However, that is based on my perception from the media. I have not seen the details of the vetting procedure that he went through. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), described the selection procedure, and I accept that this Government inherited it, but I thought it sounded like an absolute shambles. The steps that it involved were nothing like what I expected. I expected much more detail, and I hope that the documents that we are talking about will give us at least a bit more.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The hon. Member says that he would not buy a second-hand car from Mandelson. Would he have made him ambassador to the United States?
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Given that—rightly, I think—the hon. Gentleman would not have appointed Peter Mandelson ambassador to the United States of America, does he think that the Prime Minister made the right decision, and will he ever again have confidence that the Prime Minister can make the right decision on any other national security issue?
Dr Arthur
At lunchtime, during Prime Minister’s Question Time, we heard at length from the Prime Minister that we will release this information, so that people have a chance to look at it. We can speculate, but today’s debate is about releasing the information into the public domain, so that people can be reassured that the right decision has been made, and if it has not, we can question it.
Ms Creasy
My hon. Friend was here when I said that we should not only deal with this situation—I am with those who were not happy about the original amendment —but also think about what we can change fundamentally. This is not the first time we have seen controversial people appointed to positions. Does my hon. Friend, as a relatively new Member, share my interest in learning from other jurisdictions around the world? For example, there could be pre-appointment hearings before Select Committees, which could object to shortlists. Could we not toughen up our role as eyes and ears looking out for what good democracy practice looks like?
Dr Arthur
The vetting procedure, as described by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, seemed so insubstantial. My hon. Friend is right: we have to do much better. I am recruiting a community engagement officer, and it struck me that we exercised more rigour in checking the background of that person, although I accept that I may not have understood the procedure that was described.
It is right that we have focused on Mandelson’s links with Epstein, but if Mandelson had not been mentioned in the data that was released at the weekend, perhaps we would have been speaking about Andrew Windsor and Sarah Ferguson today. They are, perhaps, the winners in that regard.
Earlier, I was guilty of saying that the arguments that the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) presented showed that he had misread the room, but he was right in one respect. He was right to say that Mandelson was a traitor—and I hope that he meant not just a traitor to the United Kingdom, but a traitor to the survivors of Epstein’s sexual abuse—and, in fact, survivors of sexual abuse everywhere.
I think that the residents of Edinburgh South West, and everyone else, expect us to work together on this, and to reach consensus, and hopefully we can. I am still not sure whether the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and the Greens are on board, but I think we are moving much closer to one another. [Interruption.] My apologies. It seemed that they wanted to back the original Humble Address, rather than agreeing to the involvement of the ISC in the process; that was my understanding.
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to clarify. In my speech, I said explicitly, from the Lib Dem Front Bench, that I welcomed the Minister’s openness to the ISC being part of this process.
Dr Arthur
I am grateful for the correction. Perhaps I was not listening quite as carefully as I should have, so I really do thank the hon. Lady.
I end by thanking our Front Benchers for listening to the arguments of Members from right across the Chamber, for showing a bit of leadership, and for hopefully bringing us together with some consensus.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman’s speech is coming across to me as quite miraculous, and not in a good way. He is claiming that his Front Benchers have shown leadership this afternoon. Let us remind the House exactly what has happened: his party’s leadership and Front Benchers have changed their amendment to the motion, because they knew that Government Members would not have voted for it.
Dr Arthur
Can we just reflect for a second? The original Humble Address was reckless. It was going to put information in the public domain that would have damaged our country. It could be argued that the original amendment was an overreaction to that, but we are getting to a good place now; we are reaching consensus.
Wendy Morton
All things being equal, would the hon. Gentleman have gone through the Aye Lobby or the No Lobby if a Division was called on the motion?
Dr Arthur
I had complete confidence that the Minister would reach consensus in the House today. Seriously though, would Opposition Members have voted for their own motion, which would have put sensitive information into the public domain? I really doubt it. I think better of them than that.
Wendy Morton
I think our motion was and is very clear, and we know how evidence and information are brought forward when it comes to the ISC. My question was very clear: would the hon. Gentleman have voted with us on the motion, or against it?
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
We have heard some very powerful speeches in this debate. It is a credit to this House that we are discussing this issue and the appalling behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein in a way that is not happening in Washington. However, what we have heard in the last few days has been truly shocking. There have been the photos, the emails, and the revelations of the very close nature of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which raise questions of potential criminality, and even treason.
The House is asking how it was that somebody who was already established, who had already had to resign twice from Government in disgrace, who was the subject of questions about his performance in the European Commission, and who was known to have maintained a very close friendship with a convicted paedophile, ever came to be regarded as an appropriate appointee to the position of ambassador in Washington. That was the critical issue that the Foreign Affairs Committee was anxious to examine. We repeatedly asked that Peter Mandelson come before the Committee; he did not. We were told eventually that we had had an opportunity to speak to him briefly over breakfast when we were in Washington, and that was sufficient. It was not sufficient. We were not able to ask him any of our questions.
We did subsequently have the opportunity to ask those questions of the Cabinet Secretary and the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office. The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), has already set out some of the issues that were raised, but I think it is worth repeating that we were told that Lord Mandelson’s appointment process had three stages. On the first stage, because this was a political appointment at the direct instruction of the Prime Minister, there was no interview panel, and there was not the “fireside chat” that would normally take place between an appointing Minister and a candidate. Instead, the Foreign Office was told that this was the wish of the Prime Minister, and Lord Mandelson was asked to fill in a conflict of interest form, so that there could be an understanding of private interests that “might” conflict with his position.
Jerome Mayhew
The Prime Minister made a huge deal about the process that had been gone through when he answered questions from the Leader of the Opposition earlier today. If I understand it correctly, the process was that the Prime Minister wanted Peter Mandelson.
Sir John Whittingdale
That was made absolutely clear right from the start. Indeed, the permanent under-secretary described this as a political appointment, which was made on the direct instruction of the Prime Minister.
I want to go through the three stages. The first stage was the conflicts of interest form. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said, this essentially consisted of Peter Mandelson being asked to fill in a form and to choose what to put on it, and there was no subsequent questioning about anything that did not appear on his form. Of course, we have not seen the form. I believe that as part of the motion, which we are likely to pass today, that form should now be made public.
Given the potential conflict of interest, I raised with the permanent under-secretary the question of Lord Mandelson’s continuing shareholding in Global Counsel. The permanent under-secretary replied:
“This was honestly the hardest bit of this bit of the process for both of us. Lord Mandelson was a founder of the company…While he was confident that he could conduct his role as ambassador without giving rise to a conflict, we wanted to make sure we managed and mitigated that possibility in some particular ways.”
The conclusion was not that Lord Mandelson should dispose of his shareholding. Instead, some Chinese walls were put in place to ensure that he was not aware of who the clients of Global Counsel were, or of the work being undertaken. I listened with concern to what my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said about the meeting that took place with Palantir. That raises real questions about the effectiveness of the so-called undertakings that were put in place by the Foreign Office, and we need to understand that.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I rise with incredulity, having learned that there was not a requirement to dispose of the interest. I recall going through ethics and propriety when being made a Minister, and I was told that it would be entirely inappropriate to hold things. I know of colleagues who had to dispose of their interests. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the noble Baroness Gray had still been running propriety and ethics, something like this would not have happened?
Sir John Whittingdale
I completely share the view of my right hon. Friend. Like her, I went through a process in which I was required to get rid of shareholding interests, which were rather smaller than those held by Lord Mandelson. This is just one of a huge range of questions to which we need to know the answers.
Alicia Kearns
Another appointment that we have had is that of the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, who some might argue is the de facto Foreign Secretary. Given that he is running around having secret meetings with Wang Yi and other Chinese senior officials, how can we have confidence that he went through the appropriate vetting, when we cannot have confidence that it was done for our ambassador to America?
Sir John Whittingdale
Once we get the revelations from the documents as to precisely what occurred in the case of Lord Mandelson, that is bound to raise questions about what procedures were followed in the case of other appointees, particularly Jonathan Powell, who in many ways is the Foreign Secretary of this country.
We were told that the second stage of the process was the “due diligence” carried out by the Cabinet Office. The due diligence consisted of “identification of information” and judgment about it. However, all the information that was obtained in the due diligence was actually in the public domain already. No additional investigation took place; it was simply, essentially, an internet trawl. That due diligence report was presented to the Cabinet Secretary for onward transmission to the Prime Minister. However, due diligence through an internet trawl, even at that time, would already have shown up the fact that Peter Mandelson had stayed in the townhouse belonging to Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction, so the continuing association after his conviction had already been reported in the press and was therefore bound to form part of the due diligence process.
The question that has been raised several times in this debate already is this: when the appointment was made, did the Prime Minister know? We understand that, potentially, he did, which I assume was contained in the due diligence report. That was put directly to the Cabinet Secretary:
“did you tell the Prime Minister about Mandelson staying in the Manhattan townhouse when Epstein was in jail?”
All that the Cabinet Secretary said to us was:
“I will consider whether there is further information that can be shared and write to the Committee.”
We have never had a full answer to that question.
The third part of the process was the developed vetting, which we are told is a usual process for very senior appointments. We are told that it consists of a wide range of different investigations into staff files, company records checks, spent and unspent criminal records, credit history, a check of security service records, and an interview—not just of the candidate, but of the referees supplied—by a trained investigating officer. We will need to see the outcome of that report, even if it can only be provided, as the Government have now conceded, to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
With those three processes, the Prime Minister still decided that there was no obstacle to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. We then come to the question put to him at Prime Minister’s questions following the Bloomberg report of the large number of emails. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office learnt of those emails the night before Prime Minister’s questions. I pressed the permanent under-secretary on whether No. 10 had been told that the emails contained material evidence that could potentially change the whole perception of Lord Mandelson’s relationship. He said that he had a “duty of care” to Lord Mandelson and therefore needed to make checks. He essentially told us that No. 10 had not been informed. I find that very hard to believe. As somebody who used to prepare a Prime Minister for answering questions, I find the idea that the Prime Minister was not told something of that order absolutely extraordinary.
There is another question that needs to be asked. The British Government say that they discovered all the emails that proved the relationship was of very long standing and much closer than had ever been admitted by Lord Mandelson, because Bloomberg obtained copies in a leak. They were held by the US Government in the Department of Justice for months. The US Government knew all about them, but we are told it was only when Bloomberg obtained them that the British Government found out.
Dr Luke Evans
Does my right hon. Friend believe it is conceivable that the Government did not ask, “Is there any kompromat on the British ambassador to the US?” The idea seems incredulous. As he rightly points out, this has been known about for years.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are two possible questions. First, why did the British Government never ask the US Government, who they knew had all this material from Jeffrey Epstein, whether it contained any additional information that might be relevant to the appointment of Peter Mandelson? Equally, we are told that our relationship with the US is so close that we share intelligence. Is it really the case that they did not feel it necessary to tell us? Either way, it is an appalling breakdown of communication, and I have to say that I find it very difficult to believe.
These are all questions on which we pressed the permanent under-secretary and the Cabinet Secretary, and on which we failed to obtain any answers. I have to say that my confidence in a further investigation by the Cabinet Secretary is influenced by his failure to answer any of those questions when he came before the Foreign Affairs Committee the first time.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
As I am sure my right hon. Friend remembers, once the Bloomberg leak had happened, many of us said to the Government that now that those things had turned out to be true, we should turn Lord Peter Mandelson inside out as if he had been outed as a spy; surely, had the Government done so, the things that were released over the weekend would have come out. Is he surprised, as I am, that the Government did not seem to do an investigation into Peter Mandelson subsequent to him being fired?
Sir John Whittingdale
I completely share my hon. Friend’s astonishment. As further revelations come out about the behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein, particularly in relation to his links with Russia and other hostile powerhouses, one would have thought that the Government would say, “Please, if there is anything involving Peter Mandelson, we wish to know about it.” The potential damage to our national interest that may have occurred as a result of Lord Mandelson continuing to feed information to Jeffrey Epstein is huge. That is something that has not even begun to be properly exposed yet.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
In his interrogation of the permanent under-secretary of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Cabinet Secretary, was my right hon. Friend able to shed any light on another part of our motion as to whether severance payments were paid to Lord Mandelson and, if so, how much they were? If payments were made, we should be seeking to get them back for the taxpayer.
Sir John Whittingdale
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and actually he anticipates my next point. I asked the permanent under-secretary whether or not Lord Mandelson was still on the civil service payroll and was told that he was not. When I asked whether a settlement or payment had been made, I was told that he had resigned but that his contract would be honoured; when I asked whether that included a payment, I was told that was a confidential matter between Lord Mandelson and the civil service. I will read the direct quote, because the exact wording is worth quoting again. I said:
“So the Foreign Office is not going to give any information as to whether payment was made to him”.
The permanent under-secretary replied:
“Any implications of his termination will be reported in our annual report and accounts, but termination payments below a particular threshold, which I think is £300,000, do not get itemised”—
I think the quick answer is no. However, I hope that is also something the Government have indicated will now be made public.
Jerome Mayhew
I was just thinking about the response that my right hon. Friend got from the permanent under- secretary. Does he think that was a permanent under-secretary trying to be helpful to the Committee, or was it him obfuscating and telling elected Members of Parliament to get their noses out of his business?
Sir John Whittingdale
I have to say to my hon. Friend that I regarded the whole session as a sort of masterpiece in Sir Humphrey-speak—an awful lot of words that conveyed very little substance.
I absolutely understand the necessity of not revealing information that may be damaging to national security. However, as one or two Members have already said, transparency is really important here, and I therefore hope that the Government will make public as much as possible. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I will certainly be pressing the Committee to look at all the information that is published and to follow up on the rather unsatisfactory session that we have already had.
I will conclude with my overall impression, having looked at this process in some depth. It was clear that the Prime Minister wanted Peter Mandelson to be our ambassador to the United States. The Foreign Office had to go through the usual procedures—we heard about the three parts of the process—but I believe that the clear message that was sent to the Foreign Office was: “Go through your motions, but make sure that it ends up with his approval being granted.” The overriding impression is that, to some extent, boxes were ticked, but the Foreign Office was told very clearly that Mandelson was to be the next ambassador, and that was a direct instruction from the Prime Minister.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
Let me start by putting on record my horror at the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, as so many hon. Members have done today. This man was a paedophile and a perpetrator of evil acts. The pain of the victims and their families is unimaginable. I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for her incredibly brave and powerful speech. My words cannot match hers, and I urge all colleagues who were not in the Chamber to take a look at that speech.
It is clear that the House is united in disdain for the actions of Lord Mandelson. It was always my intention to speak briefly this afternoon, and it was always my intention to talk about this as being an opportunity for the House to come together. It is unmistakeably the case that when we talk to our constituents, they often say, “Why don’t you talk to each other like human beings?”, “Why don’t you respect each other?”, “Why is this place so often a pantomime?” But that is not always the case, and today it absolutely has not been the case. We do respect each other. I have been here for 18 months, and I have the humility to say that I have much to learn about this place. I admire many people from all parts of the House. I will call out a few of them who have made speeches this afternoon: the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare); the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry); the former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who made an important intervention that I shall come to a little later; and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who made a number of interventions.
It is not just today that we have listened to each other. Indeed, we should listen to each other. Members who know me will know that I am a passionate pro-European. I define myself as a social democrat and an internationalist. Some will cheer, but others will not. One who probably would not—he is not in his place today—is the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). There is not a huge amount on which we agree, but whenever he speaks on international affairs, I do my utmost to listen to him because of his experience in this House. Another Member who I am very surprised not to see in his place today is the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
He is in Westminster Hall.
Andrew Lewin
The only thing that matches his number of interventions in Westminster Hall is his decency as a man and a parliamentarian.
The focus today has rightly been on Mandelson. There is unity in contempt for his actions: his scandalous and brazen leaking of Government information, and the way in which he undermined the Government and his colleagues seemingly at every turn. His actions will offend every British citizen, every public servant and every Member of this House. That is why decisive action was needed, and it is why this afternoon’s debate is so important.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s proposal to allow the Intelligence and Security Committee to determine which documents are to be released. I commend the courage not only of those who made that argument earlier today, not knowing whether they would be successful, but of the Government who accepted those recommendations.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has articulated very eloquently how we have come together in this House both to roundly condemn the role that Mandelson played in the corrupt web around Jeffrey Epstein and to say together that the full facts must be laid bare. I hope that he will join me in congratulating the Government on tabling a manuscript amendment proposing independent scrutiny by the ISC, so that it will oversee the disclosure of the appropriate documents.
Andrew Lewin
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. That is why I began my remarks by saying that this has been an important day for the House. I sincerely believe that we are collectively in a much better place now than when we started the debate.
Gregory Stafford
I thank the hon. Member for the tone of his speech. I agree with him about the need to use moderate language and be representatives of our constituents, but in addition to that, we are elected to this place—I would hope—because of our judgment and the trust of our electorate. Whatever the outcome of this debate and of these documents, we already know that the public knew, the media knew and our constituents knew—we all knew, and we discovered at about 12 o’clock today that the Prime Minister also knew —that Lord Mandelson had a close personal relationship with a convicted paedophile. Does the hon. Member think that the Prime Minister can still command the trust of this House and the public?
Andrew Lewin
There are unquestionably things that we did not know. I listened incredibly carefully to the Prime Minister during PMQs today, and he was clear. He made a personal statement that he has felt lied to at every single stage of the process. The precise reason why every Member of this House wants to see every single document published that possibly can be is to get to the bottom of that, but I believe the Prime Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Lewin
I will make some progress.
All of us in this House deserve the truth. Everyone in this country deserves the truth. Most importantly of all, so does every victim. Mandelson’s time in public life was a very dark chapter. It is the duty of this House to shine a light on it and to give the public the answers that they absolutely deserve.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
This situation stinks. Peter Mandelson maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after he had been convicted. It was not before anyone knew about his grotesque crimes, not when it was being whispered about, but after his conviction, when the world knew exactly who and what Jeffrey Epstein was. Yet before Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States, senior Labour MPs—Members sitting on the Government Benches today—went on television and social media to praise him. They knew the facts, because by that point it was public knowledge that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s New York home while Epstein was serving time as a convicted paedophile.
When asked about this last September, the Prime Minister told the House he had “full confidence” in Peter Mandelson, despite knowing about his close relationship with Epstein. That’s right: the leader of the Labour party and Prime Minister had full confidence in a man who was besties with a convicted nonce. What a disgrace! What we are witnessing is not accountability but the Westminster club protecting its own.
This is not just about this Labour Government; large sections of the media also played their part. Mandelson did not simply drift back into public life. He was rehabilitated, rebranded and presented as respectable. He was welcomed on the BBC’s flagship programmes as a wise elder statesman. He was given deferential treatment by The Spectator, The Guardian and The Sunday Times. Those are the same outlets that lecture relentlessly about standards and morality when it is a trade unionist, a protestor or a working-class person who puts a foot wrong. But when it is one of their own, the tone changes. Suddenly it is about experience, pragmatism and “getting things done”. This is how power protects itself.
What about the victims—the girls and young women abused by Epstein? They received an apology from Mandelson only after sustained pressure. It was not freely given, not offered because it was the right thing to do. Until recently, he still enjoyed the zone 2 dinner party treatment, with magazine-style PR photos of Mandelson being published only this week.
Then there is the money. At least $75,000 was transferred from Epstein to Mandelson. He says that he cannot remember the transactions. If £75,000 landed in the bank account of almost anyone else in the country, they definitely would remember. To claim otherwise is contemptuous and goes to the heart of why trust in politics is collapsing. If those in power cannot remember vast sums of money flowing into their accounts, why should the public believe that they are acting in the public interest?
This only came to light because the American authorities released the Epstein files. We are told that the UK has no record of Mandelson’s emails. If those files had not been released, he would have settled back into public life, shielded by friendly journalists and wealthy backers. That is how broken our political culture has become. And now further emails have emerged, raising serious questions about whether market-sensitive information was leaked while he was at the heart of Government.
When ordinary people make mistakes, they pay the price. Nurses are disciplined, teachers are suspended and care workers lose their jobs, but if you belong to the Westminster club, you can be linked to one of the most notorious predators of our time and still reach the top.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that potentially every single working person, retired person and child in this country has paid the price for what Mandelson did? If he did indeed share information relating to the financial crash, it has cost everyone a fortune and he owes everyone in this country an apology.
Zarah Sultana
I absolutely agree. This is a systemic issue, and that is why I support the calls for an independent, judge-led public inquiry.
Yes, Peter Mandelson was eventually removed as ambassador to the US, but he remained in the House of Lords and as a Labour party member until three days ago. The Labour party cannot pretend that this was some distant mistake, quietly corrected a long time ago. This was a decision it defended until it was forced to abandon it, and he should never have been appointed in the first place. If this Labour Government believe that the appointment was proper, they should stop stonewalling and prove it by publishing all the documents: the vetting, the advice, the risk assessments, the correspondence and the contracts—including with Palantir. Instead, the Prime Minister tabled an amendment to withhold any papers deemed
“prejudicial to UK national security or international relations.”
We know that when Governments fear scrutiny, they wrap themselves up in the flag and hope that the public will look away. If there is nothing to hide, why carve out broad exemptions in advance? The Government’s last-minute manuscript amendment is a desperate attempt to control dissent on the Labour Back Benches. This is not accountability. It is not transparency. It is delay and damage control. The Government are kicking the can down the road in the hope that the outrage will fade and the questions will go away, but they will not. That is why I am supporting calls for an independent, judge-led public inquiry.
This is not just about Peter Mandelson; it is about a system that protects the powerful and disregards the public. The victims deserve better and the British public deserve better, so the Government must publish all the documents, end the corruption and the cover-up, and stop insulting the public with empty words when what we need is transparency. The Prime Minister said he had full confidence in Peter Mandelson, but the public have no confidence in the Prime Minister. He should do the honourable thing and resign.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
There is an old proverb—it might be of Russian extraction, which would be fitting enough—that says, “Tell me who your friend is, and I will tell you who you are.” Doesn’t that sum up Peter Mandelson? The friend of the child abuser. The friend of Jeffrey Epstein. He is the living personification of that proverb. He is a man apparently so corrupted in his own morals that he thinks what he did was okay, and is perhaps corrupted financially. That corruption, of course, is the product of his intoxication as a freeloader on the rich and the powerful.
Peter Mandelson has brought us to a very sorry pass indeed, but the abiding two words that will live from today relate to the Prime Minister, and they are: he knew. Those words will long outlive this debate. He knew, when he appointed Peter Mandelson, that he had that ongoing relationship with Epstein. He told us today that he did not know the depth of the relationship. Sorry, but it is not about depth. It is not a question of scale. It is a question of whether there was a relationship, and the very fact that there was should have been enough for any Prime Minister. That calls into question fundamentally the judgment of our Prime Minister. Our Prime Minister has to make fine judgments on the world stage. Day and daily, he has to make judgments that affect us all. If, on a matter as glaring as this, his judgment is patently and fatally flawed, it raises fundamental questions as to how we can trust his judgment.
Even those who knew Peter Mandelson tangentially would have had enough suspicion to question his appointment. We in Northern Ireland know something of him: he was our Secretary of State at the turn of the century for two years, until he had to resign over the passport application scandal. I then next encountered him when I was a Member of the European Parliament and he was the United Kingdom’s Trade Commissioner in the European Commission from 2004 to 2008. That was not uncontroversial. In 2006, I well remember in the European Parliament the controversy about the fact that he had been holidaying on a yacht with an Italian tycoon whose business had benefited from his imposition of EU anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese shoes. There he was, months later, on the businessman’s yacht. Two years later, he was on another yacht—must be something about yachts—in Corfu with an Russian oligarch. Mr Mandelson as Trade Commissioner had just cut the EU import tariffs on aluminium, benefiting the oligarch’s company Rusal, which was in the aluminium business.
Simon Hoare
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there may be some considerable merit in both the European Commission and the European Parliament looking over their paperwork to see precisely where these things link up and whether Peter Mandelson breached rules when he was serving as Commissioner?
Jim Allister
That was the point I was coming to.
Sadly, the European Union being the European Union, it had no great interest in investigating those matters; they were rather swept under the carpet. I say to the Government that Peter Mandelson was there as the United Kingdom’s Commissioner to the European Commission, and that gives status and opportunity to venture into inquiries about those matters. Then, of course, he came back to be sacked, again.
All of that is largely in the public domain, and that is before we come to Epstein. Equally in the public domain at the point of appointment was the knowledge that Mandelson had an ongoing relationship with a man whose release from prison for child abuse he described as his “liberation”. Our Prime Minister decided that he was a suitable person to be our ambassador in probably the most important capital in the world, in Washington. That was a fatal flaw of judgment by the Prime Minister. I fear that it will be the hallmark of much of his premiership that he made a decision such as that and then came to this House in September, when things began to leak out, and expressed his confidence in Mandelson. There was flawed judgment not only in appointing Mandelson, but in continuing to express confidence in him. The Prime Minister has finally run out of road on this issue, but left hanging around his neck is the fatal misstep of appointing Mandelson—a fatal flaw of judgment. It raises a fundamental point about the credibility of this Prime Minister. That will be the abiding legacy of this situation.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
“Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” That is a slightly obscure quote from a Trojan priest—the one who spotted the danger. Many Members will know the wider story of the Trojan horse. The moral of that story is that warnings were there but were ignored. That is fundamental to what we are seeing today. Troy did not fall because there were no warnings; it fell because they were dismissed, sent away, ignored. That led to catastrophe.
Let us apply that to our Prime Minister. He appointed as ambassador a man known for decades as “the dark knight” for operating behind the scenes. That was his reputation—and not only on that basis. He was sacked not once but twice from Cabinet roles. Every instinct in me says that no other Member of Parliament, on whatever side of the House, would think him a suitable candidate to be this great nation’s ambassador to one of our greatest allies.
We have heard that we cannot have more information because of national security concerns, but we Conservatives are not asking to see the blueprints of the horse, or the blueprints of the walls of Troy; we are simply asking whether the Prime Minister was warned before he wheeled into Government the Trojan horse that was Mandelson. Did he receive any information? Did he know anything? I was thinking about that this morning, until I heard the Prime Minister speak at Prime Minister’s questions. As was rightly pointed out in the speech before mine, he did know. This is not analogue or digital; he knew that there were concerns but he made the appointment. This is not about the intelligence but about judgment. We want to understand whether advice was given and whether it was followed. It is not about how that advice was written, but simply whether it was acknowledged, passed on and ignored.
What has not been mentioned is that we have been over this once before. Just before Christmas, we had a debate under Standing Order No. 24. At the time, I asked why the Prime Minister had not come to the House. By his own admission, he makes the decisions, so he must have all the answers. When he came into government, he said at the door of No. 10 that he wanted to do things differently. All he has proved is that he cannot show leadership by coming to answer the questions put to him.
Yet again, we are spending parliamentary time debating whether information will be released, when the Prime Minister knows that information. In the five hours that we will have spent debating this motion, he could have answered our questions and set this right. Instead, he is not here. Members might say that convention shows no other Prime Minister has done that. Well, some of them did, but, more importantly, this Prime Minister said that he was going to be different; he told us that he wanted to see change.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I found it shocking today when the Prime Minister openly admitted that he knew that Mandelson had an ongoing relationship with a convicted paedophile when he appointed him. Regardless of anything else we discuss today, that goes against any value that I stand for in my life and that my constituents would stand for. Does my hon. Friend believe that it is untenable for the Prime Minister to stay in his position?
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Troy fell because leaders ignored the advice given when the horse was at the gate, and Prime Ministers fall for the same reason. The Prime Minister is either saying that his judgment was so catastrophic that he did not see what all of us have seen instinctively or that he chose to ignore the information. Whichever the outcome, that is the problem that faces us today.
It is customary in these kinds of debates for a speaker to pose questions to the ministerial team. I will not do that; instead, my question is to the people sitting behind them on the Government Back Benches. Why are we having a Humble Address? This is the very opportunity—the literal reason for them—for Humble Addresses. They exist in moments such as this one, when there is stalling in scrutiny, when we cannot get the answers that this House demands and when there is obfuscation and no way forward. Today, we ask the Monarch to compel the Government to give out that information. That is important not only for party politics but for both sides of this House and the wider country. The motion does not ask those on the Government Benches to condemn but simply to clarify. We need to know who said what, when and why, who knew what, and with whom and what were the discussions. I think that can be supported on all sides of the House. Clarity is what the Humble Address strives for.
Back Benchers are not being asked to defend or attack the appointment; they are simply being asked to step forward and vote for a motion that means all of us, here in this House and across the country, get to understand why the Prime Minister made his decision. If he will not come to the Dispatch Box and answer the questions about that, maybe the documentation that he saw and signed off will show the answers. I ask Members on the Government Benches to support this motion, to stand up for that simple transparency and to let us have some clarity on what has happened and what will happen going forward.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who participates a lot more frequently than I do in Opposition day debates. On the basis of the quality of the debate today, I should come along more often.
The immediate background to this issue is the ghastly behaviour of Epstein, the sexual abuse, the child trafficking and all that goes with it. I asked the question the other day as to whether that sexual trafficking might involve not just women and girls but young men. That is unresolved at the moment, but perhaps we will find out more in due course.
I wish to focus my remarks on the period going back to 1997—I know that is long before you were able to recall much about politics, Madam Deputy Speaker. That was when Mandelson was first appointed by Tony Blair as the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the millennium dome. The reason I recall all that is because there was a time when I was the shadow Minister for the millennium dome and also, for that matter, for the millennium bug.
I recall well the way in which Mandelson enjoyed the opportunity to promote the grandiose new Labour scheme of the dome, which was to be the fourth largest enclosed space in the world. In the end, it cost £750 million and the number of visitors who attended the dome in 2000 was half what had been estimated. Mandelson was really proud of this, because it had a link with his grandfather, who must be turning in his grave. Herbert Morrison was a great public servant, and his grandson has betrayed public service in an enormous way.
Herbert Morrison was involved with the Festival of Britain, and Mandelson thought that by being responsible for and promoting the millennium dome, he would in a sense emulate the great efforts of his grandfather. The project proceeded, and it was costing an enormous amount more than had been forecast by the Treasury or expected. Mandelson was in the business of looking for sponsorship for the dome, and he used agents, particularly Keith Vaz, who used to be a Member of this House but left in disgrace, and the Hindujas, to get some extra income for his dome project.
The Hindujas offered £1 million for a faith centre inside the dome, but that did not happen by chance; it was linked to the fact that back in 1990, the Hinduja brothers had applied for British citizenship and been rejected. In 1998, under the New Labour Government, they saw an opportunity to rectify that and get their citizenship. What did they do? They engaged Keith Vaz. Through him, there was a relationship with Mandelson, and the £1 million towards the dome was forthcoming. In return, there was an acceleration of the passport application by Srichand Hinduja. He applied in the middle of ’98, his application was granted in January 1999, and his brothers’ passports arrived not long after that. There was an enormous amount of suspicion around that, and I remember, as shadow Minister for the dome, getting a good story on the front page of The Sunday Times, linking Hinduja with Mandelson and the money for the dome. I went off thinking I would be able to do the usual rounds, but the whole story was closed down by Alastair Campbell and Mandelson, who said it was a whole load of rot and that there was no truth in it whatsoever.
At the time, Mandelson denied that he had any dealings with the Home Office on behalf of the Hindujas, but subsequently, there seemed to be evidence that there had been dealings. We should bear this in mind: an inquiry was set up into whether there had been dealings between the Secretary of State and the Hindujas. Sir Anthony Hammond, a distinguished retired civil servant—I think he had been in charge of the Home Office and had been Treasury Solicitor—was asked to produce a report, which he did in 2001. That report totally exculpated Mr Vaz and Mandelson.
A few weeks after that complete exoneration, more papers were discovered, amazingly. The inquiry by Sir Anthony Hammond was reopened, which was quite an unusual event. On looking at the extra papers that had been hidden away, he discovered that there had in fact been dealings between Mandelson and Michael O’Brien, a very distinguished and honourable Labour Member who served at the time in the Home Office. Mandelson consistently lied, covered up, and behaved in a way that is totally unacceptable, and that was all that time ago in 2002, when Sir Anthony Hammond’s revised report was produced.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The hon. Member is giving a historical perspective, which I am sure we all appreciate. It seems that Mr Mandelson is a serial liar. Does the hon. Member agree that the Prime Minister said this morning that Mr Mandelson lied, lied and lied to him? Who in this House has never been lied to?
Sir Christopher Chope
I do not know how much credibility the hon. Gentleman has given to people whom he knows to be serial liars in his professional life. That is the issue. If the Prime Minister was on an interview panel—in a sense, he was; he was interviewing his close friend for a job—he must have known that he was talking to a serial liar.
Dr Mullan
We know that there is one thing that Mandelson did not lie about, because the Prime Minister knew it and said so today: that he continued his contact with Jeffrey Epstein after he was convicted as a paedophile. There were no lies in that, and the Prime Minister admitted that he knew it. Defend that!
Sir Christopher Chope
My hon. Friend makes a point that is typically made in court. When the defendant is found to be lying, one addresses the jury and says, “He has lied about that, members of the jury. How can you trust him to tell the truth about the charge that he is facing?” In public office, serial liars should not be tolerated.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Perhaps I can rephrase the question asked by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). How was the Prime Minister to know that the famous serial liar Peter Mandelson would lie to him?
Sir Christopher Chope
If the Prime Minister was here, I am sure that he would be able to answer that question. What has always amazed me—and a lot of others, I am sure—is how Mandelson has risen again from the ashes after each disgrace.
Dr Evans
Can my hon. Friend tell us what we can learn about the documentation, and how the investigation was run back then? As he pointed out, Mandelson was exonerated, yet other papers were found, and suddenly he was guilty. It would be helpful to understand what needs to be done to ensure that we have the right information, as we need to make inferences and decisions about what was going on.
Sir Christopher Chope
I was going to conclude by saying that I go along with those people who have called for a public inquiry, because it would be able to require the production of the documents. We know from the experience of Sir Anthony Hammond that a non-judicially led public inquiry cannot necessarily get access to all the documents needed. We do not want some whitewash inquiry by the Cabinet Office, and then to find out a couple of years later that it did not have all the documents in front of it. That is the argument in favour of having a public inquiry.
How is it that this Teflon-coated Mandelson has been able to hold high office in the Labour party for all these years? One of the most important speeches today was given by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). He and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) know what it is like to be on the receiving end of the Stasi—in this case, the New Labour Stasi. The only explanation for Mandelson continuing to be reinstated after all this bad behaviour is that he was seen as a key party member, and an enforcer of the New Labour Stasi. He was plausible and well connected, and knew how to ingratiate himself with the rich and powerful.
Sir Julian Lewis
Mandelson was not just a key member of New Labour; he was its inventor. He was the man who replaced the Labour flag’s implements of horny-handed toil with the red rose—the brander par excellence. I think people were also afraid of him; I am not the first person to describe this as the “Scandalson” story, and I am sure I will not be the last.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am sorry; I understated the proposition, and my right hon. Friend is quite right to correct me. If we had a public inquiry, we could extend its terms of references to Mandelson’s influence on the internal politics of the Labour party over the last 30 years. Would that not be interesting?
Stuart Anderson
My hon. Friend is making a great speech about Mandelson’s influence in the Labour party. It is reported that he was involved in the selection of up to 25% of its candidates. Does my hon. Friend think that the documents in question should be made available to anyone who needs help looking into his influence on the Labour party? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am having difficulty hearing the debate.
Sir Christopher Chope
What you were hearing, Madam Deputy Speaker, was incredulity being expressed by my hon. Friends at the revelation that so discredited a man had such an influence over the choice of candidates, many of whom were successfully elected at the last general election. I do not how those Members will vote this evening. It is extraordinary that Mandelson has had this enduring influence over politics in this country for such a long time, and we needed documents to be produced in the United States to get somewhere near the truth.
Graham Stuart
The Government tried to stop the full disclosure of documents today. It was primarily Government Members who identified that and said that they would not put up with it, so it is thanks to them that a manuscript amendment has been tabled. However, there may still be a misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) said that the ISC would vet documents before they were released, but that is not my understanding. The Committee will get to see them, however inappropriate it is for them to be published to the whole House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ministers must set out the principle that not only should documents be referred to the ISC, but should be released, if the ISC agrees that they are not injurious to our security and should be made public?
Sir Christopher Chope
Absolutely. We have to erode this cancer that is affecting our public life and the esteem in which public servants are held. When the public see what has happened over this period in the Mandelson case, they must be horrified.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I am a from the 2024 intake, and I am very grateful that I have never had to meet the cretin that is Peter Mandelson. I want to be clear that, party politics aside—or not, actually—I did not join the Labour party because I hold anyone who has led or influenced the party in high esteem. I joined the Labour party for two very important reasons: the welfare state, which is one of the most important things that this country has ever done, and the national health service.
It is dangerous when we hold someone in such high esteem, and when we give so much power to so few people, that things like this are allowed to happen. Let me be very clear: my faith in the Labour party to deliver for the people of this country continues. As for my faith in people like Peter Mandelson, I am very grateful that he is no longer a member of this party.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I am certainly not going to make any accusations about her owing anything to Peter Mandelson’s patronage. From what she says, it seems that she is going to join those of us in this House who are independently minded and express our views in a straightforward manner, but it is obvious that a lot of Labour Members who were elected in 2024 were chosen by panels that included Mandelson. This is not exclusively a problem for the Labour party; we must recognise that in our democracy the people who choose the candidates have enormous power, and if those people are corrupt—as has now been established was the case with Mandelson—that places in grave doubt the credibility of our democratic institutions.
Paul Holmes
According to reports, it is worse than that: Peter Mandelson had his fingertips throughout the whole of the Labour party, but also the Government. There are reports that after the Prime Minister had realised he had had a continuing relationship with Epstein, Mandelson was in No. 10 during the Cabinet reshuffle of 5 September, so he had a direct role in appointing half the Cabinet, has he not?
Sir Christopher Chope
These revelations keep coming, yet answers come there none. I hope that in due course we can pursue these points further with the Prime Minister when he next appears in the House.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
When we talk about the appointment of Mandelson, what we are really talking about is the judgment of the Prime Minister. Mandelson is now a key part of the Starmer Government —appointments, what goes on, the key people—which brings into question every judgment made by this Prime Minister, from Chagos and China to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I would say that today is the crumbling of Starmer. His judgment is poor, and it is ruining this country and the Labour party.
Sir Christopher Chope
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Judgment, discretion and the way that we behave are fundamental; they are part of our character, and we know that character is set quite early in life. Certainly, we can see that Mandelson’s character has not changed in all the time he has been involved in public life and so-called public service.
It is only because of what has been revealed in the United States that we are now in a position to know that Mandelson—he is no longer Lord Mandelson or the right hon. Lord Mandelson—
Graham Stuart
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should find out—if he does not already know—whether Mandelson was in No. 10 at the time of the last Government reshuffle? Was he involved in the appointment of Ministers on the Treasury Bench? If the Minister can tell us categorically that he was not, that will be a relief to this House.
Sir Christopher Chope
And if the Government cannot give a straight answer to my right hon. Friend’s question, that is another reason why we need a public inquiry.
Dr Mullan
My hon. Friend mentioned the revelations that are coming out of the emails. The point I made earlier—it is also very important that the Minister responds to this—is that the Government could have asked the US Department of Justice, “Is there anything in the emails relating to Mandelson that has not been released and could affect our decision to appoint him?” Nothing was stopping them from asking the DOJ that question, and it is vital that we know whether they did or not.
Sir Christopher Chope
That is another very good point. I am sure that it has been picked up by Members on the Treasury Bench, and they will respond accordingly. In a sense, we have to thank our mercies that Mandelson has finally been exposed—and not just that exposure outside George Osborne’s house.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
I very much enjoyed the history lesson about a man who has a history of misfeasance in public office. I have spoken in this House about my surprise at his appointment as ambassador to the US, which is an incredibly important relationship for this country. Listening to the debate makes me reflect on the importance of parts of our constitution that give us freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Those are two incredibly important things, and I think we all owe a great vote of thanks and gratitude to Elon Musk and to X. He has played his part in exposing a great deal of this evil.
Sir Christopher Chope
My hon. Friend makes his point in his own way. I just draw attention to the fact that “Freedom 250” is how the United States is describing the celebrations for the 250th anniversary of independence. The point he makes about freedom resonates well on both sides of the Atlantic, and we must never forget that. Our representative in the United States during that historic year could have been none other than Mandelson. We must thank everybody who has been involved in trying to bring to light these revelations, which have shamed the Prime Minister. In the end, I think the Prime Minister was shamed into sacking Mandelson, rather than exercising his own judgment.
Sir Julian Lewis
Does my hon. Friend, who is very experienced, believe that one of the lessons of inherent necessity for political survival is the ability to learn from mistakes? Therefore, given that a new ambassador will take Mandelson’s place—I do not think a permanent appointment has yet been made—does he think the Prime Minister will have enough good sense and wit to appoint a diplomatic professional to the role, or will it be another ill-starred flunky whom he favours for political and personal reasons?
Sir Christopher Chope
Actually, I think the appointment has been made. I have met the gentleman concerned, who is an esteemed member of the diplomatic corps. He was present at Mr Speaker’s dinner in honour of the Speaker of the House of Representatives two or three weeks ago. We are in safer, more secure hands.
Dr Luke Evans
We have heard during the course of this debate that a manuscript amendment to amendment (a) will be moved, stating:
“which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament”.
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that all the information we are requesting will, under that amendment, go to the ISC? We have not as yet heard from the Government what will happen with that information, where the reports will come and what will be done. We have not heard the judgment about whether an embarrassment for a Labour Government is different from national security and international relations. Does he share my concern that, unless the Government set out what that framework will look like, it will be hard to vote for their amendment, given the risk of losing that transparency?
Sir Christopher Chope
I am not going to suggest that we do not vote in support of our own motion. We know from the course of this debate that a lot more questions are being raised. In due course, with the forensic leadership shown by the Leader of the Opposition, I think we will be able to get to the bottom of these issues and get the answers we deserve. In the meantime, it is frustrating for people.
I will finish with this final note. I did not go to Oxford, but we should show solidarity with the people of Oxford University, who had the wisdom not to elect Mandelson as their chancellor.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend, although I have to say that was one of his shortest speeches. We come here for a serious matter of the utmost gravity. I have heard a number of good speeches from all parts of the House, including Members on the Government Benches. I commend all those Members who have stood up and said that they are not happy with the Government’s position. That is not an easy thing to do. I am pleased that there is now a manuscript amendment that will force the Government’s hand and ensure that the ISC has a pivotal and critical role.
A number of observations have been made today, some of which I agreed with and some of which I did not. I did agree with a great many of them, but a couple of Members said that the Government had demonstrated leadership in getting to this point. They did not demonstrate leadership. They got here because they were dragged here; they got here because there had been a dump of documents by the Department of Justice, the Leader of the Opposition tabled a motion that forced their hand, and they finally had to confront the fact that Peter Mandelson had a relationship with Epstein for much longer than many of us knew—although certainly the Prime Minister knew, as we found out earlier today. The idea that the Government have demonstrated leadership is for the birds.
I have heard Members on both sides of the House talk about the victims of Epstein, but I say to Labour Members that those are just words if they are not followed up with action. Although the ISC amendment is important, it is not the end of the journey. For months the Conservatives have been pushing for clarity so that we can discover the truth about what was going on with Lord Mandelson’s appointment. This goes to the heart of our politics. What did we find out today when the Leader of the Opposition challenged the Prime Minister? He had run out of road and finally had to come clean about the fact that he knew about this relationship. As for the idea that we need to know the depth of the relationship, let me ask Labour Members this: how deep does a relationship with a paedophile need to be before it becomes eligible for declaration?
Saqib Bhatti
I agree with my hon. Friend. We were sitting together earlier in the debate and reflecting on some of the speeches. I think it was the Health Secretary who talked about the “toxic culture” at No. 10. The amendment was a demonstration of that toxic culture. It was not tabled for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein; it was tabled to protect the Prime Minister.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that focusing on the angle of what Mandelson did as a Minister in releasing secrets and trying to make money from them is still deflecting from the fact that it was felt to be “worth the risk” to send to America as our ambassador a man who was associating with a convicted and, at that time, released paedophile?
Saqib Bhatti
We should all share anger about that, because it speaks to a rot that, as we are finding out, has infected our politics and Government—Labour Government—in this country for decades. I understand that people make mistakes, in all parts of the House, but this is of such gravity that it speaks to a corruption that we need to get to the heart of. What my right hon. Friend has just said is extremely important, because this is one issue involving corruption, but we cannot get away from the fact that Mandelson had a role at every echelon of the Labour party’s journey—whether it was new Labour before we came to power in 2010 or the “new new Labour” that is now in charge; whether it was helping in the selection of candidates, or—Members are shaking their heads. I am more than happy to take an intervention.
Johanna Baxter
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, because I would not want any Member of this House to inadvertently besmirch any other Member through misleading information. I served on Labour’s national executive committee for 10 years before entering this place, and Peter Mandelson had no role whatsoever in the selection of Labour candidates during that time. I make that point so that Members are aware of exactly what they are talking about.
Saqib Bhatti
I am glad to say that I did not mention any single Member of the House, so I am happy that the hon. Lady has put that on that record, but I do not trust Mandelson—[Interruption.] I am responding to the hon. Lady’s intervention. I do not trust Mandelson following what he has done, and I do not know how far his reach was in this Government or in that party. I do not trust him because we know he had a very close relationship—
Saqib Bhatti
The hon. Member can shake her head all she wants; we know that Mandelson had a close relationship with Morgan McSweeney, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. The Labour party has not even started to address that point about the chief of staff. I hope the hon. Lady is right, by the way, but if she is not and documents do come to the fore, I am sure we will come back to this House to scrutinise which Members he had a hand in appointing.
Stuart Anderson
On that point, it is being reported in the mainstream media that Mandelson had a hand in recruiting candidates for the Labour party. The mainstream media are reporting that; they will have evidence to back that up, so there will be candidate selections that he had a hand in. It is also rumoured that he has been involved in Cabinet reshuffles, so he has had a far greater reach than probably most of you realise, and any defence of that now is indefensible.
Saqib Bhatti
I could not have said it better myself—although I might not have used the word “you”. It is important to recognise the reach that Mandelson had, how he was enabled, and the fact that, at every step of the way, there was no regard for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. That is a really important point, because there has been a lot of obfuscation today. We have had to drag the Government into tabling the new amendment so that they will now release the documents to the ISC.
Hon. Friends have made important points about the role of the ISC. I say again that this is not the end of the journey; Labour Members have a role to play in doing right by the victims. What we know is that Mandelson was an enabler, so anyone who has enabled Mandelson needs to take a long, hard look at themselves.
Dr Luke Evans
Is the wider point not that, if the Prime Minister had been duped, he would have released the papers back in September when we had the Standing Order No. 24 debate or put them out there now, rather than leaving it until this debate forced his hand? The only reason some papers are being released is that his hand has been forced by the Leader of the Opposition. Does my hon. Friend not think that is bizarre?
Saqib Bhatti
Well, it is not bizarre, because we have been here many times before. The Government have been dragged along time after time, scandal after scandal. I say to Government Back Benchers: this is a Prime Minister who is flailing. He has admitted, after months and months of pushing, that he knew—he knew about the relationship that Mandelson had with Epstein, and yet he thought it was a risk worth taking anyway.
I made this point earlier, but that “risk” was not just in denigrating the experience of the victims; it was in marching all those Labour Members up the hill and risking their careers. We are Members of Parliament; it is okay that we care about our careers, wherever they may end up, but the truth is that the Prime Minister did not care about them. That journey is not over yet, because he is going to use those people over and over again; he will throw other people under the bus before he throws his chief of staff under the bus—but that will happen too, I can almost guarantee it.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
Does my hon. Friend think that we will now start to understand how Mandelson had such a level of influence that, having had to resign from Government for not declaring six-figure-sum loans, having had to resign from Government for trying to flog passports, and having gone off to the EU and faced all the allegations about that, he was brought back into Government and put into the House of Lords? There must have been something that made people think it was a good idea to bring him back again and again and again.
Saqib Bhatti
My right hon. Friend’s exasperation is exactly the exasperation that the British public will be feeling as they read the headlines. That is how they have felt as the stories have unfolded over the last few days and months.
This speaks to a fundamental point: the toxicity at No. 10. The rot starts at the top. Labour Members have the authority and the power to do something about this. The relationship that Mandelson was obvious to all of us. It was obvious to us when the Prime Minister appointed him to one of the most important positions in our country—and to a position in one of the most important capitals in the world—but the Prime Minister did it anyway, because he thought it was a risk worth taking.
Paul Holmes
In response to the intervention from my right hon. Friend Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), there is a key difference between this Prime Minister and former Labour Prime Ministers, in that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair appointed Peter Mandelson without knowing some of the connections that he had. The key difference is that this Prime Minister knew and still did it. There is still a Labour Prime Minister with integrity, and that is Gordon Brown, who actually took things to the police. This Prime Minister did no such thing.
Saqib Bhatti
My hon. Friend always makes excellent points. I was going to talk about Gordon Brown later, but I will do so now. He raised the question back in September. He wanted to know what had gone on, and he was batted away. Has the Minister asked the Cabinet Secretary why the former Prime Minister was batted away? Did that former Prime Minister not have enough respect in No. 10 to get a legitimate answer about what went down? The public deserve to know, and this House deserves to know.
I want to make another point about integrity, which was raised by a number of Members earlier, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith). The Prime Minister, by his own admission, has called into question the integrity of every Member of this House. We all know that trust in politicians is at an all-time low—we see it on the doorstep and in our inboxes. I was at a birthday party with my four-and-a-half-year-old son at the weekend. I was chatting to some parents, and the Mandelson headlines came up. I had to say, “Look, it’s not normal for a billionaire to fly politicians out. We have a pretty strict expenses regime following the expenses scandal.” We cannot move left or right, yet the British public do not trust us, because they think that we take them for granted. I had to explain to those parents that it is not normal to be invited to islands and to have luxuries thrown at you. This was not normal behaviour, yet the Prime Minister knew about this relationship and let it happen. That is a really important point.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
As my hon. Friend says, the Prime Minister knew, but he also stood at the Dispatch Box in September and said that he had “full confidence” in Peter Mandelson—Lord Mandelson—knowing what he knew. Does my hon. Friend not find that extraordinary?
Saqib Bhatti
I find it disgusting. What Epstein did was absolutely disgusting in its own right: he trafficked, he was a child sex offender, and in many ways he was a coward in how he left this world. I wish he had faced the full force of the law. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) talked about enablers and the role that powerful men played. I say to Labour Members that they are at a crossroads. If they really care about Epstein’s victims, they need to ask how this was allowed to happen.
By the way, it is not just about Mandelson and Epstein. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) made a point about Bill Gates. I watched the video of Melinda Gates yesterday, and I was talking to my wife about how horrible it must have been to see the emails and what he was up to. My hon. Friend also mentioned Richard Branson. The reality is that there is clearly a culture of men who thought they were above the law, and the DOJ is grappling with that issue over in America.
We have talked about some very important things in today’s debate, for which I commend hon. Members, but we have to be honest about the fact that this matter came on to our shores. It is possible that there are victims whom we still do not know about, and that criminal investigations still need to happen. I need an assurance from Ministers that if that comes to the fore, the Government will act quickly to make sure that criminal investigations are started. The public require that to help us on the journey towards rebuilding trust, and we should not underestimate the need for that.
Joe Robertson
My hon. Friend is making a powerful, wide-ranging speech, and I am sure that more details will come out. Does it not come down to the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US despite knowing that he had had a long-standing friendship with a prolific convicted paedophile, to the extent that he had stayed in that paedophile’s house while he was serving prison time? That in itself is sickening and shocking. Not only should people not be defending Peter Mandelson—and they are not—but nobody should be defending the Prime Minister for his sickening conduct.
Saqib Bhatti
The Prime Minister has brought his judgment into question. The Opposition have been saying that for a couple of years—Oppositions do that—but on this issue, he has marched everyone up the hill and Ministers have gone out to defend him on this issue time and again. His position really is now untenable. I guarantee Labour Members that when they go home and talk to their constituents, they will have to answer questions about why the Prime Minister allowed this to happen.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend may have heard the powerful speech by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) earlier in the day about factionalism in the Labour party. The Prime Minister not only appointed Peter Mandelson to the post of ambassador knowing, as he declared today, what he knew, but he previously brought him in as a strategic adviser, advocate and planner in the 2024 Labour general election campaign. All Labour Members are tainted by that association with Mandelson, which was brought about by the leader of their party, now the Prime Minister, who knew about this matter at the time. That perhaps has not been picked up on as fully as it should have been in today’s debate.
Saqib Bhatti
I will leave Labour Members to reflect on that because many have spoken up today, but I say once again that they are just words if there is no action.
The judgment of the Prime Minister is deeply, deeply flawed. He alone is responsible for the culture at No. 10. I ran a business. If something was going wrong, the buck stopped with me. He alone is responsible for the culture at No. 10. It is not Morgan McSweeney. He enabled Morgan McSweeney. He needs to be held accountable for his relationship. We need to see the emails and we need to see what the conversations were—that is why this is important—but the buck stops with the Prime Minister.
Esther McVey
I am going to raise a very sensitive issue. My hon. Friend raised a point about vulnerable women being abused, about powerful men taking advantage, and about a friend who was appointed when he was known to be a friend of a convicted paedophile. We also have a Labour Government who ran away from investigating grooming gangs—again, vulnerable women being taken advantage of by powerful men. The Labour Government have said they stand up for women, women’s rights and vulnerable women. They have shown now that they do not, at any level—whether at the highest level or in respect of white working-class girls. Labour, I am afraid, has a lot of questions to answer about protecting women.
Saqib Bhatti
I will end with two responses to that intervention. First, my right hon. Friend is obviously absolutely right. I say to Labour Members, who were shaking their heads, that every decision—every decision—the Government have made is brought into question by the lack of judgment the Prime Minister has shown. I stood at the Dispatch Box and repeatedly called for a national grooming inquiry. I am a British-Pakistani Muslim male. I have two sons. I want them to grow up without aspersions being cast on them. One day, I hope to have a daughter—apologies to my wife—and I want her to grow up in a safe environment. We have to be honest and we have to be strong in making those calls. I say to the Minister, as he answers those questions, that the question about the ISC is really important. We need to know that under the amendment, it will have the full authority to deal with what comes in front of it, so that we and the public can make a judgment.
Secondly, why did Gordon Brown’s calls fall on deaf ears? Why was he not given the respect, as a former Prime Minister, of his calls being dealt with? Was Mandelson so strong that, despite his toxicity, he was protected and enabled?
Finally—I have made this point repeatedly—the judgment of the Prime Minister surely has to be in question. We will now find out what else was known. The Minister has the opportunity to share anything else that he might want to share at the Dispatch Box.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to disturb the debate in this way. I have tried to follow it as much as possible while I have been in and out of the Chamber with other duties. A manuscript amendment has been agreed, with, I take it, cross-party agreement. People will be making up their minds on how to vote on that amendment, and we therefore need clarity—those on the Front Bench could intervene now to clarify this for me. I want to get this absolutely clear. We are all going to vote for the material to be released; there is consensus on that. The difference is with regard to who interprets what is released. The manuscript amendment excepts elements of information that are prejudicial to national security and international relations,
“which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.”
I agree with that, but I would like clarity on whether the Intelligence and Security Committee will make the decision about publication, or—[Interruption.] Please listen. Will it make the decision or will it simply advise the Government and the final decision will rest with the Government? It would be helpful to have that clarified before we vote.
Sir Jeremy Wright
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I recognise that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asks in order to assist the House. If it is of assistance, the answer to his question is that when the material is referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Committee, which is independent, will act independently: it will consider the material referred to it and then decide how to respond, what to refer to publicly and what not to refer to publicly. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee will act independently in this matter, as it does in all matters.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. There are several other points of order. I am keen that we do not conduct the debate via points of order, so, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will take two further points of order and then respond to his point of order. Hopefully we might then have an answer.
Jeremy Corbyn
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following the answer we have just heard, if the Intelligence and Security Committee comes across evidence of commercial misdemeanours as well as intelligence and international relations misdemeanours, what powers does it have to do anything about that? Where will it refer those concerns and where will those inquiries lead? The issues of lobbying and potential corruption in the handing out of Government contracts are massive, and I would not want that swept under the carpet on the basis that the Committee is dealing with international relations and national security.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have heard this evening from the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who celebrated Elon Musk—rather tactlessly, I believe—in this debate. Notwithstanding the fact that like Mandelson, Musk had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and in fact was found to have been practically begging for a visit to his island, the hon. Member declined to include—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. I do not think it is appropriate during points of order specifically on the Intelligence and Security Committee to raise that matter. It is not for the Chair to rule on comments by other Members during the course of the debate.
Cameron Thomas
I am grateful to you for allowing me to continue, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth declined in his intervention to declare his interest: he is, in fact, bought and paid for by Elon Musk.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has very clearly brought into question the probity of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). He might want to withdraw that. It is of course a matter for the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth to declare that, which he could now do by putting any interest on the record.
John McDonnell
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am really grateful for the intervention from the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). I just want the assurance that the Government will not be able to exercise a veto over the information that will be provided via the Committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order. As he will know, the powers of the ISC are not a matter for the Chair. However, the Minister on the Front Bench will have heard his comments and will have every opportunity in winding up to respond to that specific point and to provide the entire House with the clarity that I believe it is looking for on that point.
Simon Hoare
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point relates to the point of order from the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), which he did not quite finish. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has in the published register of interests significant monthly payments from X Corp, headquartered in California. That surely should have been a declared interest when making the intervention.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for that point of order. He will know that declarations of interest are not a matter for the Chair. However, he might be advised to refer that to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for investigation.
Rupert Lowe
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have declared these payments in the register, and I apologise if I should have declared them to the House. They are public, they are not hidden and they have no relevance to what I discussed earlier.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman will have heard my earlier comment that it is a matter not for the Chair but for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards if he has failed to declare interests during the debate.
Paul Holmes
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Forgive me for detaining the House, but may I ask for your clarification on whether a Member saying that somebody in this House has been bought and paid for is in order?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I did ask the Member to withdraw his comments. He now has the opportunity to do so.
Cameron Thomas
Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the remark that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth was bought and paid for. I regret the tone that I used.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for putting that on the record. If there are no more points of order, I call Wendy Morton.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
At the start of this afternoon, I sat through Prime Minister’s questions and did not really have any intention of taking part in this Opposition day debate. I quite often take part in what we call Oppo day debates, but I had other commitments in the diary. [Interruption.] This is not a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was asked to speak, was I not? Officials are looking at me rather perplexed.
I had no intention of speaking in this debate. I sat through Prime Minister’s questions and listened to the Leader of the Opposition asking the Prime Minister direct questions. With each question that went by, it became clear that there were many questions that were not being answered and that the Government were attempting simply to sweep this issue to the side, and to deflect to other matters around the periphery.
First, let me come to the Humble Address. I have not been in this place as long as some of my vintage colleagues—I say that in a very kind way—but I have a few scars to bear from my time as Chief Whip. [Interruption.] I never lost a vote, mind. The reason that I make that point is that I, like others in this place, know the significance of a Humble Address. A Humble Address is not used on a normal Opposition day debate. It is not used regularly and it is not used lightly. It is used to indicate that this is a very serious matter that we have brought to this House today. Initially, there were to be two debates, but because of the demand from those on the Opposition Benches to have the issue debated and discussed, the usual channels agreed to allow the debate to take all afternoon. Most scrutiny has come from Conservative Members, but I pay tribute to those on the Government Benches who have had the decency to explain to their Front-Bench team how they feel about this important matter.
We heard earlier about the issue of national security. In opposition, when the Prime Minister was shadow Brexit Secretary back in 2018—I remember those days well—he proposed three separate Humble Addresses, and none of them included exemptions for national security. There was a suggestion that we got this wrong, but that is just not the case at all.
I am pleased that the Government have listened, yet again, to their Back Benchers and brought forward a manuscript amendment, but were it not for Members on both the Opposition and Government Benches pushing them to do so, I do not think we would be in this position now.
Joe Robertson
Is it not shocking that the Prime Minister not only appointed Peter Mandelson knowing his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, but today has sought to deflect, cover up and table an amendment so as not to have to answer questions that he must now answer?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend is just so right, and I will come to that point a little later.
The core of this debate is the fact that we want answers. There are huge questions about the judgment of the Prime Minister and his appointment of Mandelson. Members from both sides of the House have talked a lot about the victims, and it is right that they have, but if we are to stand up for the victims and for the people who put us here—we should never forget that we were sent to this place—we need to ask the questions, and we deserve the answers. Opposition Members will continue to keep asking those questions, because that is what the public and the victims deserve. They deserve transparency and accountability.
Earlier I made an intervention about the vetting process. I am not an expert on this at all, but it does seem strange to me that, arguably, Peter Mandelson did not appear to have been fully vetted—instead going through some strange checking process involving one piece of paper.
Bradley Thomas
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public are sick and tired of people who appear to fail upwards in public life, simply for the reason that they appear to move in the right circles?
Wendy Morton
Absolutely.
I will share something with the House today. I never set out to be a politician. I never in a million years expected to sit on these green Benches, but I did it to stand up for my local community, because I felt that they needed a voice. I might not get everything right—none of us do—but one thing I will do is strive to be a voice for those who put me in this place, and let us never forget that we were put here by others.
Turning back to vetting, I would like the Minister to explain to us whether Peter Mandelson went through the exact same vetting process that a normal diplomat would have gone through if they were to take up the post in Washington. The role of UK ambassador to the US is one of the most important roles in our Foreign Office.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
To my right hon. Friend’s question about vetting, can she foresee a circumstance where a professional diplomat would be given clearance if they had sold passports and taken undeclared loans?
Wendy Morton
My right hon. Friend makes a really important. This is about probity and evidence and making sure, for the reputation of this country, that we are appointing the right people. I should declare that I once was a member of the diplomatic service, and I know that the people who serve our country as diplomats are of the highest integrity, and they have my trust. When it comes to making political appointments, as today’s debate has shown, there are still questions that need to be asked.
The other thing that is rather strange is that everyone seemed to know that there were questions around Peter Mandelson. There were questions about the sort of person he was—I think he was once featured on “Spitting Image” as the Prince of Darkness—but where was the Prime Minister, and where was his judgment? Was his head stuck in the sand? We Conservative Members are aware that the Prime Minister had been glowing about the talents of Peter Mandelson. Only in February, he said at the British embassy in Washington:
“Peter is the right person to help us work with President Trump and to take the special relationship from strength to strength”.
We are aware that Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, pushed for Mandelson to become ambassador, sidelining long-serving experienced diplomats. We are aware that Keir Starmer assured MPs that “full due process” was followed—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Will the hon. Lady make sure that she refers to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister, please?
Wendy Morton
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was getting a bit carried away there.
The Prime Minister assured MPs that “full due process” was followed in his appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador. He appointed Peter Mandelson despite it already being in the public domain that Peter Mandelson had discussed issues relevant to his ministerial position with Jeffrey Epstein while Epstein was in jail. I could go on. Why did the Prime Minister choose to ignore all that, at a time when Members on both sides of the House know that the public are often scathing about politicians? They say that we are all the same, but I can assure them that we are not. They question our motives and our integrity. Some even refer to Members of this place as members of the establishment, which is something that I will always rail against. [Laughter.] No, no, I can absolutely see why they might say that. [Interruption.] Labour Members may mock, but the point is about integrity.
Saqib Bhatti
My right hon. Friend is making a serious and important point. She has talked about how she ended up in this place, and I do not think anyone should denigrate all the hard work she has done to achieve what she has.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but you just get used to that sort of thing when you have been here for a while.
We should never forget the people outside. We should never forget the Nolan principles. Conservative Members have explained the Nolan principles and their importance, which was perhaps needed by certain Labour Members. I urge the Government to do the right thing.
Harriet Cross
My right hon. Friend rightly talks about trust in politics and in politicians, but the issue is that the Prime Minister put so much blind trust in a proven liar that he was willing to forgo process and judgment when appointing him to one of the top diplomatic roles in the country. Why does my right hon. Friend think that the Prime Minister showed such a lack of judgment and such misplaced trust that it has caused this country to be a laughing stock on the international stage?
Wendy Morton
That is exactly the point. I do not think it is for me to answer those questions; it is for the Prime Minister to do so, but I will continue to question his judgment. How on earth did he come to appoint Peter Mandelson to this role? It is not just Conservative Members who are asking that; today, we have heard Labour Members asking questions. The Government Benches are quite full now, but the Conservatives led the charge on this topic. In Opposition day debates, I expect to see the Government Benches full, and I expect Labour Members to take points up, debate with us, and defend the position of their Government. How much have we seen of that today? Very little indeed.
Bradley Thomas
Aside from the evident, persistent and consistent failures in the Prime Minister’s integrity, does this issue not raise massive questions about the hold over the Government and those at the top of the Labour party by someone whose name has been a byword for sleaze for the last two or three decades?
Wendy Morton
It absolutely beggars belief. If we want to clean up politics, this sort of thing should not be allowed to happen. We know that politics are difficult, but this was down to the judgment of one person—or was it the judgment of others around that person? I urge Labour Members to do the right thing this evening and stand up for democracy, Parliament and decency.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
“Liberation Day!”—that was how Mandelson described the day of Epstein’s release from prison for procuring children to be trafficked and raped. His next message was, “How is freedom feeling?” Epstein replied,
“she feels fresh, firm, and creamy”.
Mandelson’s next reply: “Naughty boy”.
We had not seen those emails, I admit, when the ambassador was appointed, but let us look at what we did know when he was appointed ambassador. We knew at that point that he had consoled this paedophile on his being found guilty and convicted of just one of the many crimes he committed. We also knew that while he was Deputy Prime Minister of this country and Business and Trade Secretary, and while he was carrying the flag of our great nation, he stayed in a convicted paedophile’s flat while on an official visit to New York. How dare he do that while representing this country! Did no one in the Cabinet Office or the Department for Business and Trade—no civil servant or political appointee —know that he had said, “No, I don’t need a hotel, thank you ever so much. I’m going to stay at my friend’s Epstein’s house. Oh, by the way, he happens to be in prison, but I’m going to stay at his house anyway”? There are serious questions about why he was not pursued for misconduct in public office at that point. No one can say that the Labour Government did not know, because I have been a civil servant; I knew where my Ministers were staying when they were abroad. I am not sure that they always wanted me to know, but I knew, and none of them would have ever done that. That is at the heart of the issue with the judgment of the Prime Minister.
On Monday, a Government Minister said that nobody objected when Mandelson was appointed. Look at Hansard: I remember objecting very clearly and repeatedly, because it was clear at that point that Mandelson had repeatedly said that Epstein did not deserve to be in prison, that this was an awful time for him, and how he cared about and was thinking about his good friend.
Why was there no investigation, and why was the vetting not done right? There is no question but that the vetting cannot have been conducted properly. I have been through vetting myself—not as a Minister, I accept, but as a civil servant. I have sat in a room with a rather elderly gentleman for two hours, being asked about my every sexual proclivity, when I lost my virginity, and whether I had taken drugs. I was asked about every single aspect of my life because both apolitical civil servants and politicians in this place should hold themselves accountable and be right for appointment to their role.
It is clear from the debate, and from the evidence put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), that the Prime Minister wanted this appointment made, and because the Prime Minister wanted Mandelson, Mandelson was going to be appointed. We will see when the docs are released how they were able to get around the official vetting, but that brings me to my concerns about another political appointment that was rushed through because the Prime Minister demanded it: that of Jonathan Powell, the National Security Adviser. There are significant concerns about his business interests. There are significant concerns in the House about the fact that there has been no scrutiny of him because he will not come before the House and give evidence. There is also significant concern about his relationships in China and around the world, yet he is permitted—again, while flying the flag of this nation—to conduct secret visits to China, where he met Wang Yi and other senior representatives. The British Government refused to put out any press notice explaining why the visit happened, or even that it happened at all.
Paul Holmes
As usual, my hon. Friend is making a good speech. I was a special adviser at the Cabinet Office—a great Department with great civil servants. She mentions the cases of Jonathan Powell, and of Lord Mandelson as Deputy Prime Minister. Does she agree that this backhanded way of conducting Government business, without officials present, puts pressure on our great civil servants, and places them in difficult situations? It is not how Government should be run.
Alicia Kearns
I entirely agree with my very good and hon. Friend. I was taken aback by the comments of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who sought to give us a lecture on how Government vetting is undertaken. She kept referring to fast-stream civil servants as those responsible for vetting. Fast stream is a mode of recruitment, not a type of civil servant. It felt as if she was trying to suggest that junior civil servants should take the can for the vetting process that was pursued. I very much hope that is not the case, because it is deeply inappropriate.
The commonality between the appointments of Lord Mandelson and Jonathan Powell is Morgan McSweeney, so I must ask whether Morgan McSweeney is the one who should be held accountable. At this point, it looks as if no one will be held accountable.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
This debate is about accountability; everything falls into the lap of the Prime Minister. Does my hon. Friend not find it frankly incredible that the Prime Minister has sent—I say this with the greatest of respect—a junior Minister to the House, when he alone has serious questions to answer? Would it not show real leadership if the Prime Minister came to the Dispatch Box to wind up the debate?
Alicia Kearns
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He may also recall that, following Prime Minister’s questions, I had no choice but to make a point of order because the Prime Minister had told this House that every Humble Address that the Labour party had proposed in opposition had a national security protection clause, yet neither of Labour’s last two Humble Addresses in opposition featured the words “national” or “security”, let alone the two put together. In contrast, the Prime Minister put his hand up to me and dismissed me, shaking his arm at me as he left the Chamber, as if the point I was making was not necessary. [Interruption.] And yes, on Monday, Members will also recall that he shouted that I was pathetic for asking why he met with the master of two Chinese spies during his recent trip to China.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Ind)
I will take the hon. Member’s word for it that those Humble Addresses did not contain those words, but if you take, for example, the Humble Address on Lebedev’s appointment to the House of Lords in 2022, it did not have to contain those words for the Conservative Government to use national security grounds not to provide swathes of documents—they did so without those words even being included. Their response almost mirrored the Freedom of Information Act 2000, in respect of the types of exemptions that should apply. Are you really going to deny that that was the approach—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I count two uses of the word “you”. I have not said anything; it is the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) who has made a comment, but any intervention needs to be via the Chair.
Markus Campbell-Savours
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am obviously out of practice on interventions. Is the hon. Lady aware of that convention?
Alicia Kearns
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I agree that he should hold his Government to exactly those standards. I am very sorry that he missed my point of order—I recognise that it was not a show-stopper—but that is exactly the point I made: national security concerns are implicit in Humble Addresses. If the Government had put such wording in their amendment as “secret or top secret documents cannot be revealed”, I would have said, “Yes, that is absolutely fair.” But that is the point: there is no requirement to stipulate national security concerns, let alone provide some vague wording about international relationships, because that is already provided for. I thank him for confirming exactly my position.
We have touched on China. I hope that when these documents are released, we will see the full extent of Epstein’s relationship not just with the Putin state, but with the Chinese Communist party. I have deep concerns about the way in which Mandelson had a say about the Government’s China policy. There is no question but that he has been influencing it.
Some questions are still unanswered. As I have said almost every day this week, I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary on 5 December to ask for the details of Mandelson’s severance package. These were not complicated questions: what was the detail of the contract, and will it be published; has any non-disclosure agreement to do with it been signed at any point; when did Mandelson receive his final payment, or is he still being paid by the taxpayer; and what were the details of his severance package? Almost two months on, I have received no response from the Cabinet Secretary—in whom, as we have discussed today almost ad nauseum, we do not have confidence to carry out this inquiry. That is not a personal attack; it is recognition of the fact that he works for the Prime Minister and does not reply to straightforward questions from Members of the House.
Harriet Cross
Does my hon. Friend agree that, if she struggles today to get answers to those very basic and straightforward questions, we can draw our own conclusions as to the answers?
Alicia Kearns
Unfortunately, as Members must slowly learn, where there is a vacuum of silence in this place, our constituents, the great people of this country, see conspiracy, and sadly too often they are right. The Paymaster General has committed to get me answers to my letter, and although he is currently having a conversation with someone else, I gently encourage him that I would like answers to those questions on severance pay today from the Dispatch Box, because I raised the issue on Monday and have received no response. It is in the motion, so please can we have those answers?
I also want briefly to reflect on what has happened over the past week. On Sunday, the Labour party informed the media that it could not strip Mandelson of his membership of the Labour party—perhaps the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) would like to intervene on that, as I suspect he has something to say about the Labour party stripping people of their membership. On Monday, the Government told the House that they cannot legislate as that would not be appropriate or possible, and it was too difficult, despite the entire House offering to sit until 4 am to do so. We then had silence from the Government when Members of the House asked them to refer the matter to the police. It was clear from early doors that this was going to end with the police, and hopefully in our courts, as I have argued it should have done back in 2010.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend will recall that during various parliamentary debates in the Chamber on Peter Mandelson, and despite the Prime Minister knowing that he had that relationship, at one stage she and I asked the Minister the simple question of whether the Government would strip Lord Mandelson of the Labour Whip. That question was refused an answer, and they did not remove the Whip. Does that not show a constant lack of action from a Prime Minister who does not have a grip?
Alicia Kearns
One lesson of being in government—there are many—that I hope we have learned is that the writing is normally on the wall. It was very clear from early days that this man was going to let down our country, but those of us who criticised him were told, “This is imaginative; this is inspired. They are putting in place a man who can shake things up and make friends with Donald Trump.” Throughout his persistent behaviour, as more and more became clear, the Prime Minister could have taken decisive action. As I said, it has been clear for a long time that this was not going to end up just with Mandelson disgraced, or with us rightly saying that he should be removed from the other place; it is going to end up with him facing court, I hope. Let me be clear: malfeasance in public office is what he should be tried for, and that carries a life sentence. That is how severe are the crimes that he has been conducting, and I am ashamed that Gordon Brown raised the flag of warning and seems to have had nothing in response to his concerns.
Stuart Anderson
My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech. Since today’s debate started, more information is coming out—we might be at the tip of it and there is much to come out. The Prime Minister has made a significant error of judgment, yet his Back Benchers are still defending him. Does my hon. Friend believe there is a chance that this could cause detriment to the whole Government?
Alicia Kearns
It is very difficult, particularly when a party has such a high number of new MPs—we have been there and experienced it—to feel the mood music, hear the jungle drums, and understand whether something is a precipice or a turning point. For many of us who have been reflecting over the past few days, this has the hallmark of things that we feel we have seen before. We have been here; we have seen this sideshow. It is very difficult, because our integrity is the only thing we take with us when we leave this place. Too many colleagues from across the House have had to learn that over the past few years, because this is a cruel game, and we can find ourselves being thrown out when we do not expect it.
May I say how much I welcome the fact that the manuscript amendment has been put forward? It is a sign that the Government are listening, and I give them credit for doing so. However, this could all have been prevented if the Prime Minister had come before the House on Monday and given a firmer commitment to take action.
Bradley Thomas
Does my hon. Friend agree, particularly following her point about the writing being on the wall, that the Minister, when he wraps up on behalf of the Government, needs to quash any rumours that the Prime Minister is hunkered down in Downing Street and planning a reshuffle to stabilise a sinking ship?
Alicia Kearns
I can give but one comment to those new MPs who may think that a reshuffle is a good thing: it causes only more upset and heartache within the party, and it will not be a solution.
Jeremy Corbyn
Does the hon. Member agree that the House should be slightly cautious here? We should not just roll over and accept the Government’s manuscript amendment without clear assurances about how far the inquiries will go where they relate to commercial interests, rather than just security interests, as well as a very clear process of reporting and a timetable, so that this is not just a carpet-brushing exercise to get rid of an embarrassing day for the Government.
Alicia Kearns
It is quite clearly the will of the House that that would be beyond unacceptable—it would be a contempt of Parliament, if it happened. I can say—I would like to think that this goes for the entire House—that I have complete confidence in the integrity of gentlemen such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who sits on the ISC. No one would impugn his integrity or question whether he would ensure that he got to the bottom of whatever is necessary. There is no question but that this issue goes so far beyond the vile and inhumane treatment of women; it appears, I am afraid, that Peter Mandelson betrayed not just his colleagues but his own country for the financial interests of others.
Graham Stuart
Further to that last intervention, we need an assurance that we will have urgency. We have seen victims of child abuse in this country let down by a Government who resisted an inquiry but then agreed to it in a big moment. Today could be a moment like that, when the Government appear to give way, but months then pass with nobody appointed to the inquiry. We need to hear from the Minister that the Government will move with speed to ensure that this information comes out.
Alicia Kearns
My right hon. Friend hits on a point that no one has raised in today’s debate; without it, we would have had a real missed opportunity. As yet, there has been no commitment from the Government as to how quickly files will be turned over to the ISC or how quickly all the documents mandated in this Humble Address will be released. That is vital.
I hope that, as part of any release, the Government will contact the Ministry of Justice and require the release of any additional documents that would be in our national interests, or anything that references Mandelson or any British national in any way. I ask the Minister to confirm that. Any existing documents could be on the ISC’s desk by Friday, so let us ensure that we move quickly.
Let me conclude by touching once again on the incredibly brave women without whom none of this would ever have come out, and Virginia, who obviously is not here today to hear us debate and discuss this important issue. We have to recommit in this place that we will hear women, see women and stand by women who report abuse, because all of us have seen how easily women’s concerns are dismissed, how we are spoken over and how we are ignored, particularly when it comes to men of power.
We have touched on some of the men named in these documents who are commercially very powerful, and there are concerns about who else may come out. No one who has been named in those documents who knew what happened to those women should be allowed to continue to live their lives and make profits as if this did not happen. That must be the main commitment.
I want transparency and I want those documents to come out. But, whether it is a woman in our constituency or someone from another part of the country who comes to us in concern, I want us all to say that we will stand by them. This is a stain on Britain. We must ensure that this never happens again, and that we listen to our women and defend them.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
This has been an absolutely extraordinary day in British politics. It is not often that there is an audible intake of breath in this Chamber, but we all heard it earlier—that gasp when the Prime Minister admitted that, yes, he had known that Peter Mandelson had had an ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein when he appointed him as our ambassador to Washington. It was a truly extraordinary admission.
The argument that the Prime Minister is now making, which is quite incredible, is that he knew, but he did not know the depth and extent. That implies that there is some reasonable extent to which a person can be in a long-term relationship with the world’s most famous paedophile and still be appointed our ambassador to Washington. It implies that a person can, to a certain reasonable depth, be involved with the world’s most corrupt man and still be appointed His Majesty’s ambassador. The Prime Minister is now asking to be taken on trust. Well, after this whole sordid affair, I am afraid that is just not good enough any more.
The Prime Minister knew that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s house while he was in jail for child prostitution. Did that not set some alarm bells ringing in the Prime Minister’s mind, or is that not deep enough a relationship to have worried him? My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) told the House earlier that the British Government were warned by one of our closest international allies about their deep concerns before Mandelson’s appointment. Did that not set some alarm bells ringing in the Prime Minister’s mind? No, instead he appointed a man who twice had to resign over corruption, and now—unbelievably—his argument is, “If only there had been some sign that Peter Mandelson was like this?” It is unbelievable, and this may be just the beginning.
We now really need the Minister to answer a specific point that Ministers ducked and refused to address earlier—the whole House will hear if he does not answer. Will the Government agree to a full investigation into Mandelson’s behaviour while he was our ambassador in Washington? On 27 February last year, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir—a client of Mandelson’s company, Global Counsel. That meeting was not recorded in the PM’s register of meetings and emerged only later. Palantir was then awarded a £240 million contract by the Government as a direct award rather than through a competition. We need the Cabinet Secretary to examine the circumstances of that contract. Does the Minister agree—yes or no?
Why was that prime ministerial meeting not recorded in the normal way? How many more such lobbyist meetings were there? What other inside information was shared with Mandelson’s clients? Will the Minister now agree to a full inquiry into Mandelson’s time as our ambassador—yes or no? Furthermore, can the Minister reassure the House that the proper process has been followed for all No. 10’s other recent appointments? Can he give the House that reassurance very clearly?
Before I come to the manuscript amendment, let me say something positive about some of the contributions we have heard today from Labour Back Benchers. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) gave a genuinely superb speech, in which he said that he would not be able to look victims in the eye if he voted for the Government’s amendment. It was a brave speech, but he was not completely alone. We also heard sensible comments from other Labour Back Benchers, including the hon. Members for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), all of whom pointed out that the Government’s cover-up amendment was simply not going to fly. I think the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) actually said that she would be ashamed to vote for it, and she was totally right.
All those Labour Back Benchers have shown their character today, but what a contrast with the Prime Minister’s behaviour. He is not here, and he has still not apologised for appointing Mandelson. A few hours ago he was telling this House that these documents could not be published—he said at PMQs that the Leader of the Opposition was outrageous and silly for even asking—yet here we are, just a few hours later, and the Government have had a total U-turn because they know that they cannot get their own people to vote for this shameful proposed cover-up.
The Prime Minister has not been decisive—he only sacked Peter Mandelson because we forced him to. He said again and again that he had full confidence in him, and I think many voters will be thinking, “Why on earth was the Prime Minister so deeply in hock to this man?” The truth is that Mandelson was not out on a limb over in Washington; he was a deeply embedded part of the Prime Minister’s operation. He was involved in the selection of some of the MPs who are in the Chamber today. He was involved in the Prime Minister’s reshuffle, and was part of the “toxic culture” in No. 10 that the Health Secretary—the Labour Health Secretary—has warned about. Most shamefully of all, a former Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, tried to get documents about some of the things that Peter Mandelson had done and was rebuffed. Funnily enough, those documents could not be found. Whatever people think of Gordon Brown, if they are choosing Peter Mandelson over him, they are making the wrong decision.
I now come to the manuscript amendment that has been hastily produced by the Government. For the people watching at home, this is an amendment to an amendment—a U-turn on top of a U-turn. Given the chaos we have seen from the Government, we now need three clear assurances, and we will all be listening to the Minister when he comes to the Dispatch Box. First, we need an assurance that everything that people in No. 10 do not want to publish will be sent to the ISC in unredacted form. Secondly, we need an assurance that it will be the ISC, not No. 10, that determines the handling of those documents. This comes back to the very good question posed by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington: if the ISC says that documents deemed sensitive by No. 10 can be released, will it be able to release them without any veto from No. 10?
Dr Luke Evans
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important that we get clarity from the Government on that point, because there could be individual documents, as opposed to a report? The independent committee can produce a report, but we need to know whether individual documents that could be challenged could be put out if the committee felt it was correct to do so.
Neil O’Brien
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I want to know whether the Minister agrees that the ISC should be able to give the gist of documents, even if they are not fully released.
Thirdly on this hastily proposed manuscript amendment, can we be reassured that we will not be waiting for months—that this will not turn out like the grooming gangs, where nothing happens in the end? Can we have an assurance that we will not be waiting for ages, and that there will be a clear and short timeframe for getting the documents published and to the ISC?
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
There is a fourth point, which is that there is likely to be a sizeable volume of documents for the ISC to review. Will the Minister reassure this House that the ISC will be given the resources it needs to do its job?
Neil O’Brien
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point—he is completely correct.
Today, I actually feel quite a lot of sympathy for Labour Back Benchers. Once again, they have been put in a totally impossible position by the Prime Minister and his adviser Morgan McSweeney. The Government wanted the same people who had appointed Mandelson in the first place to be able to control the release of information about the extraordinary way in which that appointment was made. I feel for Labour Back Benchers, because those people in Downing Street are the same people who told them they had to vote to cut the winter fuel payment because there would be a run on the pound if they did not. They are the same people in No. 10 who told Labour Back Benchers that they would not change their position on the family farm tax, and then—after people had killed themselves—changed their position on it. They are the same people who got Labour Back Benchers to vote against an inquiry into grooming gangs. That is telling, because that was another occasion on which this weak Prime Minister put his own political interests ahead of respecting victims.
Today, we learned a little bit more about the character of our Prime Minister. As a result, it is clear from listening to the debate today that even some Labour MPs are asking themselves the same question as the public out there: doesn’t this country deserve better?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I beg to move a manuscript amendment, to add to the end of amendment (a):
“which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.”
I start by thanking everyone who has contributed to the debate—the tone was overwhelmingly constructive, serious, and aimed at getting to the truth. I want to thank a few Members in particular, beginning with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who got the tone exactly right, asked a number of serious questions that I will come to, and reminded us of the importance of the matter at hand. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop); while he disagrees with me, he did so agreeably, and put his case very well and with passion. I also thank the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith), who reminded us of the origins of the Humble Address—when I was a political adviser on the Brexit team in opposition, they looked a bit more clever than they do today. I thank him for his speech and the spirit in which he made it. In particular, I highlight the incredibly powerful and commanding speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), who rightly brought the voice of victims to this House. She did so brilliantly, and I thank her for that.
It is clear that Members in all parts of the House share the public’s anger at Mandelson’s treachery, lies and deceit. As the Prime Minister said earlier:
“Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament and my party.”
He betrayed our Government.
Chris Ward
I will just make a little progress, then I will give way.
Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister. He lied during the vetting process, which I will return to, because a number of Members raised it, and I suspect he is still lying now. That is why, since new information came to light over the weekend, the Prime Minister has acted in a number of ways.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Ward
I will give way, just let me complete this point.
On Monday, the Prime Minister instructed the Cabinet Secretary to investigate all papers released by the US Department of Justice. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister also made a statement to this House. On Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary decided to refer certain material to the police with the Prime Minister’s support, and subsequently the police have launched a full investigation, with which we will co-operate fully. That investigation must go everywhere the evidence takes it.
Dr Mullan
It is pretty underhand of the Minister to make himself the champion of public anger about the person Mandelson was, because I can tell the Minister that the House is angry—both sides of it—not just with Mandelson, but with the Prime Minister for appointing him in the first place.
Chris Ward
As the Prime Minister has said many times, if he had known what he knows now, he would not have had Mandelson within a million miles of Government, and that is absolutely right.
Sir Julian Lewis
I will try to make the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), but in a less emotional way. Today, the Prime Minister was asked directly,
“did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?”
He replied, “Yes, it did.” The Minister says that Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister, but the point is that the Prime Minister knew that the relationship was ongoing. Even if Mandelson lied about some other aspects of the relationship, can the Minister not see that the fact that there was any ongoing relationship at all with a man who had been imprisoned for paedophilia and prostitution was an impossible position to defend? No subsequent lies or revelations alter the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson when he knew that he had been in that ongoing relationship.
Chris Ward
As the Prime Minister has said, he was lied to repeatedly by Mandelson. I will come to the vetting process in a minute, but the due diligence is within scope of this Humble Address. It will be released. The House will be able to see the process for itself.
Alongside further steps that the Prime Minister has taken in the past week, he has recommended to the King that Mandelson be removed from the Privy Council. He has instructed that legislation be drawn up—this was a point that the hon. Member for North Dorset raised—to strip Mandelson of his title and to make wider reform of the House of Lords process. In answer to the question raised earlier, that legislation is imminent and it will be given Government time. It will be brought to this House as soon as possible. Frankly, I wish it was already here now, but it will come very soon.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stuart
Before the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador, he was appointed as a strategic adviser, a consultant, an advocate and a planner for the 2024 Labour party general election campaign. May I suggest that he was appointed—Government Members know this to be true—because he was treacherous, deceitful, a liar and a master manipulator in the political dark arts? That is why the Prime Minister appointed him. There is no defence, is there?
Chris Ward
Just to be clear, he was not appointed to any role in the 2024 election campaign. I remember that campaign very well. Let me clear up two other points that were raised in the debate. As Members made very clear earlier, Mandelson had no role in candidate selection at all. That is done by the national executive committee, and through the rule book. He had absolutely no role in it. [Interruption.] Let me finish this point. He had absolutely no role or say in any reshuffle either. Members keep repeating this, but it is absolutely, fundamentally untrue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Who is the Minister giving way to? Four Members are standing.
Harriet Cross
Let us suppose that the Minister was appointing a new member of staff and he knew that a candidate had twice lost his job in the past because of misdemeanours. If he also knew that that candidate had continued a relationship with a convicted paedophile, would the Minister give him a job?
Chris Ward
The hon. Lady tempts me into hypotheticals that I am not going to get into. [Interruption.]
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Ward
I am going to make some progress. I will give way later, but a number of questions have been raised about vetting, and I want to respond to them. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), outlined the process; I want to clarify that, but she was entirely right in what she said.
Before Mandelson’s appointment, there were two distinct and separate processes. The first took place in the Cabinet Office, where due diligence was followed in exactly the usual fashion for this type of appointment. The second, the national security vetting, was undertaken by UK Security Vetting. I want to be very clear with the House: none of that was skipped, and nothing was removed from the usual process. As the Paymaster General said earlier, we have strengthened the vetting process further.
Dr Caroline Johnson
The Prime Minister said clearly today that when he appointed Peter Mandelson to the job as His Majesty’s ambassador, he knew that he had an ongoing relationship with the paedophile Epstein. Can the Minister tell us what sort of relationship he thinks would be acceptable when appointing such a person?
Chris Ward
As the Prime Minister made clear, he was lied to repeatedly by Peter Mandelson on this. Information about that is in the vetting report, which will be published for the House.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said that he knew. The Minister says that documents such as the vetting report will be released, but all that is irrelevant. We are not interested in what the report says, because the Prime Minister said that he knew. The question for the Minister is this: why did the Prime Minister feel that it was appropriate to appoint Peter Mandelson to be one of the most senior ambassadors in the world? That has nothing to do with vetting; it goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s judgment.
Chris Ward
Before Mandelson was appointed, there were obviously reports linking him with Epstein. That was looked into as part of the vetting process. Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister and hid information. When new information came out, the Prime Minister removed him. This information will come out.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Ward
I will give way to my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] She is the first Member behind me to whom I have given way.
Mr Speaker
Order. In fairness to the Minister, he has given way time and again to Conservative Members, and now, quite rightly, he is giving way to the hon. Lady. Don’t feel that you have been hard done by, please!
Natalie Fleet
Does the Minister agree that we are here today because of the brave women who have spoken out and led us here? Does he agree that we have a responsibility—a shared responsibility as a House—to make sure that no stone is unturned, and that as a Government we will make absolutely sure that the victims at the heart of the paedophile Epstein’s crimes get the justice that they deserve, we will continue to call out this behaviour wherever we see it, and we will do everything we can, now that we are in government, to halve violence against women and girls? It is too little too late, but it is needed now more than ever.
Chris Ward
I entirely agree. I could not have put it anywhere near as well as that—and, as I said earlier, my hon. Friend made an incredibly powerful speech earlier. She quoted Virginia Giuffre at length, which was an extraordinarily powerful way in which to make the point, and she made it better than anyone, because it is the victims whom we should have in mind.
Alicia Kearns
One of my concerns has been that when Mandelson was our ambassador in Washington DC, he was responsible for a very large embassy. There may have been members of the Foreign Office staff there who had survived rape or sexual assault, or there may well have been sexual assaults during his tenure as ambassador. Can the Minister confirm that Foreign Office Ministers have reviewed all human resources decisions that Mandelson made while he was there as ambassador, to make sure that any women who had concerns about treatment, the way that they were spoken to or the things that they reported, received the support that they deserved?
Chris Ward
Obviously anyone who made any allegation or report such as that would be treated seriously. I will take that up with Foreign Office Ministers and come back to the hon. Lady, because she raises an incredibly serious point.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Ward
I will give way one more time to the former Attorney General, and then I will move on.
Sir Jeremy Wright
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way; I know he wants to move on to the motion, but just before he does so, I would be grateful for some reassurance from him on a point that was raised by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. The Minister has moved the manuscript amendment. If the House passes this motion with the manuscript amendment, a volume of material will reach the Intelligence and Security Committee. He knows that our administrative resources are limited, and we do not know what volume of material may be coming our way. The House will expect us to do a thorough job and we will seek to do one, but can he reassure me, and the House, that the Committee will have the additional administrative resources, if it needs them, to consider that material properly?
Chris Ward
I thank the right and learned Member for his speech earlier and for his point. Absolutely, yes; I completely recognise the point he is making. A lot of documents are covered by this motion—that is not a complaint; it is an observation. The ISC has the authority and respect of this House, and it would need resources to go with this task. If that is agreed, we will ensure that it gets those resources in the usual way.
Sir Julian Smith
Could the Minister confirm on the Floor of the House that the Government will also include details of how they managed conflicts of interest between Peter Mandelson’s shareholding in Global Counsel and his activities as ambassador? Specifically, could he look at the background and come back to the House about two contracts, one to Anduril technologies and one to Palantir? Those were direct-award contracts, and at least one of those companies was a client of Global Counsel.
Chris Ward
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that and, as I mentioned at the beginning, for the way that he went about his speech. That will all be within the scope of the Humble Address. If there are specific further points regarding direct procurements which the Cabinet Office needs to look into, I will write to him and come back to him on them, because that is a fair point.
Alex Burghart
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. The Humble Address is obviously about Lord Mandelson’s appointment. However, the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) was about two contracts, at least one of which, by direct award, went to a business that was a client of Global Counsel. The Prime Minister met that company while in Washington and it did not appear on his register of interests. Will the Minister assure the House that the Cabinet Secretary will look into the process that led to that direct award?
Chris Ward
As I said, everything in the Humble Address will be dealt with. On that specific point, I will follow up with the Cabinet Secretary and write to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith).
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Ward
I will get on to the motion, and then I promise I will give way.
As I said, the Government accept the spirit, purpose and intent of the Opposition’s motion, and we want to provide transparency and drain the swamp of Mandelson’s lies. Our amendment has two important points to it: one on national security and one on foreign relations. I want to cover those quickly, and then I will take interventions.
National security, as the Prime Minister has said from this Dispatch Box—and has said to me more times over the years I have known him than I can remember—is his No. 1 priority, and he will never compromise on that. That is why we wanted it in the motion and why we put the amendment before the House. There is precedent for that in a Humble Address. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) mentioned earlier, our Humble Address regarding Lebedev included the words:
“in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security”.
Our intention was to abide with that spirit and to make a clear point about national security. I will come on to how that will be treated by the ISC and the Cabinet Secretary in a second.
On international relations, as the Prime Minister said, these documents, which are significant in number, could well touch on sensitive issues concerning intelligence, trade or relations with other countries. For example, we would not want to release inadvertently information about our red lines in trade agreements, about peace negotiations and our position on things such as Ukraine, the middle east or Sudan, or information about sensitive assessments of our allies and the diplomatic conversations on which our lives depend. The point of the amendment is that we are trying to address that and to make it clear to the House, and we are trying to balance transparency with national security. That is what is most significant.
Jeremy Corbyn
I mean no disrespect to the Intelligence and Security Committee, but the Minister will have heard the points of order that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I made earlier. We need to know that there is a timetable for this inquiry, that it will not rule out specifically commercial interests such as Palantir and fail to investigate them, and that it will investigate the whole web of influence that Peter Mandelson had over so much in Government, which has brought about this dreadful position in which we appointed somebody who is a friend of a paedophile to be the ambassador to Washington. Many people watching today’s debate will not be happy that Parliament is merely shoving this issue off to one of its Committees, because they think there should be a wider public interest inquiry into the whole affair.
Chris Ward
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. The police investigation will go wherever it needs to go. It will cover any criminality or allegations thereof. That is the right way to do it, and nothing will be hidden.
Chris Ward
I am going to make some progress, because time is pushing on. I will give way in a second.
Let me come to the manuscript amendment. We will agree with the ISC how it is going to work with us and provide scrutiny, and I welcome the commitment made earlier. As the Paymaster General set out, the process for deciding what falls in scope will be led by the Cabinet Secretary and supported by Cabinet Office lawyers working with the ISC. The Cabinet Secretary will take independent advice on the decision he has taken, and it will take two forms—first, through independent KCs, and secondly, through scrutiny of the approach he is taking, working hand in hand with the ISC. The Cabinet Secretary will write to the ISC to set out that process. He will meet members of the Committee regularly to ensure that they are content with it. In line with the manuscript amendment, papers that are determined to be prejudicial to national security or international relations will be referred to the ISC, which is independent, rigorous and highly respected. The ISC will then decide what to do with the material that it is sent.
Ms Billington
Just for further clarity, people are concerned that there will be a decision made by the Government, in the form of the Cabinet Secretary, about what is referred to the ISC. We are keen to know that the bulk of the documents will be in the hands of the ISC, which can make the decision about what needs to be kept private and what should be made public. Can the Minister clarify that the ISC will have control over what needs to be kept private and what can be made public?
Chris Ward
The release of information will be done in the way I have just set out. Either it will be done through the Cabinet Secretary working with independent lawyers or, if the material is deemed potentially to conflict with national security or foreign relations, it will be handed to the ISC, which is independent and can make a decision. To the point that my hon. Friend made earlier—this is really crucial—there will not be political involvement from Ministers or No. 10 in this process. The Cabinet Secretary and the ISC will work on it with lawyers.
Paul Holmes
I really must push the Minister, because he is giving conflicting messages. At one stage, he said that the direct contract award will be in scope of the ISC, without committing to any timescales. He has now said that the scope of the release of documents is a matter for the Cabinet Secretary, with no political involvement. As a political Minister, he has stood at the Dispatch Box to say that the direct contract award will be in scope. Will it be in scope or not?
Chris Ward
Any correspondence involving Peter Mandelson is within scope. As I say, that will be looked at by the Cabinet Secretary, who will make decisions with independent lawyers and working with the ISC.
Derek Twigg
Can I give an assurance that we in the ISC are very confident that we can do an effective job on this? It is worth pointing out that we cannot be told what we can and cannot publish. That will be a matter and a decision for us. May I ask for an assurance, following on from what the Minister has just said, that there will be no block whatsoever on the documents that the ISC should be getting?
Chris Ward
Yes, I can confirm that. I thank my hon. Friend, who has huge expertise. We will work with the ISC on this.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Ward
I am not going to give way any more. There are four or five minutes to go. I will make some progress, if that is okay.
As the Prime Minister mentioned today, there will have to be discussions with the Metropolitan police over material. The Metropolitan police has issued a statement today on material that will be released. I confirm to the House that material will not be released today, because of the conversation with the Metropolitan police, but it will be released as quickly as possible, in line with the process set out before the House.
Dr Chowns
The Minister has set out the difference between national security matters and issues which may be embarrassing to the Government—let’s face it, practically anything could damage international relations with Donald Trump; who knows what he is going to take offence at—but the process he has just outlined implies that the Cabinet Secretary will scrutinise every bit of information before deciding whether it gets released or whether it gets to the ISC. How long will that take? Will he give us an assurance on the volume of material he anticipates sending to the ISC and the timetable? What will be the deadline for releasing that material, either into the public domain or to the ISC?
Chris Ward
As I say, the timeline will be as soon as possible. We want to get on with this. There is a lot of material to go through. We will get to this as quickly as possible. Other Humble Addresses have taken a number of weeks or months. We want to be as quick as possible and we will work with the ISC as soon as we can to get it progressing. I hope the hon. Lady welcomes the spirit with which we take that on.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Ward
No more, I am afraid. I am so sorry.
I just want to deal with two more points. On a public inquiry, which a number of Members mentioned, as I say, there is an ongoing police inquiry that has the freedom to go where it wants and the co-operation of everyone in Government. We believe that that, along with the process we have set out, is the right way to proceed.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify that the documentation will go to the ISC, and that the ISC, not the Cabinet Secretary, will be the decision maker on risk to national security and international relationships, and on what should be in the public domain?
Chris Ward
Let me try one more time. It will either be made public by the Cabinet Secretary, or it will go to the ISC and a decision will be made through the Committee. It will be done with the independence, resources and—
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Ward
No, I am winding up now.
It is absolutely right for the House to have debated this incredibly important issue, and I thank right hon. and hon. Members for the spirit in which they have done so. The lies, venality and treachery of Mandelson shame this House. I, and the Prime Minister and I know hon. Members all around me, have nothing but contempt for the way Mandelson acted and lied to the British people. I am glad that this will now be shown to the British people. I share the anger and disgust of so many Members. We will comply with the amended motion and we will update the House on progress. With that in mind, I commend the manuscript amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Manuscript amendment (i) to amendment (a) made.
Amendment (a), as amended, agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s Ambassador to the United States of America, including but not confined to the Cabinet Office due diligence which was passed to Number 10, the Conflict of Interest Form Lord Mandelson provided to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), material the FCDO and the Cabinet Office provided to UK Security Vetting about Lord Mandelson’s interests in relation to Global Counsel, including his work in relation to Russia and China, and his links to Jeffrey Epstein, papers for, and minutes of, meetings relating to the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, electronic communications between the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff and Lord Mandelson, and between ministers and Lord Mandelson, in the six months prior to his appointment, minutes of meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers in the six months prior to his appointment, all information on Lord Mandelson provided to the Prime Minister prior to his assurance to this House on 10 September 2025 that ‘full due process was followed during this appointment’, electronic communications and minutes of all meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers, Government officials and special advisers during his time as Ambassador, and the details of any payments made to Lord Mandelson on his departure as Ambassador and from the Civil Service except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.”
Simon Hoare
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This relates to the point the Minister made about the Metropolitan police asking that certain documents not be released, in case they prejudice a trial or investigation. You know as well as I do, Sir, the importance of privilege to this place. Will your office and counsel work with the Cabinet Office to ensure that the rights and privileges of Members of this House are protected?
Mr Speaker
Just to sum up, the Metropolitan police have no jurisdiction over what this House may wish to do. It will be a matter of whether or not the Government provide the information. I want to let Members know that the police cannot dictate to this House. I will leave it at that; I am not going to continue the debate, which has been a long and important one. Let us move on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026. The Ayes were 392 and the Noes were 116, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Tarka Line
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Further to our online petition, signed by more than 3,000 people, calling for the Tarka rail line to be future-proofed, I present this petition on behalf of rail passengers in northern Devon, who have suffered overcrowding and repeated service disruption due to flooding this winter, despite a record-breaking 1 million rail journeys per year between Barnstaple and Exeter. Following Storm Chandra, all trains have been cancelled. North Devon’s rail link has been shut for over a week, and service will not resume for several more days.
The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urge the government to ask Network Rail and Great Western Rail to prioritise the Tarka Line for improvements, and to work together to make rail travel in North Devon more resilient.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Northern Devon,
Declares that the Tarka Rail Line between Barnstaple and Exeter needs structural improvements to the line’s capacity and resiliency.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the government to ask Network Rail and Great Western Rail to prioritise the Tarka Line for improvements, and to work together to make rail travel in North Devon more resilient.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003161]
Construction Industry Training Board: Funding
(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Since its establishment in 1964, the Construction Industry Training Board has been the industry-led and industry-funded training board for the UK construction industry. At present, it is an arm’s length body of the Department for Work and Pensions, so I thank the Minister for being here to respond.
The CITB was tasked, in its words, with ensuring a safe, professional, and fully qualified construction industry, and with addressing critical skills shortages. As Members will no doubt agree, some things do not change; indeed, we are grappling today with the very same challenges, as we commit to delivering new infrastructure and regeneration of our public realm, and as we face the need to build much-needed new homes right across the country.
The CITB has always been funded by the sector; legislation grants it the power to collect a levy from private construction firms. In return for this levy, the CITB’s role is to redistribute to sector firms the grants, funds and subsidies for training. This sector-wide approach has meant that skills are transferable, and that the cost of training is equitably shared between smaller and larger construction firms.
That is one of the ways in which the whole sector benefits. As all Members will know from having donned hard hats and visited construction sites, every project involves a huge range of large and small firms, including those that do bricklaying and carpentry, as well as electricians, plumbers and so on. Rarely, if ever, is any project completed solely by one large firm.
Just last Friday, I visited the St Michael’s Meadow housing development in my Exeter constituency to congratulate the site manager, Roy, and his trainee site manager, Sam, who have been awarded the seal of excellence in the NHBC Pride in the Job awards. While there, I also met Dylan and Reece, two carpentry apprentices, both of whom are reaching the end of their apprenticeship training with Barratt Redrow. One is heading directly into the specialist carpentry firm that Barratt Redrow works with on its projects. That is the way that the industry works, and the CITB has long reflected this in its engagement and, in particular, through its stewardship and funding for CITB local training groups.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is absolutely right on this. He has been an assiduous, committed and very industrious MP for his constituency, and I thank him for that. CITBNI is very similar to the organisation on the mainland to which he refers. It provides key support for some 6,500 apprentices over three years, and a 50% grant for net zero training. It is an absolute lifesaver for small contractors who can no longer afford the cost of apprenticeships, given that the cost of insurance alone for the apprentice is almost as much as their wage.
Steve Race
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I hope the Minister will cover these points at the end. We are grappling with rising costs for construction firms, and we need to support them, as I hope we will, with CITB, in the future.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Does the hon. Member agree that losing the skills and expertise of local training groups, such as the Plymouth Construction Training Group, which was formed in 1977 and has been funded by the CITB, and instead having centralised delivery from CITB in London, would be a retrograde step that risks us losing local construction skills?
Steve Race
I thank the Member for her intervention. I fear that she might be right, and I will come on to some of those issues and the feedback that I have received from local training groups across the country, and from small firms.
Local training groups have been vital in supporting micro and small employers to form local networks, and helping them to forge closer ties. They provide those businesses with local, low-cost training options, and with a paid officer who holds a wealth of local knowledge and experience.
However, the national CITB has chosen to de-fund all 55 training groups across the country, close the network down and re-allocate funding elsewhere. This was brought to my attention by Mr Peter Lucas, a constituent who runs a carpentry business, and who has been the chair of the national training group chairs committee. He impressed upon me the importance of the good localised work that training boards have been doing. He told me that training groups connect employers with a really broad spectrum of training for the sector—everything from training on how to use a dust mask properly to master’s degrees.
Training groups work with schools and colleges to promote construction, offer talks and information about the sector, and signpost people to the appropriate apprenticeships programmes. They also save the CITB vast amounts of money on training courses, as training groups source them more cheaply than is done at national level. They meet up and exchange ideas and best practice across the whole of Britain, with everyone gaining more knowledge. Each training group has, until this year, been given £35,000 from CITB to fund their group training officer—money that comes from the levy that members of the training group have paid to the CITB. Without the grant, the training groups will likely close, and with the loss of the groups, vital local networks and local knowledge will be lost. Certainly, the local training group for Devon has been a success and is well-liked. Indeed, I applied for this debate not just because of the compelling case put to me by Mr Lucas, but also because of the outcry from local firms when I posted about my meeting on social media.
Matthew Cousins, who runs Apex Scaffolding in my constituency, an active member of the local south-west CITB steering group, told me that the company faces ongoing challenges in recruiting and retaining scaffolders. With an ageing workforce, and given the increasing difficulty of attracting young people into this profession, it was very surprised that CITB has chosen to cease funding the training groups, especially considering the levy costs that the employers are required to pay.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate him on securing this important debate. I wish to draw the House’s attention to my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group and my membership of UNITE the Union, both of which organise workers in the construction sector. Quality of employment is extremely important. Historically, the two construction engineering training boards had union representation, but over the years that representation has been squeezed away. Does he agree that employee and employer representation is very important on these boards?
Steve Race
I absolutely agree. It is only by trade unions, employers and workers working closely together that we can meet many of the challenges across the country. My hon. Friend reminds me that I should also declare my interest as a member of the GMB trade union.
Mr Cousins told me that the company has consistently relied on the training grant, which has historically been paid up front. Under the changes, the pre-payment has been withdrawn, and construction industry scaffolders record scheme courses can no longer be booked through the new employer networks. Apex remains committed to investing in its employees and supporting career progression, but a CISRS course typically costs at least £1,500 up front. There is also the wages paid to employees for the two weeks that they are attending training, and the impact of downtime on the company’s operations. The up-front training grant has always played a critical role in supporting cash flow for smaller businesses during the training process.
In part 2 and advanced training, employees must complete a portfolio and a two-day skills assessment before finishing the qualification. If companies are now unable to claim any funding until the completion of these stages, it will significantly reduce the number of individuals that companies like Apex are able to train.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this very important topic to the Floor of the House. Does he agree that anything that can be done to support businesses and employers in training young people must be done? When I visited my local college, Rugby college, I was informed that it is increasingly difficult to encourage employers to provide work experience time, particularly for T-level students, who need 315 hours. I wonder whether the Minister might reflect on any additional support that the Government can give to employers to incentivise them to do that.
Steve Race
I agree; we need to do everything that we can to make our commitment to getting two thirds of young people into education, training, apprenticeships or work a reality. We all need to work together on that.
Combined with the broader pressures that businesses are facing, these changes will seriously detrimentally affect Apex’s training capacity as a company. Apex and other companies that are committed to developing skilled, competent staff in their industries hope that the CITB will reconsider, given the impact that the adjustments may have on employers, and will explore ways to ensure that training remains accessible and sustainable.
A member of the Somerset Construction Training Group got in touch with me to say that these groups provide invaluable practical support to construction businesses and apprentices alike. In their words, removing CITB funding risks not only the future of the groups but the loss of highly experienced people whose knowledge of training, funding and compliance in the construction sector is difficult to replace. Ultimately, they feel that this could reduce access to apprenticeships, increase pressure on employers and negatively impact jobs in the industry. The group finished by saying that it hopes that CITB will reconsider and recognise the long-term value that training groups deliver.
Another Somerset business owner said to me that they have been fortunate to be part of the Somerset Construction Training Group for over 16 years. They have been provided with an excellent service, including quality training and last-minute training if required, and they have built a solid working relationship over the last 16 years with their training group officer, who understands their company and their training needs. The group enables networking between group members, and supports many aspects of their business. In their opinion, training groups were the best thing that CITB supported, and they are sad to say that their relationship with CITB is nowhere near as solid.
At the national level, it is reported that the CEO of a roofing business and a member of the Construction Industry Training Board funding committee has resigned in protest at the decision to cut funding for training groups. He stated that he could not in good conscience remain a member of the committee, and that the decision to both defund the training groups and slash the number of courses that are to be grant funded will undoubtedly increase, rather than decrease, the skills gap. That surely cannot be right.
The CITB introduced employer networks in 2024, and intended them to be the route for employers to engage with the CITB. However, the feedback I have received is that small and medium-sized enterprises consider the groups to be remote and impersonal, and that they take longer to organise training. In general, some SMEs have expressed to me that they feel largely ignored and let down by the CITB. The withdrawal of funding for training groups has made them feel sidelined and disillusioned. Indeed, the CITB has run concurrently for some years both the employer networks, which seem best able to cater to larger businesses, and the local training groups, which seem better able to support SMEs. I would have thought there is some merit in continuing with both, especially given the small cost of the local training groups.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is my understanding that, in addition to employer networks, the CITB is also seeking to redirect funding to the new entrant support team. I declare an interest: my father worked as a new entrant training officer. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the new entrant support team is good value, and is perhaps a good place for this investment to be directed towards?
Steve Race
There is absolutely a case to be made here, but as I shall go on to say, the way in which this has come about is less than ideal, and it leaves lots of local training groups and local SMEs feeling pretty much left out to dry by the CITB.
Construction skills are critical to the success of Exeter’s economy and to our ambition to build the right homes in the right places for people to live in. I am proud that Exeter college is an outstanding tertiary college that offers a wide range of apprenticeships and vocational courses, and the University of Exeter offers a range of degree apprenticeships in partnership with business. As we work to meet this Government’s vital target of having two thirds of young people in university, college or an apprenticeship, we will need every organisation, business, sector and network pulling together.
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view of the changes that the CITB has brought in, and whether he and the Department believe that those changes are aligned with our goals of increasing access to and take-up of apprenticeships and closing the skills gap across the country. Further, has he or the Department had conversations with the CITB on the changes, and has there been an impact assessment, particularly on the ability of SMEs to properly participate in the work of the CITB in this space? Finally, does the Minister agree that the CITB could perhaps have worked with the training groups over a longer period to improve the outcomes of the training groups, should it have felt that necessary, or to provide a platform to help them to transition to new models of funding, rather than a decision being taken to simply pull the funding with a mere four months’ notice? I thank colleagues across the House for their interventions, and look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on this issue.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) on securing this debate and welcoming the interest in it. I also welcome the opportunity for the House to consider the reforms that the Construction Industry Training Board is making with the aim of strengthening the skills pipeline for the construction sector. As my hon. Friend rightly said, we need a skilled construction workforce in order to deliver the Government’s plan for change and our industrial strategy. That is the reason the Government are making a big investment in construction skills. We need, at scale over the next few years, a large volume of products from the construction industry. At the same time, as he said, we want to realise the good opportunity that the sector presents to provide many people with great careers, not least young people who are not on track for a rewarding career at the moment. There are a lot of possibilities in this sector.
Last March, the Government announced a £625 million construction support package to address the current acute shortage of skilled workers in UK construction. That package includes: a £100 million expansion in skills bootcamps, offering flexible short-term pathways into the construction sector for new entrants and for those looking to upskill; £90 million in additional funding for construction courses for 16 to 18-year-olds; a further £75 million for courses for those aged over 19 and either not in work or earning less than £25,750 a year; another £38 million for foundation apprenticeships; and £98 million to support industry placements for level 2 and level 3 learners undertaking an eligible construction qualification.
There is, in addition, a £140 million investment funded by the CITB and the National House Building Council, which could make available 8,000 more construction apprenticeship and job starts by 2029. A different £140 million has been committed by the Government to pilot, with mayoral strategic authorities, new approaches to connecting young people aged 16 to 24—particularly those who are not in education, employment or training—to local apprenticeships. That is not specific to construction, but we expect construction to be one of its major beneficiaries.
Rebecca Smith
I welcome the funding that the Minister has just outlined. Reference has been made to mayoral strategic authorities, but vast parts of the country do not have one yet and are unlikely to have one for some time. Indeed, my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) are in one of those regions. I am interested in how the funding will be delivered to where it is really needed in those smaller communities. At the moment, we have 124 training groups doing that, and ultimately they are best placed to know the workforce in their local areas. In those smaller communities that have not yet seen that devolution, how can we ensure that we do not see those skills just drop out of the bottom of the sector?
Sir Stephen Timms
I think on this topic there will be less difference across the Dispatch Boxes than was the case with the topic we debated yesterday. The pilots with the mayoral strategic authorities will try out new approaches, and the idea is that the successful approaches can be rolled out wherever appropriate, not just in areas with mayoral strategic authorities. I will come to the point about the training groups in a moment.
Similarly, we expect the construction sector to benefit from the expansion of the youth guarantee, backed by £820 million of investment over the next three years to reach almost 900,000 young people and support them to earn and learn. A great deal of investment is going into this area, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that it is vital that we make the most of that for creating opportunities in local areas in every part of the country, including the south-west.
The CITB plays a central role in developing construction workforce capability and investing in skills training across England, Scotland and Wales. As we have been reminded, there is a separate arrangement in Northern Ireland. CITB is a registered charity and a non-departmental public body established in statute in 1964—apparently in July. It is sponsored now—following the transfer of responsibility for adult skills policy from the Department for Education—by the Department for Work and Pensions, with the purpose of improving training for people over school age who are working in the construction industry.
The Government set the strategic framework for the board. The board remains accountable to Parliament, but it operates at arm’s length, maintaining operational independence over how it meets industry needs. Its chair is Sir Peter Lauener, a distinguished former civil servant, but its board comprises by statute mainly representatives of construction employers. It is funded not by taxpayers but, as my hon. Friend said, through a levy on registered construction employers based on their payroll size.
Richard Foord
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) for calling the debate. I appreciate that CITB is at arm’s length from Government, but of course, 946,000 young people were registered as NEET last summer. Does the Minister share my view that money is better spent on organisations such as CITB than it is on welfare payments to young people?
Sir Stephen Timms
Certainly, it is absolutely right that the construction sector has a lot of promising opportunities for exactly those young people, and we need to ensure that they have the support to take them up. We also need to provide a social security safety net—I do not think it is one or the other—but I agree that the work of the CITB is vital in this area.
The CITB provides a wide range of services and training initiatives. It sets occupational standards, funds strategic industry initiatives to support Government missions, and pays allowances and direct grants to employers, as we have heard, that carry out training to approved standards.
In the five years since 2021, employer demand for CITB services has increased by 36%. Levy rates have deliberately been held steady to support construction businesses, given the very sharp cost increases that we are all familiar with that have arisen from global challenges that the industry has had to grapple with. As a result, the costs of CITB services now exceed levy income. In response, the CITB has announced the changes to keep the funding as tightly focused as possible on the industry’s core priorities, in particular on bringing apprentices and new entrants into the workforce to address skills gaps. There has been no cut in CITB funding, but there has been a reprioritisation to ensure that the available funding is used where it has the greatest impact. The CITB board has understandably identified an urgent need for efficiency improvements, to spend less money on bureaucracy in order to be able to spend more on training.
For many years, CITB training groups have supported businesses by securing cost-effective training through collective bargaining, and by helping firms with grant applications, facilitating workforce planning and sharing best practice along the lines set out by my hon. Friend. I put on record the Government’s thanks to all group training chairs and officers—not least my hon. Friend’s constituent, Peter Lucas, the chair of the Devon construction training group and, since 2023, the national chair of training groups. He and his counterparts have undertaken a great deal of important and dedicated work to meet employers’ skills needs. There are currently 80 training groups across England, Wales and Scotland—there was one other but it closed last year. I think perhaps the figure my hon. Friend gave was just for England.
Sir Stephen Timms
The CITB has concluded that the training group model has significant limitations. It is quite expensive to run; each group receives an annual £35,000 support grant, as my hon. Friend said. Groups often operate on a closed-membership basis, and many groups charge employers annual fees. Groups do not have direct access to skills funding—employers must apply for grants. That limits scalability, diverts levy funding away from actual training into administration, and burdens employers, especially SMEs. My hon. Friend raised that important point.
The CITB has confirmed that funding for training groups will end on 31 March this year, so those £35,000 support grants will not be paid in the coming financial year. However, as my hon. Friend said, the CITB is replacing training groups with a newer model, with employer networks, which are designed to offer a more responsive, efficient and employer-led system. There are now 33 employer networks, which, between them, cover the whole of the UK—25 in England, five in Scotland and three in Wales. The decision to move in that direction has been made by the board of CITB, with its majority construction industry membership, following its consideration of how best to meet evolving industry needs and deliver best value for employers in return for their levy payments. It is not a decision for Government; it is a matter for the CITB board. It seems to me that the CITB has thought about this quite carefully, and I will set out the arguments that it makes.
The employer networks model was piloted in 2022, and the CITB board has concluded that it is effective. It argues that the model gives employers a simpler route to identify training needs and secure funding, avoiding the navigation of complex grant processes or funding applications. Networks are open to all levy-registered employers at no additional cost. They provide direct support from CITB advisers, significant funding contributions toward training and a dedicated training booking team. Instead of lengthy grant applications, employers work with a CITB adviser who helps to identify skill needs, arranges training and secures funding up front to cover a portion of the training costs. It is argued that that reduces the administration burden and makes training more accessible to employers. The idea is for networks to be designed around local need. Employers in each area collectively identify their priority skills needs—be they in traditional trades, digital skills, net zero capabilities or broader workforce development—and funding is directed accordingly.
The decision to replace training groups with employer networks is an operational decision for the CITB, which points out that its pilot has provided evidence that the employer network model is better. In 2025-26, networks have already supported 56,000 learners and 4,400 employers —up from 51,000 learners in the previous year. Training groups, by contrast, supported around 1,800 employers per year—less than half the number supported by networks—and growth was very limited. The average network supports 122 employers, while only five training groups supported more than 50 employers in 2024-25. Training groups cost £2.87 million in 2024-25, which is twice as much as the cost of networks, even though networks seem to support far more employers.
Steve Race
The figures quoted relate to networks and local training groups operating at the same time. Does the Minister accept there might be a risk that the people and organisations supported by the local groups are a different group from those supported by employer networks?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but CITB’s view is that most employers that are members of training groups now access support through employer networks. He raised an important point about SME participation, which CITB reports is improving under the network model, reflecting the easier access and more direct influence that businesses have over local training priorities. CITB thinks that helps to reduce regional disparities, and provides more agile support for smaller firms. Indeed, it recently surveyed employers that had accessed support via employer networks, 87% of which were micro, small, or medium-sized organisations. Of those, 81% said that they were satisfied, and 54% said that they were likely to do more training in future because of employer network support.
My hon. Friend will readily acknowledge that meeting the current and future skills needs of construction employers is extremely important for delivering the Government’s aims, and important for opening up opportunities for the large number of young people, and others, left economically inactive over the past few years. The CITB’s view is that the employer network model is simpler, faster, more cost effective, and more flexible. In its view, it better supports SMEs—those employers that need the most support—and it allows the industry to respond quickly to emerging skills challenges, including digital and net zero construction skills.
Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing this important matter to the attention of the House, and for his interest in it, and that of other Members. I understand that the chief executive of CITB, Tim Balcon, has written to my hon. Friend and invited him to make contact if he would like to discuss the matter further. I do not know whether he has taken up that opportunity yet, but if he does take up that offer and has further reflections in the wake of the subsequent discussions, I would be pleased to hear from him about that.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
Draft Energy-Intensive Industry Electricity Support Payments and Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Energy-Intensive Industry Electricity Support Payments and Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 12 January 2026. I acknowledge the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which provided a helpful review of the regulations but did not draw them to the special attention of this House or the other place, and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has reported the regulations as an instrument of interest to Members.
The draft regulations aim to deliver one of the Government’s commitments in the modern industrial strategy: to increase electricity price support to energy-intensive industries through the British industry supercharger. Energy-intensive industries include foundational manufacturing sectors that are critical to the UK’s economic security and the delivery of the modern industrial strategy. They include steel, chemicals, cement, electrical components and gigafactories.
The British industry supercharger was introduced in 2024 to reduce the electricity price gap between Great Britain and comparable industrial countries in western Europe, such as France, Germany and the Netherlands. The supercharger is made up of three measures: the energy-intensive industries exemption scheme, which offers 100% exemption from contracts for difference, the feed-in tariff and the renewables obligation electricity policy levies; the capacity market exemption, which offers 100% exemption from the costs of funding the electricity capacity market; and the network charging compensation scheme, which provides 60% compensation on an energy-intensive industry’s electricity network costs.
While the supercharger package of measures has been successful, the Government recognise that there remains an electricity price gap between Great Britain and comparable industrial economies in Europe, which places British energy-intensive industries at a competitive disadvantage while increasing the risk of carbon leakage and the offshoring of vital manufacturing jobs and investment. That is why the Government’s modern industrial strategy included the commitment to increase from 60% to 90% the level of relief offered by the network charging compensation scheme. That will reduce electricity bills for currently supported energy-intensive industries by a further £7 to £10 per megawatt-hour, bringing the total reduction to £65 to £87 per megawatt-hour, and will deliver up to £420 million of electricity price support per annum.
The draft regulations aim to further close the electricity price gap, ensuring that British foundational manufacturing can thrive and grow. They will help to ensure that the 550 companies that currently benefit from the scheme will continue to attract new investment and preserve well-paid jobs and crucial supply chains across Britain’s manufacturing heartlands. The draft regulations will amend the Energy-Intensive Industry Electricity Support Payments and Levy Regulations 2024 to make provision for increasing the level of relief offered through the network charging compensation scheme.
In conclusion, the draft regulations will help to reduce electricity costs for the most energy and trade-intensive industries such as steel, chemicals, cement and battery manufacture. They will help to reduce the risk of carbon leakage by retaining critical manufacturing investment and jobs in Britain. I commend them to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz.
Energy-intensive industries have long been the backbone of our industrial economy. From steel and chemicals to ceramics and refining, these sectors provide skilled jobs, anchor local communities and guarantee our economic security, yet they are operating in an increasingly hostile environment driven largely by the cost of energy.
The draft regulations will make limited but important amendments to the energy-intensive industry electricity support payments regime. Specifically, as the Minister says, they will increase the compensation available under the network charging compensation scheme from 60% to 90% from April 2026 and will extend the application window from one month to two. The changes are made using powers under the Energy Act 2023 and are intended to strengthen the British industry supercharger package. The stated aim is to lower electricity costs for the most energy-intensive sectors, reduce the risk of carbon leakage, and help retain manufacturing investment and jobs in the United Kingdom.
The Opposition will always welcome measures that provide greater clarity and modest additional support for industries under pressure. However, it is impossible to consider this instrument in isolation from the wider context. Britain’s industrial electricity prices are among the highest in the world. On a per-kilowatt-hour basis, our electricity costs are the most expensive in the G7 and the European Union—around 46% higher than the median. Industrial electricity prices here are around four times higher than in the United States, and roughly 50% more than in France and Germany.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) has rightly said in other debates, Government policy risks accelerating the deindustrialisation of this country, from Stoke in the Potteries to the Prax Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I never miss an opportunity to talk about ceramics. When the hon. Gentleman listed the sectors that the scheme helps, he mentioned ceramics. Given that the supercharger scheme was set up by his Government, he will surely know that it does not cover the ceramics sector: the product standard industrial classification codes that were specifically listed when the scheme was set up excluded ceramics. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why his Government decided that ceramics were not entitled to the level of support that they put in place for other energy-intensive industries?
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point; I have always been impressed, on a cross-party basis, by the passion with which he speaks for industry in his constituency. My point is that we need to talk to those industries that do not currently have the support. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman bobbed to try and catch your eye, Ms Vaz, so perhaps he will have some helpful comments for the Minister on that front when he is called.
I am making a point about the wider context in which we have to see the statutory instrument. The most glaring omission is the oil and gas industry in the North sea. Energy-intensive industries are not just struggling; they are being driven overseas by costs that they simply cannot absorb. The very thing that the Minister said he was trying to prevent is happening. Since Labour came into government, more than 15,000 manufacturing and industrial jobs have already been lost, largely because of astronomical energy costs combined with unnecessary green levies and carbon taxes. When manufacturing moves abroad, we do not eliminate emissions; we simply offshore them, often to countries like China with weaker environmental standards and far greater geopolitical risk.
We have also heard clear warnings from industry leaders. Sir Jim Ratcliffe has been explicit that high taxes and energy costs have left sites such as Grangemouth unable to compete with overseas rivals. These are not abstract concerns, but real decisions affecting real jobs. Against that backdrop, while the draft regulations make proportionate and technical changes, they do not address the fundamental problem. Increasing compensation within a flawed system is not the same as fixing the system itself. The best way to reduce electricity prices for energy-intensive businesses is to tackle costs at source by scrapping the energy profits levy and removing punitive carbon taxes that undermine competitiveness.
I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how this statutory instrument fits into a broader long-term strategy for energy-intensive industries. Does he accept that compensation schemes, while welcome, cannot substitute for the structural reform of energy pricing? Can he assure the Committee that the Government are developing a plan that genuinely restores Britain’s industrial competitiveness? Ultimately, energy-intensive industries know that their future depends on predictable affordable energy. If we are serious about growth, resilience and security, the Government must ensure that the policies of this country enable those industries to survive and thrive at home, not drive them abroad.
Gareth Snell
I thank the Minister for his engagement on the issue, particularly with the sector in Stoke-on-Trent and around the country. I talk about ceramics quite a lot, because the increasing cost of energy is a real impediment to us. I welcome the scheme, and I welcome the changes that will give greater relief to energy-intensive industries, but we face a perverse situation in which it is funded not by taxpayers’ money, in the traditional sense of the Government handing out a grant, but by a levy on licensed electrical suppliers that is used to compensate other sectors of energy-intensive industry.
This is about consumers in one sector paying higher bills to subsidise the cost for others. From a redistributive perspective I can see why that would work, but the wording of the regulations means that the product SIC codes under which a sector or industry can access the supercharger scheme are incredibly narrow: they are restricted to steel, cement and other things that are foundational to successful manufacturing in this country.
The perverse thing is that those who are not in the supercharger scheme are paying a slightly higher bill to help those who are in the scheme. Every month, those in energy-intensive industries such as ceramics have bills that are slightly higher than they would otherwise be, to allow other energy-intensive industries to have lower bills. That is an anomaly in the system that I do not think was intentional, but it means that places like Stoke-on-Trent are, essentially, subsidising steel mills in Scunthorpe and cement and brick manufacturers elsewhere.
I hope that the Minister will take away the point that extending access to the scheme and lowering the threshold of deductions that can be made would be an incredibly useful and powerful way to demonstrate support for foundational manufacturing sectors such as ceramics, which are key to our national defence, our house building programme and our gift and tableware exports, which provide a balance of trade in favour of the UK because of what we produce and where we send it. That would also support producers of advanced ceramics that are used in telecommunications and bioindustry, the refractories that are needed for glassmaking and ceramic making, and the emerging ceramic technologies that will be used in small modular reactors and for plating turbine blades at Rolls-Royce. There is a whole sector of industry that is not getting enough support. Will the Minister share any thoughts that he may have about extending the scheme?
A further point is that to access the support, businesses have to demonstrate through the business level test that 20% of their gross value added is taken up by electricity. Some energy-intensive industries will never reach that, because gas is a component of their energy costs. The ceramics sector, for example, is massively energy-intensive but predominantly gas-based. I suggest to the Minister that he needs to change how he applies the energy cost calculation for GVA to access the scheme so that it includes both gas and electricity, even if the discount comes only on electricity.
There are producers in the ceramics sector who would dearly love to move towards the electrification of kilns and other products that are currently gas-powered, but the disproportionately high cost of electricity makes that uneconomical. Even if they did so, they would still fall foul of the business level test, because so much gas would still be needed. They face a double whammy, with a higher electricity bill while they still have to pay for gas.
As costs increase in a variety of other areas, not least the raw materials, I know that for some companies in the supercharger scheme the 20% threshold is getting closer and closer to 19%, because it is a proportion of the overall costs. In future amendments, will the Minister consider the 20% threshold to make sure that we do not inadvertently see companies falling out of the supercharger scheme as energy becomes a smaller proportion of their overall cost, not because their electricity costs have come down but because their other costs have grown?
I understand that the Government will be using genuine public money to make up the difference between the 60% and the 90% threshold. If it transpires that the demand for the scheme is such that the money available does not cover the additional costs for companies with the new 90% reduction, is there any mechanism to stop electricity suppliers putting up their tariffs on other energy-intensive users to make up the difference between what they are receiving from the Government to compensate their loss and what they are passing on to their customers? We could end up with a perverse system in which a greater discount is being given to some energy-intensive suppliers, while ceramics companies in Stoke-on-Trent are paying an even larger electricity bill.
Overall, the intention behind the draft regulations is good, but there are some nuances that we can work on. If the Minister is willing to extend the scheme to include the ceramics sector, there will be a lot of happy potters in Stoke-on-Trent.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. As we have heard, British manufacturers face some of the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, so it is right that the Government recognise the pressure on sectors such as steel, chemicals and glass. I hope we will hear from the Minister that he is considering the plea from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central for the inclusion of an exemption for ceramics.
Energy-intensive industries often operate in highly competitive international markets. They cannot simply pass on costs. As the Minister says, without support we risk carbon leakage, the loss of investment and the erosion of the UK’s foundational manufacturing base. Measures that help to keep production and jobs in Great Britain are therefore welcome.
Although the support will be a relief for large energy users, it highlights a persistent imbalance in how energy costs are treated across the wider economy. We must remember that businesses of all sizes are struggling with high and volatile energy prices, but it is small and medium-sized enterprises that feel them most acutely. Small businesses are at the heart of our economy and the heart of our local communities, yet many of them remain exposed to volatile energy costs as a result of our overdependence on volatile fossil fuel prices and the delay in electricity market reforms to stop energy bills being treated like a credit card for the whole transition.
SMEs have been afforded limited protection. When the previous energy bill relief scheme ended in 2023, Liberal Democrats estimated that over 3 million SMEs saw their energy bills rise by a combined £7.6 billion. That pressure has not gone away, so we welcomed Ofgem’s move to extend access to the energy ombudsman to smaller SMEs, but many businesses remain without meaningful routes to challenging unfair or incorrect bills, especially if they have more than 50 employees.
The energy transition is the right way forward. This morning, I visited the headquarters of the National Energy System Operator, where they literally keep the lights on. I have seen in real time the shift that has already happened in renewables and clean energy, which is critical for energy security in order to stop us being dependent on either Putin’s Russia or Trump’s America and ensure that we keep the lights on.
The scheme is funded through a levy on suppliers, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned, but we have some concerns. Although the Government state that households and small businesses will not see higher bills, the Government must stop the delay and bring forward the electricity market reforms so that we have assurances that higher prices will not fall on consumers. That would be giving with one hand while taking with the other. We recognise the case for supporting energy-intensive industries, but we remain concerned about the absence of comparable support for SMEs and about the potential cost to consumers.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I will be very brief. I will not reiterate what has been set out so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, the shadow Minister, nor will I reiterate what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central set out. They both illustrated, as did the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, why the intention behind the draft regulations is to be welcomed. It is the right thing to do, but there is a considerable amount of complexity involved in how it will play out over time.
The one point that I make to the Minister is about paragraph 47 of the impact assessment. The third bullet point refers to the need for the policy to be
“reviewed at an appropriate juncture”.
That is sensible, but can he set out what an appropriate juncture would look like?
Chris McDonald
It is very pleasing to see a reasonable level of support across the Committee, not only for the draft regulations but for our energy-intensive industries. Perhaps I can answer the question from the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston while talking at length about ceramics, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central and I both enjoy.
A general review of eligibility for the supercharger is planned for this coming year, which would certainly be an opportunity to look at eligibility of other sectors. I have already said, and am happy to repeat to my hon. Friend, that I have tasked my officials with looking carefully at the case for the inclusion of the ceramics industry. Qualification for the supercharger system currently relates both to energy intensity and to the risk of export leakage. As my hon. Friend said, the ceramics industry is gas-intensive, which is possibly why it has previously fallen below the threshold, but of course we want the ceramics industry to electrify. The difference between gas and electricity costs is a concern for the industry.
My hon. Friend also asked about the funding of the scheme. To be clear, we do not expect any increase in non-domestic or domestic bills as a consequence of the change. This is partially a result of the change in the renewables obligation and feed-in tariff schemes, from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. Essentially, we propose to pay for the change by bearing down on costs in the system.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire talked very well about the challenges for small businesses. Over the past few months, as she will understand, I have laid out improvements in energy costs for energy-intensive industries, through the supercharger, and for manufacturing more generally, through the British industrial competitiveness scheme. Some of those manufacturing businesses will be small businesses, but I appreciate that she was talking about the small business sector more widely. I, too, am concerned about that, but I am leaving no stone unturned in looking at how we can help all businesses across the country with their energy costs. That takes me back to the general point that the shadow Minister made about the level of uncompetitive energy in the UK. Fundamentally, this policy is designed to provide a measure of support as a consequence.
I am grateful that the shadow Minister welcomes the draft regulations. He described energy-intensive industries as the backbone of our economy. I could not agree more. Having worked in the steel industry for a long time, it is so nice to hear such warm words, even though the Opposition are perhaps late converts. The former Prime Minister scrapped industrial strategy; he was not keen on it, although a previous Conservative Prime Minister was, which is nice. Maybe we have consensus on industrial policy now; that would be very pleasing to see.
The shadow Minister described the environment around energy as hostile. I thank him for laying out so clearly the failure of his Government’s energy policy. Ultimately, this is a result of our reliance on gas in the system. The Opposition might not be keen to acknowledge it, but not only are solar, onshore wind and offshore wind the cheapest forms of energy available to us, but they create demand for foundational industries and offer great jobs. We have outlined an increase of 400,000 jobs in clean energy industries—good jobs for people across the whole of the country. Of course, that home-grown energy offers energy security too.
Many Members across the House—not only those on the Government side, but Liberal Democrats—are content to bask in the warm glow of solar power, onshore wind and offshore wind. I appreciate that the Opposition are feeling a chill breeze up their right flank and are tacking across to the climate-denying policies of Reform, but that cannot be the basis on which the country’s energy policy is determined. We must focus instead on low-cost energy for consumers and industry, on energy security and on good jobs, and that is what renewable energy delivers. Through this mechanism, we will ensure that our energy-intensive industries continue to be competitive in Europe.
Question put and agreed to.
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
Civil Service Pension Scheme: Administration
(2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to my colleagues for attending this morning’s debate. After reading many emails from constituents, it is clear that the issue before us today is not just an admin problem. It has caused real worry, stress and financial hardship to people who spent decades serving the public, trusting that their pension would be paid properly and on time. The scale of the problem is now very large and affects people across the country.
Since Capita took over running the scheme on 1 December 2025, the Public and Commercial Services Union has been flooded with complaints. Members report long delays, mixed messages and very poor service. This is happening while there is a large backlog of cases passed on from the previous provider, MyCSP. Thousands of people are now stuck waiting. The result is stress, uncertainty and real financial hardship, which is not acceptable. The seriousness of it has been accepted at the highest level. Last week Cat Little, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, wrote to civil servants to admit that the service being provided falls short of what members should expect.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
A couple of weeks ago at Prime Minister’s questions I raised the issue of a very young civil servant trying to access her pension as she has only months to live. It was an exceptionally difficult and heartrending story, but thankfully, because of the appearance of her case at Prime Minister’s questions, the issue was resolved shortly afterwards. The point that was made then and since is that it should not take raising something at Prime Minister’s questions to get issues resolved. We need to get Capita, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and the Cabinet Office or whoever to sort the issues out as quickly as possible.
Lorraine Beavers
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The seriousness of it has been accepted at the highest level. As I was saying, Cat Little, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, wrote to the civil servants to admit that the service falls short of what members should expect. That alone should worry us all. We have also seen reports that some former civil servants have been left without any pension income at all because payments have not been made since Capita took over.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. We can see by the numbers here how serious it is. I have heard from a number of constituents, as she has, in the situation she describes. Heartbreakingly, one constituent, Collette Reeves, retired at the end of last year to care for her husband who has been diagnosed with dementia, and she is now struggling to pay her bills because of the delays. Despite repeated attempts to get answers, she has got nowhere in accessing her pension or getting support from the interim emergency fund. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the performance of Capita since it took over falls woefully short of what we should expect and that it is crucial for our constituents to get clarity on how to access the interim fund as a matter of emergency?
Lorraine Beavers
I agree. Some retirees have had to borrow money just to pay bills because their expected pension payments or lump sums have not arrived, and no clear timescale has been given for when they will. This is not a one-off mistake; it is part of a longer pattern. The Public Accounts Committee has made it clear that successive Governments have failed for years to manage the outsourced contract properly.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. PCS members in my constituency were on strike for a long time last year because of the failures by MyCSP. Capita had the contract before and failed. Does my hon. Friend agree that those people who have been waiting and struggling need to be compensated as soon as possible?
Lorraine Beavers
I absolutely do agree with you.
The move to Capita was meant to modernise the system and improve services. Instead, it has exposed poor planning and weak control. Since the transfer, the scheme has struggled to work properly. There have been late pension payments, missing lump sums, lost records, broken systems and long delays in answering calls.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I was contacted by a constituent who is a former civil servant. They waited on the so-called helpline for over two hours on six occasions and were cut off continually. It is a contradiction in terms to call it a helpline. Does the hon. Member agree that that is completely unacceptable behaviour from Capita?
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that when they say “you”, they are referring to me. It is the same convention as in the Chamber.
Lorraine Beavers
I apologise, Ms Lewell.
The scheme cannot even say how many people are still waiting for their first pension payout. From what we are hearing, it is clearly thousands. Behind those failures are real people. I want to share some examples of constituents who have agreed that their cases may be raised.
John was a prison officer for 25 years. He has been receiving just a fraction of his pension for several months. He was left on hold for two hours in December, only to be told that there was nothing Capita could do about it. Robert emailed to tell me that while the loan system is seen as a lifeline by many, Capita seems to be completely unequipped to deal with it. He says that some of his former colleagues are even being directed to charities and Citizens Advice.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Like the hon. Lady, I have a litany of complaints from constituents about the service they have received, and she is doing a brilliant job of highlighting the real-world impact of these delays. I have a constituent who spent 36 years in the police service and is currently unable to pay his mortgage or household bills. Another constituent spent 28 years at the Ministry of Defence and has been forced to take out loans and borrow money from family members. Is this any way to treat people who have dedicated their lives and their careers to public service?
Lorraine Beavers
I totally agree; this is not any way to treat our civil servants.
Elaine has been waiting for a pension forecast since early December. She came to see me in January because she cannot plan her retirement at all. She does not know whether she can retire, when she can retire or what income she will have. Julie partly retired at the start of January after applying for her pension back in August. She has still not been paid. She waited five hours on the phone and was told that no timescale could be given. She and her family are worried about paying bills, growing debts and whether her pension will be backdated.
Paul retired from the Ministry of Defence last July, but seven months later he has not received any pension and is living off his savings, with no clear answers. Alison retired and sent in her paperwork in September. She was told that it would be done by December, only to be told later that there was no record of her case and she should write to a PO box address.
Paul retired after 30 years of service. His forms were sent in on time. He has received no lump sum, no pension and no timescale. Julie has worked for the Department for Work and Pensions for 26 years. She carefully planned partial retirement and sent her forms months in advance. Her retirement date is now close and yet she still has no pension forecast. Diane contacted my office about her husband, also a civil servant, who was diagnosed last year with a serious brain tumour. They have been waiting months for a pension forecast so that they can plan their future.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Like her, I have received a litany of complaints in recent weeks from constituents—including Antoni, Catherine, Christopher, Kevin, Mike and Robert—with similar heartbreaking stories. Does she agree that it is important we take urgent action to ensure that consistent and timely pension payments are made for all these scheme members in our constituencies?
Lorraine Beavers
I agree. Peter reached state pension age and gave plenty of notice, but heard nothing. After waiting three hours on the phone, he was told that nothing had been done. He retired in good faith, but the system let him down.
Such cases are not rare. PCS has heard from people who cannot pay their rent or mortgages, who have missed bill payments, who have been charged fees by banks, who are borrowing money or relying on family, and who are suffering serious stress. Some widows or widowers wait months for their late partner’s pension. This is a human crisis. PCS has said that up to 8,500 people may have retired without receiving their pension. For many, this pension is their only income and, when it does not arrive, the impact is immediate and severe. This is a failure on a huge scale.
I also want to mention retired prison officers such as my constituent John, whose cases have been raised by the POA. They have worked in tough and dangerous jobs, and many now face delayed pensions and missing lump sums. The POA is right to call for urgent action, clear timescales and fair compensation.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Public servants in Bournemouth East who gave decades of their lives are struggling after providing service to all of us. Probation officers, youth justice workers, prison staff and court clerks are struggling while Capita makes mistake after mistake. Does my hon. Friend agree that being good at winning public service contracts is not the same as being good at delivering them, and that we need accountability where people’s lives have been harmed?
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech, and we are all grateful for the opportunity to raise these cases. I have been contacted by a constituent who left the civil service in 1992 and, more than 30 years later, has still not received the pension that she is owed, despite providing proof of service from HMRC and making repeated transfer requests. Despite the fact that the civil service later located her superannuation file, the scheme continued to insist that no record existed. Does the hon. Lady agree that such cases show that the failure is not just delay but deep-rooted maladministration within our state, and that the Government must commit to ensuring people are paid the pensions that they are legally entitled to?
Lorraine Beavers
I agree.
To deal with hardship, the Cabinet Office has announced interest-free loans of up to £10,000. That may help in the short term, but it is wrong that pensioners are being asked to borrow money that already belongs to them. That should never have been needed. What is more, those affected have been left in limbo and have no information about the operation of these loans. Given the mismanagement of the scheme, how can members have any confidence that Capita will know who is facing hardship and is therefore eligible for a loan?
PCS has made it clear that many of these cases should have been completed before the hand-over, but were not. The Cabinet Office has accepted that more retirements late last year, and more this year, have made the backlog worse. Without a clear and well-resourced recovery plan, normal service could take many months to return. That is why Capita must urgently prioritise the cases of retirees, as over the coming months many could remain without any income whatever. It must increase staffing capacity and, ultimately, devote every resource to clearing the backlog.
It is welcome that the Cabinet Office has now brought in about 150 civil servants, mainly from HMRC, to help fix the problem, but it raises a simple question: if so many civil servants are needed, why is the work not being done inside the civil service? Are the Government billing Capita for the work that those civil servants are having to do?
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. We are told that a system of crisis payments has been put in place but I am still receiving correspondence from constituents, including this morning. They are terrified that they will not be able to pay their bills at the end of this month. My question is for the Minister at the Cabinet Office. What sanctions will be put in place to ensure that Capita acts, because my constituents are still being totally ignored?
Lorraine Beavers
This problem has a long history. Pensions administration used to be done in-house. In 2012, it was moved out as part of the wider push to outsource services. Over time, Government control was sold off and MyCSP came to an end in 2025. The new contract was awarded quietly, despite known pressures from rising retirements and major legal pension changes.
Those decisions need to be looked at closely. PCS has called for Capita to focus first on hardship cases, including unpaid retirees, people about to retire, ill-health cases and bereavement. It has also called for proper compensation schemes to cover interest, extra costs and distress. Those are fair and reasonable demands.
Capita and senior officials have apologised and promised recovery plans. Apologies matter but they are not enough. When people are left without income, through no fault of their own, action must follow. There must be clear responsibility, updates and deadlines. Hardship cases must come first and resources must match the size of the problem. People must be compensated for the harm caused.
I have five questions for the Government. First, will the Minister ensure immediate financial support and fair compensation for all those affected? Secondly, will she publish a clear recovery plan with proper oversight? Thirdly, will she ensure that Capita pauses voluntary exit schemes, increases staffing capacity and dedicates every available resource to clearing this huge backlog for retirees? Fourthly, will she review how this contract was handled, including whether the service should return in-house? Fifthly, will the Minister restate a simple promise: pensions earned through public service must be paid on time and with respect?
Before the general election, my party promised Britain the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation. This farce has exposed just how important that promise was and remains. I urge the Labour Government to make good on that promise. Civil servants give their working lives to this country in good faith. When that trust is broken, it is not just unfair to individuals, it is a failure of Government that this House must address.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
We will need to keep Back-Bench contributions to three minutes. I call Ann Davies.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Ms Lewell; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing the debate.
My corner of west Wales, Caerfyrddin, is no different. Multiple constituents have come to me with unacceptable experiences of trying to access their civil service pensions, as administered by Capita. Among them is Steve Dawkins, who retired this month after 24 years as a civil servant. Steve followed all the procedures and submitted his formal notice of retirement, but he has not received a formal acknowledgment of his pension claim, nor an indication of when his lump sum or monthly pension payments might be expected. His salary has stopped and he is not eligible for his state pension until September. I have sent a letter to Capita, outlining Steve’s case and urging action. I have had an acknowledgment but no action.
Rhiannon Davies-Laughlin, another constituent, has contacted Capita multiple times to request pension details but has not received a response. She also requested an annual benefit statement and was told to wait to hear within 10 days. She never did. She had to resign from her job and was due to finish work yesterday. She was intending to retire, but still does not know her pension position. I have written to Capita; I have not received a response.
We could go on to talk about many more cases, but we will finish with Sarah Rees. Last February, Sarah applied to receive her pension early because of ill health. That application was lost. The situation was similar to what the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) described. Sarah submitted the application again in July, and in November she was told that all the necessary paperwork had been received, but she did not hear back until last week. When I raised Sarah’s case during a business statement, it seemed to catch Capita’s attention, as Sarah has finally received a response, and a lump sum. But the sum was miscalculated, so I have had to write to Capita again, and you have guessed it: no response.
This is just not good enough. It is inexcusable that more than 8,000 people who retired more than 12 months ago still have not received their pension payments. Retired and retiring civil servants left in this position should seek, and have, compensation. I join the PCS Union’s call for a bespoke compensation scheme that takes account of interest on overdue payments and the financial implications of delays, as well as the distress that this scandal has caused them.
I urge the Minister and the Department, once the backlog of 90,000 cases is rectified, all pension payments have been issued and a compensation scheme has been set up, to act on the Public Accounts Committee’s report and consider bringing civil servants’ pensions back in-house to help prevent such a scandal from ever happening again.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for initiating this debate. I have been inundated with emails from constituents in Jarrow and Gateshead East regarding their civil service pensions and the unacceptable delays that people are facing. This is not just a delay on paperwork, but something that is causing huge detriment to the lives of many people in my constituency and across the UK. This issue could have been avoided. Indeed, I and others, including the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and the trade union PCS, all raised concerns ahead of the transfer to Capita. Unfortunately, we are now seeing those concerns play out.
On 12 January I wrote to Ministers, highlighting this and asking a number of questions. I received a response just yesterday, ahead of this debate, but it did not answer all the questions, and directed me to tell constituents to email Capita, complaining about its system. Of course they had already done that, and I contacted Capita on behalf of constituents, but I have not had a response. Of course I am not surprised, as my constituents have been ignored and have been waiting for months.
The response that I have received from the Minister says, “I hope constituents feel reassured,” but I can tell you, Ms Lewell, that they do not. It does not reassure my constituent Christine, who is 65 and retired on 2 December, but has not received her pension or a lump sum. Every time she contacts Capita, she is told that she will receive it in 10 days, yet it still has not arrived, leaving her without money for months, including over Christmas. It does not reassure my constituent Pauline, who retired back in July and has still not received anything. She is repeatedly being told that her case is with the finalisation team. It does not reassure my constituent Jackie, who took early retirement to care for her grandson and help her son, and should have started receiving payments in August but has received nothing, or Christopher, who is 60 and lives on his own, with no savings and no other income. He has now been three months without a pension payment. Another constituent, Carol, is 70 and does not know when she will get any money or even how much her monthly payment should be.
None of my constituents, or many others who have been waiting for months, are reassured. These are real people, who have been waiting for months, so I ask these questions. Will the Minister instruct Capita to prioritise the people who have been without money for months, rather than continuing to process the volunteer exit scheme? Will the Minister commit to a compensation scheme covering these delays that does not force my constituents to apply through the scheme’s own laborious internal process?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers). We all owe the hon. Lady a debt for bringing forward this issue, and our constituents would agree.
I have constituents who are close to defaulting on their mortgages without their appropriate payments, and we cannot allow Capita to continue fobbing those people off. I spoke to the Minister before the debate and it is not their fault; it is Capita’s. However, my constituents would say—I hope the Chair will find my language okay—“It is time to kick ass in Capita”. I could say something worse—although I had better not.
Jim Shannon
Let me read out an email sent by a lady who worked for almost 50 years in the civil service at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. If anyone knows how to work the figures, then this lady does. Yet she is powerless in the face of Capita.
“I joined the Civil Service in September 1977 and retired from it on the 31 December 2025. I worked in the Inland Revenue that then became HMRC. I have not received my lump sum or final details of my pension. I telephoned Capita on the 13 January and after hanging on the line for 2hrs 10 mins (being 12 in the queue) was told by Helen a chaser would be made to processing.
She was unable to let me speak with a manager or processing and confirmed there are issues with logging/registering with the new pensions portal.
I telephoned again today and after hanging on for nearly 5hrs was told by Lilly she would send an escalation today to her manager Adrian. I asked for a call back & whilst Lilly agreed to make this request to her manager she could not guarantee it could be done. I explained I could not get onto the pension portal and she advised the issues with it would not be sorted until March.”
That is the lived experience of a lady who has dedicated almost 50 years of her working life to the civil service—a lady who knew the penalties in place for those who are paid late and who could listen to the extenuating circumstances that someone was going through. I know that the Minister is not responsible but, my goodness Capita needs a throttling.
I have five questions. Why did civil service pensions not postpone the changeover to Capita until the issues with the existing scheme were resolved? When can deadlines for resolving the issues be set? Why was the resolution of the McCloud issues not adequately resourced? When will the remaining contingent decision routes procedures be issued? Will the affordability test be applied to civil service pensions, and if so, when? The affordability test is a clause in the pension scheme allowing it to reduce the pension if it looks like it will become unaffordable. These are the implications of what happens. People can find themselves with a pension that is less than it should have been.
The Government know that the country does not operate without our knowledgeable, hard-working civil servants, but our obligation to them does not end with their final day—it continues. We are failing those who gave so much—and this must end right now.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I think that we are all going to be saying much the same thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) set out a comprehensive understanding of the situation at the moment.
My latest contact has been from a Border Force guard who was planning his retirement but cannot get the information and has had to delay retirement. Others have not had their pensions paid. They are in a really serious plight. I chair the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. Let us be absolutely clear: this is a failed privatisation. It came in during the obsession of the last Government with privatisation during the early 2010s. At that time the union warned that there would be problems of this sort. We also warned that what will happen with these privatisations is that they get sold on—the companies get taken over and contracts are re-awarded. I found it shocking that Capita was awarded the contract in the first place, having lost the teachers union pension contract. I find it extraordinary that that was not properly taken into account.
People are aware that the general secretary of the union has written to the Cabinet Office about this on behalf of the union. So that hon. Members are aware what has happened, all that the union is asking for is clarity about the disclosure of the resources that Capita and others are now putting into resolving this problem. What level of staffing will be devoted to this problem? What is the timetable for resolving this problem? As many Members have said, there needs to be a direct instruction to Capita about dealing with the hardship cases—the bereavements and so on: the priorities that the members of the pension scheme have set out though their union.
The union has said it needs an assurance that if there is a prioritisation taking place, the completion of the voluntary exit schemes should be delayed. The prioritisation should be focused on getting the money out to those people who need it. Angela MacDonald has been announced as setting up the recovery scheme in the current crisis. My worry is that we might be here in two, three or four years’ time—whenever it is—because this privatisation has demonstrated that it cannot work. That is why so many members are asking the Government to please not exclude the possibility of bringing the scheme back into public administration. I do not want to be here again, pleading for people who have not had their pensions. On that point, I would like the Minister to say whether there is a clause within the existing contract that allows for its termination if it has failed, as it is failing at the moment. That could give us the opportunity for a fresh look at bringing it back in-house.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) not only for securing this important debate, but for her excellent opening speech, which set out comprehensively and with passion the impact that this issue is having on our constituents all across the country.
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am well aware of the problems with the civil service pension scheme and contributed to the report that was published on it in October. In that report, we highlighted a range of issues that we have heard about already in this debate: poor customer service and staff retention at MyCSP, long waits for pension options to be set out for those wishing to withdraw pensions, a failure from the Cabinet Office to manage transitions between suppliers, and concerns about Capita’s readiness to take the scheme over and about whether the scheme administration overall was delivering value for money.
The Cabinet Office’s response, in the Treasury minute published at the beginning of December last year, reassured the Committee that, yes, everything was in place for the success of the transition, that Capita had sufficient staffing, and that the Cabinet Office had sufficient penalties for poor performance in the contract with Capita. Does the Minister agree that the Cabinet Office underestimated Capita’s ability to take on administration and that it should indeed face consequences for severe failure?
Those issues are evident in my own constituency; I can briefly talk about a couple of them. One constituent has been trying to claim civil service pension since May 2025; they have faced long waits on the phones, emails unanswered and documents going missing. Since Capita took over, they have had new problems, such as the portal not allowing log-ins and eventually getting through on the phone only to be cut off. My constituent is suffering from financial hardship, and still waiting for the lump sum.
Another constituent, approaching 60, wanted to claim a deferred pension from January this year. The forms were posted in August. He was told he would receive a quote in November, did not receive it, and was unable to speak to Capita despite persistent attempts to contact it. The deferred pension would allow him to remain financially secure. Instead, he has reduced his hours and is now facing financial hardship. A third constituent is waiting for a lump sum to be paid on partial retirement. Again, the correct forms were sent in, but the lump sum was not received and there have been no communications.
Such examples are rife. Given the terrible hardship and worry that this fiasco has caused, I urge the Minister to explain what urgent action she is taking to rectify the situation and ensure that Capita, and not our public service pensioners, pays the price.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on securing this important debate. I declare my interest as a trade union member, and refer to the fact that I received support from the trade unions at the last election.
It is really important that we recognise who we are talking about: ordinary people, ordinary folk. Many of the people who we are discussing have worked in the civil service for many Government Departments and, shamefully, have been claiming benefits for years because their wages are that low. That is the vast majority of the people we are talking about. They brought us through the pandemic—let us not forget that. There are a lot of them in my constituency of Blyth and Ashington; I have a number of examples, which I am not sure I will be able to get through.
The root problem here, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned, is privatisation. The initial privatisation by the Tories was in 2012. It was initially DWP/Capita. Then it was MyCSP, which was a disaster. How on earth is Capita getting a secret contract agreed in 2023 to take place in 2025? It is an absolute outrage. Look at the situation now. They promised transition would be fine, but MyCSP had 16,000 unopened emails when Capita took the scheme back over. There are 1.7 million scheme members and a backlog of 90,000; there are 8,500 retired members not in receipt of any pension—and what about those in ill health and the bereaved? There is hardship, and there are issues with the interest-free loans that were promised.
Dan Carden
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Is it not important that this Labour Government show how they are different, and deal differently with those failed privatisations?
Ian Lavery
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I will refer to three of my constituents. Mr Brown, from Bedlington, who retired in December and cannot get any response whatsoever to his inquiries. Mr Newell, who worked in the civil service for 40 years and has a number of questions regarding Capita, which I will send to my right hon. Friend the Minister. He spent 21 hours in total on the telephone waiting for a response, and he had additional problems. Mr Davies from Choppington raised a problem with the portal, where people cannot access details.
Those are three real issues. We need to pause the voluntary exit scheme and focus on those people who are not in receipt of their pensions at this moment in time. There needs to be more resourcing, with more staff employed to get rid of the backlog. Again, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, we need to consider whether Capita is carrying out the job it is supposed to. It is time to have a look at Capita and see whether it is doing the job correctly. If it is not, penalties must apply.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for introducing the debate and speaking so articulately. I will not repeat the many points made by colleagues from across the House; instead, I will use this chance—of two and a half minutes, now—to talk about my casework. I want to say to my constituents that I had a meeting with the Minister yesterday, and I was reassured by how seriously the Government are taking this issue, but I am disgusted by how Capita is handling it. I want to ensure that, in every single email that I send to Capita, I am referencing this debate and the case I am bringing forward.
I have had about 10 correspondents, the first of whom is Kathleen Cassie. Again, I will be using these minutes in my correspondence with Capita. She took partial retirement in November. She has received no lump sum and no payments, and I have not had a response from Capita after chasing them. Maxine Fuller is planning for retirement. She has written four times, phoned twice and sent three messages on the portal. Surprisingly, she has had no response.
As Members can imagine, the story continues. Chris Fryer—I should say that all these people are happy to be named in Parliament—retired a year ago, and has not received a single penny after spending his entire career working as an officer for the Border Force. He has contacted them, and the same story remains: he has had no response. That is a year of not being able to make mortgage payments and the like, payments he should be able to take for granted.
It is a similar story with Lisa Andrews. She is a serving police officer who, after 37 years, applied for partial retirement on 1 December. She got cut off the portal, and she has not been able to have any correspondence with Capita. After chasing, but not hearing back, she received a lump sum, but she now awaits the monthly partial pension payment, and lo and behold—quelle surprise!—she did not receive it on 1 January.
I have many more examples, some of whom do not want to be referenced. To cite one without naming them, they were on the phone yesterday and were at 183 in the queue, but they are terrified that if I name them in Parliament, they will be sent to the back of the queue and penalised further. About 10 constituents have reached out to me about that. They are terrified. They have spent many years serving this country through the civil service, dedicating their life to it, and they should be able to look forward to their retirement—either partial or full—but they have been let down by Capita.
I look forward to the response of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), on how the Conservatives agreed this contract with such a lack of scrutiny, because they have not been challenged enough about that today. However, I will leave it there, Ms Lewell, because my anger is rising.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
Like many Members, I want to share the real impact that the serious concerns about the administration of the civil service pension scheme are having on my constituents. In the north-east, this issue is particularly acute because we have one of the largest HMRC and DWP offices in Benton Park View—often known locally as the Ministry—employing thousands of people. Civil service jobs have long been the backbone of our local economy, with many local people giving decades of their life to public service, but they are now being let down at the point when they should most be able to rely on the system.
I am regularly contacted by constituents who are spending hours on the phone—sometimes two, three or four hours—just to try to get an update on their pension, often only to be told that no one can help them or that they will receive a callback in seven to 10 days. Except, of course, that that call never comes. People are left with no information, no timescales and no way to resolve their issues. One constituent who already had a pension in payment is now being double taxed because Capita incorrectly told HMRC that she had started a new pension, rather than continuing her existing one. Despite repeated attempts to fix the issue, there has been no joy.
One civil servant with 43 years of service applied in August for partial retirement to start this year: all paperwork submitted all the paperwork, but no confirmation and no payment—nothing. After more than four decades of service, they are denied even the certainty of a planned retirement. Another constituent, with 29 years of service, claimed their pension in July and has still not received either their lump sum or any ongoing payments. As a result, they are having to rely on credit cards, incurring additional interest and struggling to meet mortgage payments—all because money to which they are entitled has not been paid. I have been contacted about a widows and orphans scheme refund of £1,940, due since July, that remains unpaid. For families dealing with bereavement, such delays only add to the strain they are already under.
As we have heard, these are not isolated cases, which points to systemic problems with how this scheme is administered. Civil servants have upheld their side of the bargain, and it is only right that the system does the same. I urge Ministers not only to examine Capita’s performance closely, but to recognise that previous MyCSP failures also need to be taken into account. I and other hon. Members want to hear what action is being taken to ensure that people receive their pensions accurately, promptly and with the respect they deserve, but also what action will be taken to hold Capital and MyCSP to account for their failures.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. To ensure that all Members wishing to speak do get to contribute, I am reducing the time limit to two and a half minutes.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which declares my various union memberships.
Many Members have made very valid points, and I will try not to echo them. To follow on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) said about MyCSP, I know from personal experience and the experience of my colleagues in the Prison Service that it was absolutely appalling—and, just when we thought its incompetence could not get any worse, it managed to surpass itself. I do not think any of us shed a tear when it had the contract taken away.
I am sure that Capita is full of excuses, saying “We had a terrible inheritance, because MyCSP did x, y and z”, and that is true, but Capita has huge resources of people and money, and it should have known what it was letting itself in for. It should have known how bad MyCSP was and how bad the backlog was, and if it could not do the job, it should not have taken on the contract.
I have constituents like Billy, who was considering taking partial retirement but now does not want to because he does not know if he is going to get his money. He is scared, and he is denying himself time away from work and partial retirement because of how appalling Capita is.
Will the Minister tell us what review will be done of the mismanagement of the contract, but also of how the was decision taken? I appreciate that it was taken by the previous Government, and that the Minister cannot answer for that, but what official advice was given to Ministers in the previous Government about the contract? In particular, what advice was given about break clauses? This is abject failure and we should be able to get out of the contract. What were officials in the Department advising Ministers about that? I am afraid to say that this level of failure requires accountability, and people who were involved in the procurement should never be involved in procurement for a Government contract again. We need to know who they are and what price they are going to pay, because, yet again, taxpayers are footing the bill for failure, and it is totally unacceptable.
This was not Capita’s first rodeo; it has been on the failure train many times before. The fact that it was given another contract is deeply worrying. Will the Minister confirm that Capita will not be allowed to bid for any future Government contracts, at the very least until this issue is resolved and the taxpayer has been compensated for what it has had to pay for to date? As far as I am concerned, this kind of thing should be brought back in house, so I am also interested to know what work is being done to see whether that is possible.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
Those who serve the public deserve dignity and respect as they go into retirement, but, after a lifetime putting their shoulder to the wheel to keep the country running, that is not what my constituents in Falkirk who have been impacted by these delays feel that they are receiving. They feel utterly let down by MyCSP and Capita.
When Capita won the contract under the Tories, it promised the world—improvements to service levels and response times—and justified proposed staff reductions through a more efficient IT system. Given the value of the contract and Capita’s reputation at the time, following the management of the teachers’ pension scheme, serious questions arise for the Tory then-Ministers about whether the contract should have been signed off in November 2023.
Transitional arrangements between MyCSP and Capita failed to plan for the scale of the backlog and the required additional staffing, as the Public Accounts Committee warned in October. Those warnings were not heeded, and that has had human consequences. Mary was supposed to retire with her pension last week, but without any time to make alternative plans and after hours on the phone, she was callously told to wait her turn, months after applying and of the ball being firmly in Capita’s court. After a workplace injury forced Andrew to retire after 40 years guarding Scotland’s prisons, he has not received his pension or the capability payment tied to his scheme. Multiple more constituents have been waiting nine months and counting to receive death in service payments following their spouses’ tragically passing away. This situation is directly responsible for their financial hardship and for aggravating the emotional devastation that they feel.
Those facing hardship and crisis and those at imminent risk of retirement with no income must be prioritised in the backlog. I have written, and will continue to write to both the Minister and Capita with each of their stories. I welcome the interest-free hardship loans of up to £5,000 and £10,000 for those in exceptional circumstances secured by Labour Ministers. Those must move at pace for those in Falkirk and across the country who urgently need support.
Capita must urgently state what additional resources it is providing to clear the backlog so that the crisis is fixed and paid for by the taxpayer-funded contractor, and not any more than is necessary by the taxpayer swooping in to the rescue. Once the backlog and crisis is cleared, the recovery team must have a clear mandate to consider whether reversing this failed privatisation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred to it, is the right way forward. Once the crisis is resolved, all contractual options available to the Cabinet Office must be considered. I have heard that this contract is stronger than the preceding MyCSP contract. Will the Minister say in what way it is stronger, and what further actions will be considered once the priority work for people who are sitting waiting on their pensions is completed?
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing this debate. It is crucial for my constituents who have dedicated their entire careers to public service at naval air stations, the Inland Revenue and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They all got in touch with me as a last resort due to delays and lack of information. I welcome the urgent recovery plan that has been put in place by Angela MacDonald’s team, but we need more clarity on the timeline for when the outstanding pensions matters will be resolved.
My constituents have highlighted issues with accuracy. Simon found that the figures he received were incorrect. When he questioned them, the answer from MyCSP was that he should wait until January and contact the new provider, who would sort it out. Mark, who worked at HMRC, noticed that, according to the new website, his nominated beneficiary was his dad, who has been dead for many decades. Mark queried this and was told that it is actually his wife, but the website still has not been updated. David said:
“I heard nothing. I called many times and was…on hold for 90 minutes to 2 hours. The line kept going dead, after getting from say number 105 to around 45 in that time. I got through three times this month and each time the call handler promised escalation, telling me I’m with the ‘finalisation team’, but still nothing.”
What steps are being taken by Capita and the Cabinet Office to improve the situation, and what penalty clauses have been triggered? Is consideration being given to forfeiture of the contract? What hard targets has Capita been set to get through the backlog? Did MyCSP breach its contract? What penalties has it paid?
When I was a councillor, I chaired Cornwall’s local government pension scheme, which managed to deal with 60,000 members and £2.3 billion. It had proper resources in place to deal with the McCloud judgment, among other things, and everybody gets their pension on time. That is done in house. Why cannot these civil servants, who have worked their whole life in public service, receive the same measure of fairness and respect?
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing this vital debate. As some of my colleagues have already done, I will speak about the human cost of the failures in the administration of the civil service pension scheme, and I will do so with the permission of constituents whose MyCSP cases have been handed over to Capita.
Sally Clementson was a civil servant who had paid into her pension throughout her working life. Sadly, she died in January last year. Her husband, Mark, waited months following her bereavement claim without hearing anything about the widower’s pension. During that time he was anxious, and suffered distress and serious financial hardship while grieving for his wife. Tragically, Mark himself died in November, having never received a penny of the pension that his wife had earned. To this day, his family have received no pension payments to help cover the funeral costs or mounting bills. The latest response that they received from Capita states that that is due to the backlog.
That is not an isolated case. Another constituent, Debbie Bowen, died in 2024. Her sister, Joanne Wilson, has spent over a year chasing Debbie’s pension. Solicitors were promised escalation and contact within 12 weeks, but alas no contact came. Repeated calls throughout December and January led to the same assurances, but still no resolution. Joanne has described feeling utterly frustrated and just worn down by it all.
Let me be clear: these are not complex claims. I know that many Members here have some really complex claims to deal with. The ones I am referring to are not disputed claims. They are from bereaved families, who are being left without answers, without dignity and without money. To be absolutely frank, I am apoplectic. It is unacceptable for workers or families to be left in this position.
Let me echo colleagues by asking the Minister: what immediate steps are being taken to prioritise bereavement cases? More broadly, when companies such as Capita repeatedly fail public services—let us be frank; it has done that not just in relation to pension schemes—why is that not considered during procurement processes? I used to work in procurement, and I certainly considered previous performance when I was awarding contracts. It is baffling to me that a contract was awarded to Capita when it had such a record of non-performance. Will the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), say why that was not considered when the previous Government awarded the contract?
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.
As so many colleagues have said, at the heart of this debate are people who have worked as public servants, many of them for decades. Everything that I am getting in my mailbox relates to hard-working people who have tried to do the right thing—it is just not fair, is it?
I have constituents who are afraid of losing their homes because they cannot pay their mortgages, their credit card bills, or their electricity and gas bills. But herein lies a bigger issue, I think. It is on stuff like this that the public have lost faith in us, because it is not the first time that something like this has happened. There needs to be accountability.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) said, Capita has a record of incompetence and crisis under its belt, including on public service pensions, so why was it awarded this contract? What advice was given to Tory Ministers, and by which officials, when the contract was awarded? What commitments has Capita given this Government about resources to clear the backlog, and what firm timelines has it given for that? Crucially, what will be the consequences if it does not hit those targets? Will it just get away with it, with a fine, a slap on the wrist or maybe a newspaper story? If this is not already failure, what constitutes failure?
As I said at the start, at the heart of this situation are people’s lives. If the Government do not get to grips with it, we will be back here again, as my right hon. Friend said, and I can foresee an ITV series starring Toby Jones in a few years’ time. I thank the Government for the sticking plaster in the form of loans for those who need them most, but the taxpayer is once again stepping in because of failure, incompetence and maladministration. I urge the Cabinet Office to do the right thing and make sure that everything is done for people who have worked hard all their lives so that they get their pensions paid.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing this important debate on a crisis affecting thousands of public servants who find themselves without the pension they have earned and, in some cases, without any income at all. These people have paid into a scheme throughout their careers with the reasonable expectation that when they retire they will get their money—it is their deferred salary. Instead, we have witnessed from MyCSP and Capita nothing short of a shambles.
The previous Government awarded Capita a seven-year contract worth £239 million to administer the scheme, even though the warning signs were there. Where are Conservative Members today to answer and apologise? It is shameful. The result has been chaos. I want to highlight the human impact and share the experiences of some of my constituents who are bearing the brunt of the failure.
One, a former Ministry of Defence employee, was medically retired on 11 December. His lump sum and monthly payments were due to start on the 12th, but he has received nothing. Another constituent retired from the Office for National Statistics on 27 November after giving four months’ notice. He was told his lump sum would be paid within one week, but he has received nothing. A constituent who has worked for HMRC for 26 years is due to retire but cannot get a pension quote from Capita, so she cannot plan her retirement or make informed decisions. A constituent who retired from HMRC on 30 December is waiting for a lump sum of £94,000. Capita has confirmed receipt of his documents, but he has received nothing. Finally, I want to mention a constituent who worked in naval fleet support for 38 years. He decided in June 2025 to retire. Since then, the communication has been abysmal and he has received not a single penny of his pension.
Those are not isolated cases. These delays are causing genuine hardship. People are unable to pay their bills, depleting their savings and borrowing from family members, and some are borrowing from other sources, which is costing them even more. The stress that this situation is causing is horrendous. I acknowledge that the Government have appointed an expert recovery team led by Angela MacDonald and I welcome the hardship loans plan. However, that does not address the fact that a flawed procurement process selected a contractor that was not ready to go live.
I am calling for transparency—Capita must publish detailed performance data—and accountability. The Cabinet Office must make full use of its contractual rights. If Capita fails to meet recovery plan milestones, there must be serious consideration of whether it should continue to hold the contract. Finally, there should be compensation for those who have suffered financial hardship because of Capita. This crisis raises fundamental questions about how we contract out the administration of critical public services.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. All credit to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing this important debate. She can so often be found calling out injustice. As is clearly the case for many MPs, recent weeks have brought forth an abundance of correspondence from constituents frustrated by unsatisfactory communication from Capita, with the anxiety borne of missed pension payments. Many of those who have experienced missed pension payments have given years or even decades of their lives to public service across key Departments, not least the Ministry of Defence and Crown Prosecution Service.
One such constituent of mine expressed that she had completed her MyCSP application in July 2025, but had then received no further communication until discovering in November that the portal had closed. Having then created a Capita account in December, she has sent three messages via the portal and attempted to call the hotline four times—to date, all without a response. Another is a retired Ministry of Defence civil servant who had worked at RAF Innsworth, now Imjin barracks, home to the Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre. She told me that she submitted all her documentation as required, but at the end of November all telephone lines were ceased, her emails bounced back undelivered and the portal was closed. She said that her experience only worsened when Capita reopened the portal, which was apparently untested and did not allow her to log in at all. The absence of meaningful communication significantly compounded my constituent’s stress. Those affected still have no timeline for seeing their pensions paid.
Capita’s initial explanation—that these symptoms were merely teething troubles—should do nothing to convince any of us that the organisation fully understands the implications of the missed payments. It has more recently admitted to serious issues: the true scale is apparently a backlog of 86,000 cases. None of that should surprise the Government or anybody else here. I recall significant delays in the armed forces recruitment process during a period in which Capita mismanaged medical assessments. Issues similar to those faced currently were reported in the administration of the teachers’ pension scheme, again by Capita. In October 2025, the Public Accounts Committee warned the Government of a clear risk that Capita would not be ready to take on full administration in December, and it called on the Cabinet Office to explain how it would ensure sufficient staffing and resourcing.
At the heart of this issue are 1.7 million current and former civil servants who just want peace of mind from knowing that the pensions they have earned through years of public service will be handled fairly, with dignity and, if at all possible, with a base level of competence. The Liberal Democrats therefore have questions for the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood). I hope that in their closing speeches, they will answer some of the following.
In the light of this situation, what steps are the Government taking to support individuals who have mortgages to pay, families to feed and all manner of expenses for which they are currently being denied payment? Perhaps the shadow Minister will tell us how his Government assessed Capita’s role in the administration of the teachers’ pension scheme, where similar issues were reported. Will he explain whether Capita’s role in the administration of the teachers’ pension scheme factored in the awarding of this contract? Capita claims that the backlog it inherited was more than twice the size that it anticipated. Will the Minister tell us who is responsible for that—MyCSP, Capita, this Government or the last one?
Perhaps the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, the solitary Conservative representative, will answer the following. The value of the contract is £239 million over seven years. Given Capita’s history of mismanagement, by what metrics was it determined to have won the contract? Could the Minister answer this question? Hauntingly, the contract includes an option to extend it from seven to 10 years. Will this mismanagement factor into the Government’s determination about whether to extend it?
My final question is for the Government. We can all sit here, empathise and complain about Capita, but we must learn the lessons. What lessons will the Government take from this fiasco?
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on securing this important and timely debate. The situation is an entirely unforced error by Capita, and it has caused real and significant financial distress to thousands of former public servants—people who dedicated their working lives to serving this country. The people affected are individuals who planned responsibly for retirement and relied on the integrity of the civil service pension scheme, but have been left anxious, frustrated and, in many cases, desperate.
Like other hon. Members, I have had several constituents contact me to say that they have been left without any income to fall back on. Mark contacted Capita several times at the start of this year without any reply at all, and he now finds that none of the links in the previous letters and emails from MyCSP work anymore. There was no transition.
In many of the cases reported by colleagues from across the country, those affected are suffering missed mortgage payments, unpaid bills and the indignity of having to borrow money simply to get by. That should never happen to anyone who has served the public in good faith.
Anna Dixon
The hon. Gentleman sets out many of the hardships and challenges, as other hon. Members have in this debate. Will he take some responsibility? Under the previous Government, when this contract was let, these problems should have been foreseen and the contract never awarded to Capita.
Mike Wood
I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept that because I was not a Minister in the previous Government, I did not have access to the tendering process, and do not have the details of the bid. However, there was a clear failure by the previous providers and there have been many opportunities since the last general election to review that contract in light of the clear failure—
Cameron Thomas
The hon. Gentleman is probably quite right to note that there were significant failings by the previous provider. Does he accept that there were clear failings by the previous Government?
Mike Wood
No. The hon. Gentleman is obviously trying to hide from the fact that his party was part of the Government that awarded that contract in 2012 to the mutual joint venture. He may wish to look at his own party’s part in that if he thinks that it was a mistake. Sadly, the information provided by the Minister for the Cabinet Office to the House last week fell well short of what is required. It failed to address the fundamental question of how the Government allowed Capita to take over the contract in December despite the repeated warnings and the signs that it had clearly failed in its key milestones.
Mike Wood
I must continue, because I have only a short time; I have given way twice. We know that in November 2023, Capita was awarded the contract to administer the civil service pension scheme, but we also know that the previous administrator, MyCSP, had its contract extended until December 2025 specifically to allow for a two-year transition period that was meant to reduce risk, not create it. The National Audit Office investigation report published in June 2025 made it clear that MyCSP had failed to meet agreed service levels in the final year of its contract, with complaints more than doubling towards the end of that contract. That is a large part of the reason why the contract was awarded elsewhere.
If I may briefly refer to the tragic case of Philippa—not a constituent but someone who I had the pleasure of meeting because she was the long-term partner of a member of staff of one of our colleagues.
John McDonnell
Will the hon. Member give way? He should not be allowed to get away with this.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. It is obvious that the Member does not want to give way.
John McDonnell
He is not giving way because he will not admit responsibility.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. It is up to the Member if he wishes to give way; he has made it clear that he does not wish to.
Mike Wood
I have already given way twice and I may give way later, but I need to get through my speech so that the Minister can reply, because I know that hon. Members will want to hear her response.
Philippa retired in May and suffered a nervous collapse triggered by pension delay. Tragically, Philippa died on Boxing day, so that is the very real human cost. Of course, the National Audit Office report did not stop with the failings of the final years of MyCSP’s contract. It also highlighted that Capita had failed to meet three of the six key transition milestones that were due by March 2025, all relating to scheme design and operational readiness. In other words, the warning signs were there in black and white. Ministers were on notice of the potential for serious problems, and of the consequences that those problems would have for pensioners, for at least the final half of 2025.
Leigh Ingham
Does the hon. Member agree that the warning signs were there when Capita failed on the TPS?
John McDonnell
Maybe the Ministers at the time did not see Capita’s Army recruitment fiasco, its primary care fiasco that put patients at risk, the near-collapse of the teachers’ pension scheme or the cyber-attack in which Capita exposed the data of 6.5 million people and was fined millions. Does the hon. Member not think that Ministers might have taken those into account before awarding this contract?
Mike Wood
I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has not always been an uncritical friend of the current Government, but he has to recognise that his party has been in government for more than a year and a half, during which there were opportunities to take action if they were unhappy with our contract.
As I said, the warning signs were there in black and white. Ministers were on notice of the potential for problems and their consequences. Despite that, on 7 July last year—a full year into this Government—the permanent secretary told the Public Accounts Committee that the Cabinet Office would decide in December whether Capita should take over administration. On 14 November 2025, the Cabinet Office wrote to trade unions confirming that Capita would indeed take over from 1 December, stating that it was satisfied—this Government, this permanent secretary and this Minister’s Department were satisfied—that Capita had taken on board the findings of those reports.
Serious questions have to be answered. What assurances were provided by Capita to Ministers before that final decision was taken at the end of last year? What scrutiny was applied to those assurances and by whom? Why, in his letter to colleagues, did the Minister for the Cabinet Office claim that these issues had only come to his attention “in recent weeks” when both the National Audit Office report in June and the Public Accounts Committee report in October warned of a “clear risk” that Capita would not be ready? The Public Accounts Committee was clear that Capita had missed seven out of its eight key transitional milestones to deliver its IT system and said:
“The Cabinet Office needs to fully develop contingency plans”.
If the Minister is right that he was only made aware of these problems in recent weeks, should the Government not have known far sooner and acted far sooner?
Although it is welcome that interest-free hardship loans are now available, this action has clearly come too late. Those loans should have been made available on an emergency basis from 1 December—the same day that Capita took over administration—so that people were not left in financial limbo. Instead, some pensioners have reported being forced to take out costly commercial loans or to borrow from friends and family simply to cover basic living costs. That is unacceptable. Can the Minister guarantee that no one affected will face further disruption beyond the end of this month? Can she guarantee that pension payments will be stabilised fully and permanently?
The warning signs were there for months, and the failure to act decisively after the publication of the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee reports is stark. Although it is deeply disappointing that the Government failed to prevent this from happening, we can all agree that it is now in everyone’s interest—
Mike Wood
I have given way four times; I really ought to conclude.
We can all agree that it is now in everyone’s interest for operational stability to be restored as quickly as possible, for the Government to ensure rigorously and transparently that Capita meets its contractual obligations consistently and that any penalty clauses in the contract that can be enforced are enforced to allow for compensation to be paid to those affected. Above all, we owe it to those affected—public servants who did everything asked of them—to put this right and ensure that such a failure does not happen again.
The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I have a civil service pension, having started my career in the Home Office in 2001.
It is tradition to thank the Member who secured the debate, but I want to place on record my personal thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on behalf of my constituents affected by this issue and on behalf of all the constituents we have heard about today. This is a perfect example of bringing to Parliament voices that have not been heard. They have been sat in queues on phone lines, but everyone has brought their stories powerfully to Parliament and the heart of Government today. I thank my hon. Friend for that public service, which is much appreciated.
I thank all hon. Members who have raised issues on behalf of their constituents. It has been troubling to hear those stories, but it is also a testament to the system that an MP can bring the experience and voice of constituents to Government. I also want to thank and pay tribute to all the fantastic public servants who give so much in service to our country and communities.
When a civil servant retires after decades of public service, they deserve a seamless transition into the next chapter of their lives, and recognition of the contribution they have made over their career. They deserve a system that is accurate, responsive and, above all, timely. I state clearly for the record that the service experienced by members of the civil service pension scheme is absolutely unacceptable.
As the 10-year contract was signed by the previous Government in 2023, I could talk about another disastrous inheritance, but I will not. I will take responsibility and apologise because that is what today should be about: the people affected by this service. I have read the accounts of members, many of whom wrote to their MPs. I have seen that correspondence, heard the concerns and listened carefully to the individual cases raised today.
I am deeply sorry for the worry and distress this has caused so many people, particularly those dealing with bereavement, ill health and financial hardship. This is a failure: there are no two ways about it. Resolving it is a matter of utmost urgency for the Government. We are taking direct action to intervene and put things right, doing so as quickly as possible while ensuring accuracy. In response to questions raised by colleagues, I will set out our steps to undertake that.
To understand how to fix this, I want to say something quickly about how we arrived here. As I mentioned, the decision to transfer to Capita with a 10-year contract was made in 2023. The Cabinet Office will undertake a full review of the award and the management of previous pension contracts, as colleagues have asked, once we have resolved the immediate issue of service delivery. I am sure that hon. Members will share our view that the priority is to get people their money and resolve the immediate problem.
On 1 December 2025, the administration of the scheme transferred from MyCSP to Capita. Although the core payroll for 730,000 existing pensioners continues to be paid correctly and on time, the transition for new retirees has been a mess, with a large number of members significantly impacted. The main driver of the delays is the high volume of work that Capita inherited from MyCSP, approximately 86,000 work in progress cases, which was more than twice the volume planned for and anticipated during the due diligence and planning period.
In addition to the work in progress cases, the handover included 15,000 unread email messages. There were delays in loading and correctly mapping the vast amounts of data transferred from MyCSP to Capita. Technical issues were identified in setting up and receiving data interfaces between employers and the new administrator. As of the week commencing 19 January, Capita reporting showed approximately 8,500 recently retired members are waiting for their first monthly pension payment.
Although some of those individuals have now received their one-off tax-free lump sum, the delay in implementing regular pension benefit payments is causing genuine hardship, especially for those relying on their pension payment to pay for basics such as rent, food, mortgages and heating, as we have heard. Shockingly, the report also showed 6,300 open cases relating to deaths, where members have passed and bereaved families are trying to understand and settle financial affairs. I do not underestimate the trauma for many families of having to deal with that. That includes 300 sensitive death in service cases, adding huge financial worries for grieving families, which is simply unacceptable.
Member data is held by employers and fed through monthly to Capita via a secure interface. That enables pension records to be updated for any changes to personal data, employment terms and contracts. A transition of that scale requires the handover of huge amounts of complex personal data. More positively, Capita has now received the data required from the previous administrator. However, the switch of provider means that members are now required to register on a new portal. As colleagues have highlighted, there have been huge problems with the portal.
In addressing all those live issues, we must also understand the complexity of the civil service pension scheme. It is made up of five different pension schemes, and it has approximately 1.7 million members and 320 employers. It is the third largest public sector scheme, and it deals with an average of more than 3,000 retirements and more than 2,700 bereavement cases every month. That is the scale of the challenge.
Let me outline exactly what we are doing to address the problems as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Although it is a corporate failure, the Government are stepping in, and I thank the many civil servants who are working hard 24/7 to resolve this issue. My officials, along with expert colleagues from across the civil service, are working closely with senior leaders at Capita and have agreed a way forward with a full recovery plan. I am grateful to them for their hard work. We have appointed Angela MacDonald, second permanent secretary and deputy chief executive of HMRC, to lead a recovery taskforce. The team is working alongside Capita and departmental leaders to execute a plan organised into intensive three-week sprints.
On resources, we are deploying a 150-person civil service surge team specifically to clear the correspondence logjam. Capita therefore now has more than 650 staff dedicated to this contact, an increase of more than 50% in resourcing compared with the previous provider. Since 26 January, the recovery team has received data on all outstanding cases.
On the transitional help loans, we have authorised Government Departments to provide interest-free bridging loans of £5,000 and, in exceptional cases, of up to £10,000 for those in immediate need. The Department is working to get the money to those impacted within days, not weeks. We are prioritising the most urgent cases. We are working with Capita to ensure that the systems and resources are in place to deal with ill health, bereavement and financial hardship cases, alongside arrangements to clear the backlog. Those cases are our absolute priority.
On the member portal, there was already a plan to roll out greater functionality. That includes “track my case”, which allows members to see the end-to-end progress of their queries; digital requirements processes, which includes the facility for members to track the progress of their retirement application; and a lifestyle modeller, an interactive calculator to help members under the age of 55 to plan for the income they need in retirement. We will provide regular updates on the portal so that scheme members and MPs can see the progress being made to improve the service. I endeavour to ensure updates are made regularly to the House.
We expect to restore service levels for death in service cases and ill health retirement cases by the end of February. I make that pledge to Members. More widely, our current plan is that we are working to bring most aspects of the service back with expected service levels by June, but we will keep that under constant review and continue to look for opportunities to accelerate progress.
Jim Shannon
I spoke to the Minister before the debate started, and she indicated that hon. Members might have an access number and an email address. Will she provide those?
Anna Turley
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s flagging that point, and I was coming to that. I have taken the quite unusual step of bringing a print-out for colleagues, which will be available at the end of the debate and will be shared with colleagues more widely. It has an email address on it. I am keen that hon. Members bring their cases directly to us. Of course, we are addressing the wider issues, but it is a cause of great concern to me that, where cases are raised with Members of Parliament, they should be brought straight to our attention.
The McCloud pension sector remedy work was raised. We know how important it is for the many members awaiting an update. We have agreed a separately resourced project to deliver the remedy with Capita. Many of these cases are very complex, and we hope the majority will be issued by April ’27. We are working with the Pensions Regulator, and we will provide progress updates to the members affected and to MPs.
The new contract with Capita includes a number of key performance indicators, which colleagues have rightly raised, with financial penalties to be applied where they are not achieved. We reserve all commercial rights at present. We have already withheld millions of pounds of payments for failure to meet transitional milestones. We continue to contractually monitor service level key performance indicators linked to payments, and we have refused to waive service levels, ensuring that Capita remains contractually liable for performance.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked whether there was a cause for termination. There is an option to terminate in any contract of this kind. These are complex and commercial requirements, and terminating the contract and moving to another provider would mean another massive upheaval of data and everything else. I am sure colleagues share my view that the priority right now is to resolve people’s immediate concerns and issues, make sure people get their money and undertake a review of exactly what happened. However, everything is on the table. As I said, we will do a full review of these contracts, but our priority is to get people the support that they deserve. It has now been two months since Capita took on the new contract, and we are very clear that members of the pension scheme deserve so much better. Our focus is on taking fast action to resolve the most critical issues for impacted individuals while simultaneously ensuring a detailed recovery plan that brings the commercial contract back within service level agreements as quickly as possible.
I want to reassure every member of the pension scheme that their pension is safe and their data is secure. We are working, and will continue to work, tirelessly with Capita to support the recovery programme until such time as we are wholly satisfied that the service is fully recovered. We are committed to ensuring that every member is treated fairly and with respect, and that no one suffers a permanent financial loss due to these administrative failures. We are holding Capita to account and are going to kick backside, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. We are making sure that members are at the heart of the recovery plan, and we will use every commercial lever at our disposal to ensure that Capita delivers effectively.
I thank all hon. Members who brought the voices of their constituents to the Chamber today. I have brought a handout for colleagues, and I urge anyone with constituency cases to raise them with us. We will do our best to accelerate them, but I am conscious that we have to resolve this matter not just for those who are brought to our attention but for absolutely everyone. We will hold further drop-ins to assist hon. Members and their teams, and we are doing our absolute best to make sure people get their money as quickly as possible. The House has my word, and that of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office that we will not rest until the service is stabilised and our civil servants receive the support that they have earned after so many years of dedicated service—for which, once again, we thank them.
Anna Dixon
On a point of order, Ms Lewell. I would like to apologise. I need to declare an interest: I also hold a civil service pension and would like to put that on the record.
Lorraine Beavers
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Lewell. I thank all Members who attended the debate this morning.
I called this debate because constituents of mine in Blackpool North and Fleetwood, and others across the country, suffered stress, uncertainty and serious financial difficulties because of Capita’s poor administration of the civil service pension scheme. This situation is not acceptable, and it is clearly a failure. Although I appreciate the Cabinet Office’s action of offering interest-free loans of up to £10,000 and bringing in additional civil servants to help fix the problem, this situation should never have been the case in the first place.
It is essential that the process is accessible. Only yesterday, I heard that the DWP is asking applicants for personal financial information. No scheme member should have to go through that; it is not their fault that the scheme has not been managed properly. I am grateful to the Minister for her answers, and want to remind her again of the commitment that our party made before the election to begin the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation. This situation should serve as a reminder of precisely why we made that promise.
Civil servants like all of those who have written to me and visited my office in the past few months have worked immensely hard throughout their careers and delivered for our country on a daily basis. It is right that we now work urgently to remedy this situation for them by clearing the backlog and compensating those impacted in the short term, and by ensuring that this disgraceful failure never happens again in the long term. I hope that the debate has gone some way towards making clear the strength of feeling amongst our constituents and that it will ensure that they get the service that they deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme.
Fast-Track Visas: Skilled US Citizens
(2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I will call Christine Jardine to move the motion, and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of fast-track visas for skilled US citizens.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I would like to share an email I recently received:
“All I’m asking for is a direction to march in, as I am in fact a refugee seeking asylum from a tyrannical, fascist administration which is utterly destroying the nation I once loved and protected. The feeling of turning my back on the democracy I swore an oath to defend feels much more as though I’m ending a long relationship with someone I still love, but am unable to live with anymore. America has broken our hearts and reconciliation is more fantastic than a Rudyard Kipling book.”
I was elected eight years ago, but sometimes I am still taken aback by a reaction to something we say or do in this place. This time, part of the shock comes from the fact that that email is not from someone in a third-world country or a warzone, but from a citizen of the United States who is living in the United States.
In April last year, I put a proposal to my Scottish party conference to offer skilled US workers a visa route to enable them to live and work in the United Kingdom. The proposal was accepted and became party policy, and that news—again, somewhat surprisingly—made it across the Atlantic. I was then inundated with messages from those in America who no longer wished to live under a Trump presidency. They wanted to feel safe and to contribute to a country much more in line with their values than the country they were born into increasingly is.
Those people felt that a lifeline had been offered. I cannot express how relieved the nearly 200 people who wrote to me were that another way might become possible for them. Some just wanted to thank me, as if no one had been thinking of them until that moment. Some laid out their CVs to prove they would be worthy of applying. Some told me they were visiting London and going to the US embassy to try to find more information. It was genuinely upsetting to tell those people that they could not apply, and that this is only an idea at the moment. There was such strength of feeling.
For me, there was also the guilt that this is not entirely altruistic, because I firmly believe that those people have something vital that we need in our economy and that could be a benefit to our country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady, because this is such an important issue; I am aware of it in my constituency, although there are not the numbers she referred to—those 200 email requests. With Belfast receiving a high level of investment from US companies that wish to avail themselves of our superior cyber-skills, and our low rent and business rates, it is essential that there is a swinging door for our US allies and for US investors and individuals. Does the hon. Lady agree that visa systems are not one size fits all, and that tailoring the US visa system makes perfect sense?
Christine Jardine
I completely agree. We need a system that allows people to come here—not just from the United States, but more generally. People in the United States have the skills we need in the industries that so much of our economy will be dependent on: artificial intelligence, cancer research, pharmacology, science and the growing space sector. In Edinburgh, we are working hard to create that sort of environment, so I completely agree.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
A constituent has written to me in very similar terms about coming to the UK from the USA to “flee Trump”, as he puts it. He did not come here to steal jobs; he came to create them. He came here to start a business, at great sacrifice and financial cost to himself, but he feels betrayed by the changes in the indefinite leave to remain arrangements. When we are thinking about attracting people and their skills, we have to think about how those people are supported. Does the hon. Member agree that when people come here under an agreement, we must uphold our side of it?
Christine Jardine
I completely agree. There is a danger to our international reputation, as well as our economy, if we become somewhere people cannot trust that. If they make the life-changing decision to come here, invest in our country, work for our economy, and contribute through tax and national insurance, we should not turn around decades later and say, “Sorry, we have changed our minds.” That is vitally important.
Some of the people who wrote to me told me of their visceral fears, and their worries for their children or for the LGBT community they are part of or work with. Some are terrified they will lose their jobs in the swingeing cuts of the Trump Administration. There are so many real-life stories from people in the United States.
But there are also the people in this country. We can only be the best representatives we can be if we listen, and I want to highlight something I was told by someone who wrote to me in this country. Speaking of their trans partner, they said:
“I have to say, I’m glad someone is speaking up about this. I see the genuine fear and anxiety he has about being sent back to the States. He told me recently that he has his suicide plan all ready and goodbye letters to family already written, as he’s ‘never going back’.”
It terrifies me that people should be so afraid of going back to the world’s largest democracy because of what it has become. That person went on to say:
“Thank you for maybe finding a solution that saves US LBGTQI+ lives in our current political upheaval. They and any non-white male here are in terrible danger.”
That came from someone from the United States. People have told me that they fear for their family’s safety and for their children.
We have to look at why this is happening, and how we can help people who are living in fear. The idea of fast-track visas was born of two issues. The first was the election of a President who does not represent my values or the values of so many in this place, and the consequences of that election for his own people. We have all seen the news and seen the unnecessary loss. For so many in the US, it is no longer the land of the free. According to official figures, there were more than 1,000 anti-LGBTQ incidents across 47 states and Washington DC in the past year—a 5% increase from the 984 incidents in 2024. Over half of those targeted transgender and non-conforming people specifically.
The second point was our skills shortage, and the way this Government are getting immigration under control: it will be much more difficult for people to come and stay here, to make their lives here and to feel confident, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) mentioned. They want to contribute to our economy, our public services and so many important sectors: space, education, oncology and science. So I thought, “Here’s an opportunity.” Those who know me would say that I am a solutions person, and I saw an opportunity. It is about not just saying there is a problem, but actually coming up with an idea that is beneficial to those people and to us—to both sides of the pond.
For me, it is also about creating a positive case for immigration; it is about looking up and out, and saying that for our country to be successful, we might need to encourage people to travel here from beyond our shores. That is not because I am doing this country down, but because I believe in our future and I know that that is the reality of the current situation. We are better when we work together and learn from our different experiences.
Why not offer sanctuary to those who want to flee, if they can make our country a better, more prosperous place for our people in the process? As I said, I am a solutions person. For many, the American dream is now a nightmare, but we could turn that around and offer them a fresh dream.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for securing the debate, and I am grateful for her contribution and the others we have heard.
When it comes to detailed examination of foreign policy and the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States of America, colleagues will appreciate that such issues lie outside my remit as a Home Office Minister. However, I reiterate that the UK and US are close allies and partners; the UK-US relationship has been the cornerstone of our security and prosperity for over a century, and we will never turn away from it.
Let me begin by addressing the hon. Member’s proposals. We are not considering a fast-track visa for skilled US citizens, and I do not believe we need one. Our immigration system already offers a broad range of routes to target talented individuals who want to come and work or study in the UK. Alongside that, our increasingly digitised border—with priority fees for quick visa transactions—means that people can come to the UK quickly and easily.
I will talk now about visas and processing in general, and then move on to routes that attract global talent and skilled workers. On visa processing, the UK immigration system already provides a rich offering for people coming to the UK to work and study, with fast-track visa options for those who need them. UK Visas and Immigration is responsible for making millions of decisions each year about who has the right to visit or stay in our country.
The visa service is underpinned by an uncompromising focus on national security, but also a commitment to provide applicants with the best possible service. All applicants can and should expect UKVI to offer a simple online visa application process. A biometric appointment is usually available within five working days in one of our overseas network of more than 250 visa application centres, which cover more than 140 countries. Decisions are made within 15 working days of someone attending the VAC, and come with an online record of immigration status that is secure and that can be easily accessed, checked and shared with employers, landlords and carriers.
The UK service is competitive in terms of the speed at which the whole process can be completed. Those choosing to pay for our priority or super-priority services—which have recently been expanded across most of our routes—get decisions within five working days or the next working day respectively. In practice, if the super-priority service is chosen, a skilled worker visa application could be made on a Monday, and the applicant could attend the VAC on the Tuesday and have the decision by the close of business on the Wednesday. That is our fast-track service, and we stand out from our competitors on this.
Since January 2025 US nationals looking to visit the UK for up to six months on business can apply for an electronic travel authorisation. The quick application process using the ETA app offers fast decisions—usually on the same day—and lasts for two years, allowing for flexibility of regular travel and smooth border crossings.
The issue of attracting talent was raised. As set out in our immigration White Paper and modern industrial strategy, both of which were published last year, the Government are focused on attracting talented individuals to the UK to work and study. From business leaders and entrepreneurs to top-end researchers, our commitment is clear: we want to bring those with expertise, ambition and creativity to the UK, where they will find a unique environment to thrive and innovate and can help our economy grow further.
Dr Arthur
Earlier I gave an example of an entrepreneur who came to the UK from the USA. He spent a lot of money coming here, and he feels he has spent an important part of his life in the UK—when he could have spent it elsewhere in the world—but he feels betrayed now, because of the review of the ILR arrangements for him and others. Does the Minister accept that that will make people more reluctant to come to the UK? I am talking about entrepreneurs and people whom we actually need to come here and support our economy.
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for his point. I cannot comment on the individual case, because I am not aware of that. The ILR changes that we are making are broad. We had a long debate on that the other day, but it is not there in any way to dissuade talent. Actually, post consultation, we are highly likely to see discounts for talent, to ensure that those people can settle in the UK faster; they are earning that through integration and contribution. That will be laid out in due course, following the closure of the consultation on 12 February.
In a volatile world, Britain stands out, as this Government make the UK the premier destination for business and top international talent. We have all the ingredients for exceptional talent to thrive. We recognise that the immigration system, which prioritises the skills that this country needs rather than nationality, has an important part to play in that, helping to ensure that we remain competitive in the global recruitment market. That is why we have established routes that focus on attracting those with the skills and talent to support the growth of our economy.
I will move on to the global talent system. Our global talent route for leaders and potential leaders in the fields of science and research, digital technology and the arts is the most flexible offer to the world’s top talent, including many from the US. Published research shows that this visa influenced four in five global talent visa holders to apply to live and work in the UK. Our high potential individual route gives recent graduates of the world’s top universities the opportunity to build their careers in the UK without the need for a prior job offer. More than 40% of universities whose graduates are eligible for that route are based in the US. It means that employers have access to the most highly sought-after international graduates, as well as to the pipeline of top talent from our own universities.
A world-class visa system is essential to attracting and retaining the best international talent. Our system is just that, but we are committed to going further and have already introduced pro-talent reforms. That includes expanding eligibility for the high potential individual visa to the top 100 global universities; enabling international students to transition seamlessly from study to entrepreneurship on the innovator founder visa; simplified access for top science talent; and a broadened list of eligible prizes for the global talent visa.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The biggest challenges facing the world now are global: climate change, the risk of pandemics, and antimicrobial resistance. These are global challenges, but also science challenges. The US Administration have an anti-vaxxer running the Health Department and a President who seems not to believe in climate change. Do the UK Government recognise that as an opportunity to really fly the flag for being a pro-science country and to offer refuge to scientists who want to help solve some of these huge global problems, but also help grow our economy?
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his points. We are world leading in science. The visa system that we have created in the Home Office is there precisely to attract the top talent from across the whole world, and of course that includes the USA. We are committed to going further, as I have already laid out.
To support the Government’s efforts in targeting global talent, we launched the global talent taskforce last year. It will bring in specialist private sector headhunting expertise, and establish new functions to support individuals to relocate and companies to set up UK offices at pace. It will embolden its concierge offer to the world’s elite talent, starting with a dedicated focus on international AI talent.
I want to mention the skilled worker route because I believe it is relevant to this debate. US citizens can make use of the main work route for skilled workers. This route has a broad range of high-skilled occupations that individuals sponsored by an approved employer can use to come to the UK. In the year ending September 2025, more than 5,000 Americans used our skilled worker route to come and fill roles in the UK.
In closing, I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West and all Members.
Dr Chambers
It is really encouraging to hear that 5,000 Americans came in on skilled worker visas. We are concerned that companies, especially AI and tech companies, are setting up in the UK, but not growing here, because they then relocate, particularly to silicon valley, and become multimillion or multibillion dollar companies, employing a lot of people and paying a lot of tax. Do we know, because I actually do not know, the number of people leaving to go to the US to work in tech compared with the number coming to the UK, so we can see the direction of gravity?
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for that good point. I do not have those numbers to hand, but I will write to him with that data, if we have it. We do have data for those leaving the country in general, but I will certainly look into that.
The UK and the USA are connected in myriad ways. As we know, the ties between our two countries are deep, long-standing and strong. A large number of Americans come to our country every year to visit, work and study. We greatly value their contribution to our country, and as I have set out, a comprehensive range of visa routes is already available to them.
Question put and agreed to.
Postal Services: Rural Areas
(2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered postal services in rural areas.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Residents of rural areas such as South Shropshire deserve access to good postal services, which keep families and friends connected, businesses alive and people informed. The cost of a first-class stamp has almost doubled since 2020, and is now £1.70 a stamp, but my constituents believe that they are paying more and getting less for their services. I will therefore approach the debate in two parts: post offices, which are vital to my towns and villages; and the delivery services of Royal Mail.
I will start with the Post Office, which is a vital part of the rural economy in South Shropshire. It provides a lifeline for many towns and villages. In some areas, the post office is the only shop for miles around and, increasingly, given banking closures, the only way to access cash. Post office services are available in branches such as Acton Burnell, Broseley, Alveley, Aston-on-Clun and Bishops Castle, as well as many more of my towns and villages. They play a central role in keeping rural communities connected.
Since the election, I am delighted to say that I have campaigned successfully against the planned closures of post office services in South Shropshire, including Clunton and Clunbury—beautiful areas.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman will know my constituency well, because he was previously the MP there, and that it is a largely urban area including a city centre. Even my constituents, however, have had serious problems with bills and birthday cards not arriving, and hospital appointments being missed because of the post being late, while one constituent confirmed that his business has been affected adversely. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s speech and that rural areas have particular challenges, but does he agree that poor postal services are a nationwide issue affecting all communities, and that we need to address it as such?
Stuart Anderson
I look back fondly on the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and I realise that this is a problem across the country. It is a nationwide issue, as he rightly pointed out.
I have also campaigned for the resumption of postal services in Cleobury Mortimer, which were closed in 2023, leaving the town without vital services. News on this front comes in no small part thanks to the efforts of a local resident, Ruth—I was delighted to meet her at an advice surgery recently. The efforts of Ruth and many others secured hundreds of signatures for a petition to keep the post office open in Cleobury. I am delighted to say that it was successful.
The post office network is relied on to fill the gaps left by bank closures. As many services shift online, the post office has served as a lifeline for residents in rural areas who are not able to use the internet to pay bills or to access cash. A post office is vital for our nation’s elderly, helping the 2.3 million without internet access to stay connected to their family and friends. I will also continue to campaign against bank closures, and I look for more banking hubs in areas such as Church Stretton, which has just lost its Yorkshire building society branch and could really do with a banking hub.
A few days ago, I was pleased to meet the residents group in Broseley. They wanted to discuss the changes that have happened to the post office on the High Street, which are concerning local residents. There have been a lot of changes, and the people of Broseley told me that they believe that the changes have had an impact not only on safety, in particular for elderly residents when withdrawing cash, but with a reduction in services, on the number of trained staff on the premises. I am asking the owners of Post Office to meet me and the Broseley residents to discuss that in more detail.
I want to point out to the Minister that I have concerns about the Government consultation on post offices, which could have unintended consequences. That open-ended consultation, which closed on 6 October 2025, could remove the minimum branch requirements and leave the size of the network up to the Post Office. The last Labour Government cut the number of post offices by 38%: 7,166 post offices were closed between 1997 and 2010—more than one every single day. I have already said that they are a lifeline for my constituency and many others. The Conservative-led Government then introduced a 11,500 minimum service requirement in 2010. Since then, the post office network has remained at roughly 11,500. Now that Labour is back, it looks like our post offices could be under threat again. The Government’s consultation could lead to half of Britain’s post offices closing, including 19 individual branches in South Shropshire. The proposed changes could remove the requirement for 95% of people in rural areas, such as South Shropshire, to live within three miles of a post office. The changes could also phase out part-time mobile outreach services, which are vital in my constituency. They typically make up 14% of the total network in the areas that they serve, although they are open on average only seven hours per week.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing this very important debate. He mentions mobile services, from which my constituency benefits greatly. Does he share my concern that the Post Office tasks individual postmasters with an ever greater number of mobile spots? Although we are very grateful for their effort, that leaves the network vulnerable. If a postmaster falls ill or wants to retire, we lose significant coverage.
Stuart Anderson
The hon. Gentleman makes a brilliant point about an issue that affects rural areas, and I will come on to how Bishop’s Castle was impacted. There is no resilience in the system. If somebody is ill for a week, that area will not get those services.
Data published by the Financial Conduct Authority shows that 93.5% of people in rural parts of South Shropshire live within three miles of a post office, but that falls to 86.8% when the mobile outreach branches are excluded. If those services are cut even more in my 700 square mile constituency, that will leave a huge gap.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about mobile outreach services. One of the things that concerns me is that when the Post Office closes a bricks-and-mortar branch, it is required to carry out a six-week consultation with the community, but when it closes a mobile outreach service, there is no requirement for a consultation, even though that service may have been put in because of a branch closure. Does he agree that, regardless of whether we are talking about bricks and mortar or a temporary desk in a village hall, the Post Office should be under the same obligation to consult with the community?
Stuart Anderson
The hon. Lady makes a brilliant point, and I would like the Minister to feed back on the Government’s approach because these services are vital lifelines for our rural communities.
Despite last week’s sticking plaster U-turn, shops face a huge increase in their business rates bill, and next year alone many businesses in South Shropshire will be hurt. The Government have already taxed jobs with the increase to employers’ national insurance and have made it harder to hire through the Employment Rights Act 2025. That means that shops such as post offices are in grave danger.
I will give an example from my constituency. One of my post offices will see an increase in rateable value from £47,500 to £49,500. Its business liability will go from £14,221 to £18,909 in the first part of 2027, so in a little over 18 months it will see a 33% increase. That directly comes off its bottom line, and will make its very small bottom line even smaller or unprofitable.
The Government committed in their manifesto to strengthen the post office network, and I fully support that, but these changes could cut access to post offices for the elderly and rural communities, pushing thousands of postmasters who have served local communities for decades out of work. I will continue to support hard-working postmasters and their customers through my campaign to protect and enhance rural public services, given their importance to local communities.
I said that in the second part of the debate, I would move on to Royal Mail and the delivery service in South Shropshire, and I will do that now. The Royal Mail is a great establishment that was founded by King Henry VIII in 1516. It has heritage. I said I would come on to Bishop’s Castle, which is a great local town. When I was a candidate, I met a group of farmers—tenant farmers, landowners and everybody in the agricultural sector—just outside Bishop’s Castle. We were talking about connectivity, such as 5G and high-speed broadband. One of the farmers said, “I’ve got a problem with my letters.” Everybody said, “What do you mean?”. He said, “I’ve got a problem with post not getting through.” We were looking at connectivity for the digital space. He said, “This is of vital importance; this has kept me awake at night.” I said, “This sounds like a really serious issue.” He said, “Yes, I’ve bought thousands of pounds’ worth of goods off the man over there; I posted the cheque a few weeks ago, and I am sure he’s not had it yet.” He brought to light, and made a joke of, a very serious issue. From there, I found out that there was one person who was delivering in the area. Nobody else knew the route so, when they were away on holiday, the area could not have mail for a week. It was a big issue.
In the Christmas period, many MPs like to go to the sorting office and thank the postmen and postwomen for the great job that they do in and around our constituencies. I have done that over many years; for the last three years, I was in Bridgnorth, Craven Arms and, this year, Ludlow. But I have seen a huge change in public opinion on the posts that I have put out on social media. People are writing, “Where’s my letter?”. Before, people would write, “Great; they do a great job.” We have all delivered leaflets in bad weather. Postmen and postwomen do that day in, day out, all year round, and I want to thank them for their service. But people are upset. They are angry.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I have had reports of my constituents receiving hospital appointment notices after the day of their appointment, so they have missed vital medical care, and people receiving bank cards and PINs at the same time, when they are supposed to be delivered separately for security reasons. An Evri driver dumped loads of parcels in a field because it was impossible for him to get around the route in the time given by his employer. People are using private delivery services because they do not trust Royal Mail, and we are seeing serious failings. Does the hon. Member agree that Royal Mail has questions to answer about the sustainability of its network in rural areas?
Stuart Anderson
The hon. Member raises a really important point. Out of respect for my constituents and what they have been through, I will come on to highlight some of their concerns. When using Evri or other delivery services, everybody has learned what the whole street’s doorsteps look like when they see the photos from the delivery service. What is happening at the moment is not acceptable.
A decade ago, Royal Mail was delivering about 20 billion letters per year. I talked about 1516, when it was first founded. It got to a point of 20 billion letters. That has fallen to about 6.7 billion, and is expected to drop to 4 billion in the next four years. Under the Postal Services Act 2011, Ofcom is responsible for ensuring that the firm carries out its functions under its universal service obligation. The latest results show that the company did not meet its delivery targets for first or second-class post from July to September 2025. In October, Royal Mail was fined £21 million for missing its annual delivery targets.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I am grateful to my constituency next door neighbour for allowing me to intervene. Some of the post that goes to the southern part of his constituency may well be sorted through the Kidderminster postal sorting office. He mentioned that people are not getting their letters, and we have heard from other Members that urgent mail is not getting there. I too have raised this on Facebook and, independent from my residents in Stourport, Kidderminster and Bewdley—towns that should be well served—I have had 700 uninvited comments from people who are thoroughly fed up with the postal service in our part of the world. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Ofcom requirement is not being met in any way, shape or form?
Stuart Anderson
I do; my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour and I share the same concerns. Actually, I shamelessly looked at his Facebook post, thought it was a great idea and pushed it out to my constituents, among whom there is sheer anger about the lack of delivery.
In July 2025, Ofcom announced changes to the universal service obligation. Royal Mail now only needs to deliver second-class mail every other day, instead of six days a week. The changes also drop the requirement for Royal Mail to deliver second-class letters on Saturdays. The changes have not yet come into effect in the UK, with Royal Mail planning to roll them out nationwide by early 2026. From April—this is where it gets even harder—the target to deliver second-class mail within three days will be reduced from 98.5% to 95%. The target for the delivery of first-class mail within one working day will also drop, from 93% to 90%. Royal Mail is not even meeting the current targets.
On 28 January 2026, Citizens Advice revealed that 16 million people—or 29% of UK adults—had experienced postal delays over Christmas. That figure has doubled in a year and is at its highest in five years. As we have heard, 5.7 million people have missed letters about important matters like health appointments and benefit decisions, along with legal documents. Enhanced protections are needed for rural areas, where many people continue to depend on postal services.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I conducted a survey in my constituency, to which over 700 people responded to raise a whole range of issues around health, finance, legal and other types of communication, but less than 20% of them had contacted Royal Mail itself to say they were having problems. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister needs to put pressure on Royal Mail to be honest, investigate its own problems and demonstrate that to us as Members of Parliament?
Stuart Anderson
The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I have launched my own survey today—I will push it out later—to hear more details from residents. There is a need to be honest about this issue. More often than not, people will contact us as MPs; it is not always easy for someone to find out why they are not getting mail, or they believe they will not be told what they need to know, or will not receive an answer, and they believe MPs can follow up and get answers.
In recent weeks, mail has been delayed in 68 postcode areas in the west midlands. I know I have a big constituency, but there have been cases of missed mail in at least 30 postcode areas there. Let us consider what missed mail means: it is not just that a letter has not arrived; it has a serious impact on residents in South Shropshire. I have chosen examples of casework regarding people who have written to me about their issues. From what I have seen, the biggest area of missed mail in my constituency is around the WV15 and WV16 postcode areas, which cover Bridgnorth and Highley—which currently has a huge problem with receiving mail—and the surrounding areas.
The pain is being felt across the constituency, but let me highlight some specific areas. In Claverley, there was no mail for one constituent between 2 January and 16 January. When it eventually arrived it included car finance letters dated mid-December. Much Wenlock has been voted the happiest place to live, but there was no mail for a constituent there between 5 January and 7 January. Then, on 8 January, 15 items were delivered at the same time. A constituent in Church Stretton said they have been told that parcels are being prioritised over letters, and hospital letters are not being delivered on time.
At Linley, near Bishop’s Castle, post is not being delivered to a constituent’s address because it is too far down a lane, so she is having to collect it from a neighbour. That is not about delivery on time; it is just not an acceptable service. A birthday card posted on 16 January in Oreton, going second class to Ludlow, has still not arrived. In Bridgnorth, a constituent must generally wait between one and two weeks for post to arrive. More often than not they have to go to the sorting office to collect it. That is not a delivery service; that is a collection service, which is very different.
Let me highlight the cases of some individuals who feel strongly about this issue and who I have been helping to support. Maureen said:
“Not fair when you get taken off a waiting list for not turning up at a hospital appointment you haven’t received the appointment for.”
Mark believes that poor delivery is
“damaging business reputation for customers without email address”—
I will come to internet access in a moment—because they are getting certificates from his business three 3 weeks late. It does not look professional and there is nothing he can do about that.
Russell highlighted:
“Late hospital appointments, usually received a week or more after the appointment date.”
This case is very concerning. Sarah was on a waiting list, and the hospital admission letters for surgery, and other information, arrived 10 days after the operation date, causing her more issues than we would care to believe. Ian had had only two deliveries since Christmas until three days ago, when two deliveries then arrived in two days, which is inconsistent. Ada receives her doctor’s appointments a week late at the best of times.
Jill says:
“We have mail delivered once a week—Friday—if we lucky. However, Royal Mail delivers parcels to our postcode on a daily basis.”
I am hearing time and again that parcels are getting delivered but letters are not.
Lynn says it is dreadful that
“post has been taking 8 days to arrive that is posted…in this country. Cards I posted to America got there in 6 days.”
The system is failing if the post takes eight days here but is far quicker internationally.
Amanda posted an important parcel with medical cream for a relative and it took seven days, although she had paid for a 24-hour tracking service. She also posted a birthday card with a first-class stamp that took nine days to be delivered. Danil had mail come four weeks late, and Janet posted a card for her grandson, only to Staffordshire, which is the neighbouring county, and it took 15 days. She got mail to Australia more quickly than she got it to the neighbouring county.
Constituents in Highley repeatedly tell me that they are exceptionally lucky if they get service once a week. Dank’s elderly mum has waited since new year’s eve for a PIN code—the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) talked about bank cards and PIN codes not arriving at the same time—and she has still not received it. She is cut off from accessing cash.
James Naish
A gentleman in my constituency missed a couple of letters about a parking fine, and he has now had a county court judgment against him. He did not have the opportunity to contest the fine in the first place, which he wanted to do, and he now has to deal with the CCJ. This is having real-life consequences, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is not acceptable.
Stuart Anderson
I definitely agree: is not acceptable at all. As the Minister is listening, and I am pretty sure Royal Mail will be watching, let me say that we need the service to change. People are getting penalised through no fault of their own, and it is having a damaging and detrimental impact on many people.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Royal Mail staff in my area tell me that, apart from having to focus on first-class post, a big cause of the delays is poor recruitment, which leads to unachievable workloads. Does the hon. Member agree that it is no surprise that our rural post service is struggling when Royal Mail officers and postmen and women are paid only a little above the minimum wage?
Stuart Anderson
Recruitment is a serious issue for Royal Mail at the moment. Some people have worked there for years, and when I go to sorting offices they tell me how they delivered far less five years ago and how it was a completely different service 20 years ago. We certainly need to ensure that they are looked after, and that we have the right packages to retain people at Royal Mail.
It is clear from the stories I have outlined that postal services in rural areas are an absolute mess. Cards, serious medical appointments, fines, invoices and legal letters are being missed because the bare minimum standards are not being met in South Shropshire. I am not asking for anything new; I am asking that the minimum standard is met for my constituents.
It is all well and good saying that we are moving into the digital age, but only 40% of South Shropshire residents are on 5G, and 43% of homes do not have high-speed broadband. I can guarantee that those among the 40% and 43% are in the same areas, which are the remotest parts of the constituency that do not have connectivity, so they cannot get on the internet or on their phones to access services, and they are not getting their mail. They are completely excluded from the modern-day way of life, and that is not acceptable.
Physical letters do still matter, and many of my constituents are rightly angry, and actually livid, that Royal Mail has prioritised parcels over letters—I have documented evidence in many cases—to the detriment of my constituents. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what can be done to improve the delivery of letters in South Shropshire as urgently as possible.
Postal services in rural areas matter, and the residents of South Shropshire are rightly angry at the lack of good and functioning services in some of my area’s towns and villages. Rural areas are sick and tired of being ignored while urban areas are, at times, prioritised. The chipping away at rural areas is starting to hurt my constituents. We need to protect the post office network and hold Royal Mail to the standards that my constituents expect. Right now, it is just not good enough.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they need to bob at the end of every contribution if they wish to be called to speak. There are 12 people standing; I intend to call the closing speeches at 3.30 pm, so I will impose a time limit of three minutes, which does not leave very much time for interventions.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
My constituency is part of the rural county of Nottinghamshire. Many of my communities are feeling the impact of poor service by Royal Mail and facing unacceptable inconsistencies with delivery. I have received correspondence from constituents across Mansfield who say that their post and letters are going undelivered, and they are rightly angry about that. My constituent Jim says that his grandson missed out on an invitation to a job interview because the letter did not arrive. Another constituent, Gail, said that several pieces of her mail have gone missing, including letters for local hospital appointments. It is becoming all too familiar, and I think many Members will recount similar issues.
Whether it is a birthday card from a loved one or a bill, everyone needs their mail. Government agencies such as the Department for Work and Pensions, banks, hospitals, the police, courts and many other organisations communicate only by post. The consequence of getting one of those letters late can be hugely damaging in many ways. Having spoken to postal staff in Mansfield, I know that they are under huge pressure. I pay tribute to them, because they all work incredibly hard in all weathers to deliver our mail. It saddens me that Royal Mail has, in correspondence to me, blamed the issues on staff sickness.
I am meeting Royal Mail bosses in the very near future, but postal workers have already told me, on the condition of anonymity, that they have been instructed to prioritise parcels over letters. They have also mentioned that staff retention is difficult because newer recruits are paid less than their colleagues, and that management are not hiring enough people to get the job done. That is the credible reason for the problems we are witnessing, and it is not good enough.
Royal Mail has to step up. If it does not, the regulator, Ofcom, should get involved to guarantee that Royal Mail meets the universal service obligation. Communities in Mansfield and across our country are sick and tired of the excuses. They just want their mail delivered on time. That is not too much to ask. My message to Royal Mail is therefore very clear: get this mess sorted out, get your house in order and get your act together, or we will make you do so.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on his excellent speech. He described many circumstances similar to those in my constituency, so I will try to keep my comments brief.
Rural services—whether that is transport links, mobile phone coverage or access to banking—are not good enough across the piece, and postal services are now going in the same direction. Last year’s Post Office Green Paper consultation caused particular concern for rural areas. There was a suggestion that the statutory minimum network size of 11,500 branches, which protects communities, could be removed. That would compound an already acute access problem. Villagers in Trefonen in my constituency were devastated when their post office shut, while across North Shropshire outreach services have been withdrawn in Cockshutt, Clive, Weston Rhyn, Knockin, West Felton and Ruyton-XI-Towns.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
In November last year, Henstridge post office closed, leaving a rural village without a vital service. Luckily, local resident Barry is working with the Post Office to reopen the facility as soon as possible. Does my hon. Friend agree that, following last year’s Green Paper, the Government must now commit to rural-proofing the Post Office?
Helen Morgan
I could not agree more. If someone living in Cockshutt takes the bus to the post office in Ellesmere, they would have to wait three hours to get the next bus home. We can imagine how difficult it is for people in nearby villages who have no bus service at all. Jean, who lives in Weston Rhyn, said:
“I now live in a village where there is nowhere to buy stamps and no access to an ATM. I am 88 and can no longer drive. I am completely isolated.”
These cuts have a grave impact on people’s lives and wellbeing. How can we justify leaving vulnerable people isolated in that way in 2026? Post offices and outreach services act as more than a postal service. Communities rely on them for access to cash and banking, Government services and parcel collection. That is crucial, given that 73% of North Shropshire bank branches have closed since 2015, with Oswestry the only remaining market town in the constituency with a functioning bank branch.
Many constituents, particularly older people and small businesses, depend on post offices to access cash and banking. It is no good pointing to online banking as a solution for those living in Welshampton where there is no mobile signal and no full fibre. We need to save our local post offices to prevent financial exclusion and to support the small businesses that will deliver the growth our economy needs.
Not only is access to the vital services provided by the Post Office limited, but the delivery of post, as we have heard, has become extremely unreliable. First and second-class post are meaningless categories in my area. My post comes in two bulk deliveries each week. Constituents have reported going three weeks with no delivery. Meanwhile, post box collection times have been changed without notice. It is very frustrating at the best of times. As we have heard, for those relying on Royal Mail for their NHS correspondence or time-sensitive post, such as legal documents or parking fines, it can be extremely costly to their health, time and finances.
Several constituents have told me that they missed NHS appointments because letters took a week to reach them. Last month, a constituent who is diabetic missed correspondence about an appointment for 22 January and now needs to wait until March. I have received reports of people being charged with contempt of court for not returning papers in time, even though the papers did not arrive until after the due date.
In my latest meeting with Royal Mail, representatives explained the challenges they are facing with recruitment and retention. Addressing those issues requires investment in rural services across the board.
Given the reliance of so many people on the post for vital services, I am sure everyone here appreciates the need to protect and support our rural services. I would be grateful if the Minister would outline what the Government are doing to hold the Post Office to account for meeting its universal service obligation, and what steps the Government are taking to protect not only postal services but banking and public transport in rural areas, as people are desperately badly isolated.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be part of this debate, Mr Stringer. I will begin by declaring my interest. I started at Royal Mail in 1986 on an apprenticeship. I have walked the rounds, sorted the frames and stood up for postal workers, prior to coming to Parliament, but I have never seen postal services in such a crisis as today. Some of that is structural, but apart from that, it is to do with the workforce. I have been to see them on many occasions and morale is down. They want to deliver the service that the customer demands, but they are being prevented due to cost-cutting exercises throughout Royal Mail. That is what needs to stop.
Last week, nationally, Royal Mail delivered just 76% of first-class quality and 86% of second-class quality. Those are not abstract numbers, as has been said. They are missed hospital appointments, missed legal deadlines and missed chances to pay bills on time. Workers are telling me that they will have a scheduled day off during the week, say a Wednesday, but when they walk back into work on Thursday, all their Wednesday work is still there and they now have to deliver it with their Thursday work. They are then told, “You’re not getting any extra time to do it.” That leads to delay after delay, which is impacting our communities.
I have had representations from Oundle, Thrapston, Raunds, Stanwick and Corby telling me about the problems that people are having. I have to say: the quickest way to get a letter delivered is to put it inside a parcel. That is the fact of the matter, because Royal Mail is prioritising parcels for delivery, which also has to stop. People deserve a service. This is a service—a unique service. It keeps our communities connected, and it has a legal obligation, under the universal service obligation, to make sure that is done.
Another problem is cherry-picking from the competition. Final-mile delivery is the most expensive part. Competitors will go in, pick up the bulk mail, spread it and sort it, and then give it back to Royal Mail and say, “You deliver it, because we can’t afford to do that—there ain’t no money in it.” In addition, they take parcels, give them to Royal Mail and say, “You deliver the final mile,” because they cannot afford to do that in rural areas. Either that has to stop, or those private companies can start paying towards the universal service obligation, so that we can protect services for people and make sure that all those accessing that service do so on the basis that they are paying towards it.
Postal workers want to deliver the service that customers want. They want to serve their neighbours and their communities. But they can do that only with fair and honest discussion and with harmonised conditions, working together as one organisation, and with workers treated with dignity. That is how we are going to deliver and take Royal Mail into the future.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing this timely and much-needed debate. I had a 10-minute speech, but I think that has gone by the wayside with the three-minute limit.
What we have heard today is the strength of our constituency parliamentary system: Members across this House listening to their constituents—through emails, telephone calls or the occasional letter, when it arrives—and being told from the ground up about the catastrophic failure of the current Royal Mail delivery service. Why is that happening? We have heard already that Royal Mail is prioritising parcels, and I have heard that, too. Clearly that is because it makes more money from parcel deliveries. We heard from the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron)—again, it shows the strength of Parliament, for all its flaws and faults, that we all come from different backgrounds and draw on those experiences—that, in his experience, this is the worst it has been.
In my 21 years in this House, I have never had to raise a point of order, ask an oral departmental question, attend a debate like this or meet with the Minister, as I will next week, to talk about Royal Mail and postal delivery services—never. By the way, that is high praise for Royal Mail and all the fantastic posties we know in our communities. We can all agree that this is not about posties; it is about the senior management of Royal Mail and corporate decision making at the very highest level, which I believe is perhaps a deliberate strategy to upset the Government and Ofcom so that Royal Mail can be in a position to discard the letter delivery service, because it is not profitable enough.
As we have heard from hon. Members, there are real-life consequences. I do not have time to mention all my examples, but I will mention the following, relating to health: “Your letter”—my letter—
“informing us of what steps you have taken took nine days to arrive from the date on the letterhead. We appear to only receive three or four deliveries”
a month. Another reads as follows:
“A hospital letter has not been received although being sent second week in January—from the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital.”
Another reads:
“I am still missing a Test Results letter from the NHS posted on 13th January. They confirmed it was posted by the department when I called after 2 weeks.”
My constituents in Muxton, Newport, Wellington, Shifnal and Albrighton are affected, and there are real-life consequences—important legal documentation, health documentation, cancer results. Time matters. That is why this is a very serious issue. It needs to be investigated, and I hope that the Minister and Ofcom will investigate it urgently.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for securing this important debate. I have heard from many constituents about the challenges they face in receiving reliable and consistent postal services, so I am grateful to him.
Far too often, those living in rural and semi-rural areas feel that they are expected to simply accept a less efficient service than more urban communities, and the consequences of that disparity are clear. To be clear, I salute the staff of our postal service, who work unbelievably hard, but are sadly being let down by management—I say that as the son of a postie and mum who worked for Royal Mail.
The modern challenge is very real. In Shoebury, for example, a small town bordering Southend, my constituents have long endured a postal service that feels disjointed and dysfunctional. I have spoken to residents who have had Christmas presents arrive months late and legal letters lost, and who have missed vital medical appointments due to letters arriving after their allotted date.
That is just not good enough. Being located at the end of a railway line or beyond the boundaries of a busy city cannot be a justification for substandard service. Residents of Shoebury and across the UK feel that they are being punished on the basis of their geographical location. We also know that, in many cases, the most rural parts of this country have older populations, for whom a reliable postal service is even more crucial. Although many people are moving away from paper communications, that is not the case for everybody. We cannot allow those who rely on traditional post to be neglected.
I welcome the Government’s decision to launch the first comprehensive review of the Post Office in 15 years, and I look forward to seeing how investment will improve services across the country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for allowing us the opportunity to speak in this debate. I say well done to him for setting the scene incredibly well, although it does not give us any joy to highlight Royal Mail’s failings in communities, particularly rural communities.
I wish to preface my remarks by highlighting that my own Royal Mail workers are great. I spent some time with them at Christmas, and I know most of them—I probably grew up with most of them. I know where the problems lie, and it is not in the staff, but in the surroundings. The building is not fit for purpose; there are parking spaces for 30 vans, but there are 50 vans that need to park; and there is not enough space for sorting, so it is little wonder that the post in some of my areas is taking up to a month to get through. There is a priority for parcels, which Royal Mail does not try to hide. I understand that it puts them first and the delivery of letters is downgraded as a result.
On staffing levels, which the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) spoke about in his intervention, when I spoke to the Royal Mail guys, they told me that one of the problems is maintaining and holding on to staff. If Royal Mail gives staff members the minimum wage and no more, it is not going to keep them, because they will always be looking for a different job that will give them better payment. That has to be addressed as well, and I know that the Minister does his best whenever it comes to addressing these things.
In my constituency of Strangford, all the villages have problems. To give one example, in Portavogie, one gentleman had no mail at his house for a month, and then got 29 letters the next day, which included three about hospital appointments—he missed them all. His health has unfortunately been poor, and that had a detrimental effect on his health. It is not just a matter of not getting a monthly bank statement; in some cases, health is at stake. I believe that it is necessary that Royal Mail makes an investment in sorting offices to be able to get facilities in place and once again facilitate a routine post service that is fit for purpose.
To give another example, the heater in my office broke over Christmas, and it amazed me to see that one of my staff had ordered a heater and it was delivered the next day. I did not pay one penny for that delivery. I do pay £7.99 a month for unlimited free delivery, but it astounds me that I pay more than £1 for one letter, and it takes weeks to make it, but other things can be delivered in a short time. It cannot just be the facilities in Newtownards that are not up to scratch, because I have listened to every other Member present saying the same thing. We need root-and-branch changes, and we need the Minister to stand firmly with us as we press for those changes.
Officially, the Royal Mail website says that it is reducing second-class delivery to alternate days—Monday, Wednesday and Friday one week, and Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday the next week—and that first-class letters will continue to be delivered six days a week. The service we are seeing is nowhere near that, and Royal Mail must be held accountable. It is not easy to answer all these questions, but I look forward to what the Minister has to say in his response.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing this debate, and on his excellent speech.
Last year, postal services became a source of real frustration, anxiety and, frankly, anger in Radnorshire. Across Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, and right across rural Wales, we saw serious problems in the run-up to Christmas. Parcels were marked as delivered but never arrived, items were left at farm gates, on main roads or in full view of passers-by, Christmas presents went missing, and essential items were delayed for days or even weeks, and then marked as lost. When things went wrong, people found it almost impossible to speak to a real human being to sort it out.
I want to be clear that, in my opinion, those problems stem from the corporate leadership of Evri. The problem is a systemic one within their business model, and rural areas are feeling the consequences first and hardest. Constituents of mine in the Teme valley tell me that their experience with Evri was awful. One constituent told me that they
“have never received a single Evri parcel on time, most never ever arrive, and those that do are weeks or months late.”
My constituents tell me that they often pay extra for faster shipping, but they then have to spend significant time processing refunds and working with credit card companies to recover some of the lost money.
A frustration for customers is that they often cannot choose their delivery company. It is chosen for them by the retailer they are buying from. When a parcel company performs badly, consumers are simply stuck with the consequences. Consumer bodies back that up, and companies like Evri consistently rank bottom for customer satisfaction, yet too often nothing seems to change. That is where regulation matters. There must be clear, enforceable service standards for parcel deliveries, including in rural areas, on safe delivery practices, accurate tracking and proper access to customer support when things go wrong.
Consumers who have no choice over their courier should not be left navigating automated systems or vague updates when a parcel is lost or delayed. If companies repeatedly fail customers, especially in rural and hard-to-serve areas, there must be consequences—not just guidance or warm words, but real accountability.
For many of my constituents, Evri’s failures have meant money lost, ruined Christmases, wasted time and a growing sense that rural communities are once again expected to put up with worse service. Rural Wales deserves reliability, respect and accountability, not excuses. I urge Ministers to take this issue seriously, and ensure that parcel delivery works for every part of the country, not just the easiest ones to serve.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), and to the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for a useful tip; perhaps if I had put my grandson Theo’s birthday card in a parcel, it might not—even though posted first class from Moffat to Troon—have taken three weeks to arrive. Fortunately he is only two, so he has not held it against me, but my constituents have had similar experiences.
First, we have to pay tribute to our posties, because what is happening is not their fault. It is the direction that is coming from above that is at fault, and the obsession with parcels. Royal Mail is meant to deliver mail, not just parcels. It is not a parcel delivery company. I hope the Minister can reinforce that message. In my constituency, Royal Mail has taken many steps to make it less attractive for people to post mail, particularly, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) mentioned, the surreptitious introduction of early collection times. If someone wants to post a first-class letter, in many parts of my constituency they have to do it before 9 am, otherwise they have to travel an inordinate distance.
In rural communities in particular, people still often suffer from poor broadband and mobile reception, and are generally older. That is the group of the population for whom the Royal Mail and its services is most important. I pay particular tribute to Barry Knock, the chair of the Quothquan and Thankerton community council in the Clydesdale part of my constituency, who has constantly held Royal Mail to account for its failures. As we have already heard, if someone is off or sick, the mail is not delivered.
The Minister is an experienced campaigner, and he knows that it is quite different sending somebody out into a modern housing estate to deliver something than sending them into a vast rural area. We need people who know those localities to do that job. I want the Minister to take away a specific issue: we are heading into elections for the Scottish Parliament and other elections, and a large number of people in these rural communities have a postal vote. I want the Minister to be able to tell me that he is satisfied that Royal Mail has the capacity to deliver the postal votes and return them to the election officers, because that is a very significant issue. Those deliveries did not go well, certainly in my constituency, during the 2024 general election. When Members raise issues with Royal Mail, they just get excuses; hopefully the Minister can put a rocket up the company.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing this important debate. As every postie and every Liberal Democrat deliverer knows, rural delivery is hard. Homes are harder to find, walks between addresses are longer and journeys to sorting offices take more time. That reality means that our posties work incredibly hard, particularly during peak periods, and they deserve better support to deliver their services.
Royal Mail’s performance shows the scale of the challenge. In the Dorchester postcode area, performance was 79.2%, and in the Taunton area, 74.4% of first-class mail was delivered the next working day, against a target of 93%. Ofcom has fined Royal Mail more than £37 million over the last three years and has demanded a credible improvement plan, but rural customers are still waiting to feel the change.
Alongside delivery issues, post offices themselves are under pressure. Post offices are the heart of rural communities, providing access to cash, banking, and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency services. They are often small village shops and offer foreign exchange services. Nationally, nearly 2,000 bank branches have closed in the past three years, so post offices are often the last remaining place for in-person banking, especially for older residents and those without reliable digital access. In Halstock, my constituents are deeply concerned that Lloyds Bank will soon stop allowing cheque deposits at their local post office. With the nearest Lloyds branch miles away and others closing, that change risks undermining both the community and the long-term viability of rural post offices.
Parcel delivery companies such as Evri present a huge problem for many. Ofcom research shows that 68% of customers in the south-west experienced delivery issues in the last six months. Say what you want about Evri, it is consistent: consistently bad and consistently among the worst performers. It is also very egalitarian, in that I get no more response from my parliamentary email address than the public do from any other one. In Sherborne, a café owner described repeated contradictory tracking messages, parcels failing to arrive and no meaningful customer support. Residents of Cattistock and Maiden Newton have contacted me about parcels being delivered to the wrong village altogether, or simply disappearing.
One constituent put it plainly: rural areas appear to be outside Evri’s business model, yet customers are never told this up front. Most people would happily pay more for a reliable service, but instead they are left guessing which courier will be used, and powerless when things go wrong. That points to a clear imbalance: Royal Mail is tightly regulated and fined for failure while private parcel firms face far weaker oversight.
The Government could make two changes: first, they should strengthen Ofcom’s powers over parcel delivery firms to bring them much closer to the standard applied to Royal Mail; secondly, vendors should be required to clearly state, before purchase, which courier will deliver an item. Transparency would allow consumers to make informed choices and would protect rural customers from the repeated failures that they are experiencing.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for bringing attention to this important issue. Pressure has been building on postal services for decades. In my former career in advertising, I worked on behalf of the Irish post office, An Post, to try to at least slow the decline in volumes. That was 20 years ago, and of course the challenge is much greater now. Royal Mail is in danger of turning into a parcel delivery service with the occasional letter attached.
I visited my local delivery office in Horsham just before Christmas. The team there seemed to be doing a great job and I want to support them in every way that I can. Fundamentally, postmen are expected to cover wider areas than they ever were in the past. The problem is obviously more acute in rural areas because, just like our bus services, mail deliveries do not come as often as they used to. One couple contacted me to say that they never received my postal invitation to my MP surgery in their village. Now, one might say that missing the chance to talk to me face to face is not the end of the world, but it did leave them unsure about what else they might be missing through lack of notice.
More seriously, my constituent Alison, who lives in Horsham, lost her job, income and driving licence because critical court correspondence did not arrive. She works in domiciliary care, driving between patients’ homes carrying out time-critical visits involving medication, catheter care and support for bedridden clients. She also cares for her 93-year-old disabled mother and is the next of kin for her 96-year-old aunt. In late December, she received a letter from the magistrates court, dated weeks earlier, warning of a proposed driving disqualification. It was the first correspondence that she had received on the matter and she responded immediately. Despite that, a court summons, which was also delayed, arrived too late for her to attend. She was disqualified in her absence. Her attempts to reverse the decision—swearing on oath that she had not received the letters—made no difference and she lost her job. That is unacceptable.
In the end, this is about people’s lives, responsibility to family and ability to earn. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for rural business and the rural powerhouse, I feel a responsibility to speak up when rural villages and businesses in Horsham and across the UK are not being treated fairly. The universal service obligation exists for a reason, and it must work not just in theory but in practice, for the people who depend on it most. Rural Britain does not ask for special treatment, but it does demand a postal service that is reliable and fit for the realities of rural life. That is the standard that our constituents deserve and that the Government must insist on.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Representing the biggest and most remote mainland British constituency, I know that my constituents understand the challenges faced by Royal Mail, including inclement weather and huge distances. I want to give one example of an issue that infuriates my constituents: a pot of paint from the Scottish Borders was ordered by one of my wonderful constituents. It cost £40 to deliver it. That seems absolutely shocking for one pot of paint. I do not lay that necessarily at the door of the Royal Mail.
My next example is my wife’s flowery dress. In the last months of last year, she ordered a special flowery dress for Christmas, and it was the same old story: it did not come, it did not come and it did not come. My erstwhile colleague from Holyrood, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), spoke of the two-year-old who did not really mind a delay; I promise him that my better half minded the delay hugely. I have experienced at first hand the irritation that constituents feel at the standard of delivery. Of course, in the end, it never came. I was instructed to go out in the snowy weather and check all the neighbours’ garden sheds. If an MP knocks on the door and asks, “May I look in your garden shed?” they get a very interesting reply. Then we had to wait for the refund, which did eventually come. I see it as a punishment for my constituents simply because of their postcode. It makes life very difficult for them. For those trying to run a small business, it is a real old slap in the face.
Royal Mail is going green. We understand the necessity for that—net zero and so on—but now it is not going to take the mail up to the highlands by aeroplane. It is going to take the mail in a diesel lorry on a very long journey on the A9. Anyone who has seen 007 go up the A9 in “Skyfall” knows what a long way that is. Is it really green to use all that diesel going up the road? I do not know. I ask for that to be passed on. Can we please think again?
Finally, I am so glad that other Members have given the posties praise. They are wonderful people. I will end on a light note, as the last Back Bencher to speak in this debate. Some years ago, a letter was sent from a religious organisation in the United States. It simply said on the big envelope: “To the personal representative of the Lord Jesus Christ, Highlands, Scotland.” Someone in the Royal Mail wrote on it: “Try Jamie Stone.” I wish I had kept it. On that light note, I hope word will be passed back to our posties that they do a smashing job, and I thank them.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for securing the debate and for his excellent opening speech, which highlighted so many of the everyday frustrations and difficulties experienced by people who are not getting their post. I thank all hon. Members who have shared examples of their own.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I am very proud to represent some fantastic small businesses in my rural constituency. Mr Barclay, the owner of CardByMeLove in Tiverton, has been left to shoulder an administrative burden that is not of his own making, chasing missing parcels and placating disgruntled customers. To make matters worse, he has faced an unresponsive Royal Mail. Does my hon. Friend agree that such instances of abject failure actively undermine the ability of small businesses to operate, and cause serious reputational damage in already trying circumstances?
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend is right. We have talked a lot today about the implications for individuals and I particularly want to highlight the example from my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne). That was really appalling and I send my best wishes to his constituent who suffered that unacceptable incident. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) is absolutely right to point out the impact on businesses, too.
Post offices across the UK play a vital role in our local communities, with millions of people depending on them. They provide critical services on our local high streets, such as community banking, foreign exchange and the provision of DVLA services. Often those services act as a lifeline, especially for the elderly, as we have heard so many times today, and for those with limited transport options or in areas without reliable access to online services.
Currently, 99.7% of the population live within three miles of a post office and 4,000 branches are open seven days a week. Last July, the Government launched their consultation on the future of the Post Office and the Liberal Democrats welcome the steps to put post offices on a more sustainable footing. However, it is essential that the reforms protect local services and post office jobs and that no post office is closed without proper consultation with the local community.
Digitisation can improve access for some users and increase efficiency, but the Government must ensure that post offices remain financially viable and continue to offer face-to-face services for those who need them, particularly in rural areas with limited broadband or internet access, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) pointed out. Rural communities face compounded challenges, including poor digital connectivity, cuts to public transport and the loss of local services, all of which make access to alternatives more difficult when post offices or banks close.
The decline of high street services in rural areas has been an ongoing issue in the UK, with banks and other essential services disappearing at an increasing rate. Just last week, Santander announced the closure of 44 of its branches. That has significant consequences for residents, particularly older people, those with limited digital access, and small businesses. That pattern places increased importance on the role of a local post office. In the past three years, nearly 2,000 bank branches have closed across the UK, including hundreds of rural branches, due to declining in-person transactions and the rise of online banking. Many villages and small towns now lack a single bank, forcing residents to travel long distances for financial services. Those challenges are often compounded by limited broadband or access to the internet, leading to swathes of people in rural communities being excluded from online services and digital banking.
The Liberal Democrats are concerned about the inequality of provision as the 5G network is rolled out. We believe it is wrong that people should be disadvantaged simply because of where they live. I urge the Government to prioritise major investment in broadband for underserved communities. Alternative solutions, such as banking hubs, are emerging, but there are not enough of them; the Government should facilitate more to ensure that people across the country can access vital services when they need them and to prevent digital exclusion for people in rural areas.
Royal Mail provides the universal postal service: it must deliver letters to every address in the UK six days a week at a uniform price and deliver parcels five days a week. Royal Mail’s performance is measured against quality-of-service targets, which are set out by Ofcom. The vast majority of those targets are not being achieved; in 2024-25 Royal Mail delivered only 76.5% of first-class mail within one working day of collection against a target of 93%. It also missed its target for second-class mail to be delivered within three working days of collection, as well as its targets for daily delivery routes. Last July, Ofcom announced that Royal Mail will start to deliver second-class letters on every other weekday and not on Saturdays to help cut costs. That is a deeply worrying decision and it could leave countless people who rely on those deliveries in the lurch. People need to know that their post will arrive on time so that they can go about their lives; the move flies right in the face of that.
The sorry saga of Royal Mail delays has been going on for far too long, despite the tireless work of staff members. I wish to add my comments to those of other hon. Members about the excellent work that posties do. I was privileged to visit Mortlake and Barnes delivery office just before Christmas. Its staff work incredibly hard, and I am happy to say that they are doing really well on their targets, but that is obviously not the case across the country, so more need to be done. People are rightly disappointed with the service provided. Instead of giving Royal Mail a free pass, Ofcom needs to step in and act by fully holding this failing service to account. Ofcom needs to think again and not let Royal Mail off the hook at the expense of people who expect, as a bare minimum, for their post to arrive on time.
For many rural communities, the pattern of the closure of services has been compounded by rural public transport being cut, making it even harder for residents to reach alternative services. Bus route reductions leave some villages with little to no public transport, worsening isolation. Bus services are the backbone of economic activity in communities across our country, and they are particularly crucial in rural areas, where accessibility is an issue and local amenities and services are greater distances apart. If the Government are serious about growth, they will invest in services that will boost our struggling town centres and high streets. The increase in the fare cap to £3 is a bus tax that will hit working people, rural communities and people on low incomes the most.
Rural areas of the UK face a distinct set of challenges compared with their urban counterparts. Although Government support exists through various grants, loans and initiatives, several issues, including infrastructure challenges, the phasing out of EU funding and higher costs related to transport, energy and supply chains can disadvantage rural businesses more severely.
I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire for securing this debate. I look forward to hearing what steps the Minister is taking to ensure that communities in rural areas will be able to benefit from the vital service that post offices provide.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to respond on behalf of the Opposition. I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing this debate and on the incredible persistence with which he has fought for his constituents.
As my hon. Friend made clear, a functioning postal service is not a nice-to-have in rural Britain; rather, it is part of the vital infrastructure of daily life. The post is how people receive medical letters, time-sensitive official correspondence and the things they cannot simply pick up on the high street. For small businesses, farms and sole traders, it is how goods, invoices and documents move. We should not underestimate the harms when this important service fails.
I want to cover two linked issues: the resilience of the post office network; and the reliability of deliveries and the way that failures fall hardest on rural areas. As of October 2025, there were about 11,638 post office branches in the UK, and the company is committed to maintaining about 11,500 branches. The Post Office is publicly owned, but the vast majority of branches are run by independent postmasters inside local shops. In my experience, that is why they are so deeply woven into rural life, and why, when a branch closes, the town or village feels it immediately and deeply.
The network is supposed to be underpinned by access criteria, including a requirement that 95% of the rural population should be within three miles of a post office, and that 95% of the population of every postcode district should be within six miles of one. Even remote communities have a minimum level of access. Those are sensible measures of access, and it is therefore deeply concerning that the Department for Business and Trade Green Paper on the future of the Post Office explicitly asks whether to keep the existing requirement, remove the minimum 11,500 branch requirement or replace it with a different framework altogether. Rural Britain has heard that language before: “a different way of meeting obligations” is often a Whitehall euphemism for a quiet downgrade under which the network looks stable on paper but becomes thinner in practice, with reduced hours, reduced services and longer journeys for those without cars.
Although the Government appear to be drifting, the Conservative party is clear about what the Post Office is for. It is more than a business; it is part of the UK’s social and economic fabric, especially in rural areas, and especially as bank branches continue to vanish from our high streets. For many communities, the post office is now the most realistic place to do basic banking, withdraw cash or deposit takings.
There is also a straightforward point about support. The nationwide network, especially in rural areas, will not always be commercially viable based on pure retail footfall alone. That is why public funding has played a role. The Conservative Government provided more than £2.5 billion in funding in the past decade to sustain the nationwide network, including support for branches in uncommercial areas. That turned out to be money well spent, in the light of the ongoing use of the post office network. Post office data shows record levels of cash deposits at branches and significant use by both personal and business customers, alongside the roll-out of banking hubs operated in partnership with Cash Access UK.
When the Minister responds, I hope we will hear some reassurance about the support for the post office network. Can we have a commitment today to retaining a minimum network size of at least 11,500 branches? Will we keep the rural and postcode district access criteria and will sub-postmasters be properly supported so that rural branches do not become financially untenable?
I now turn to deliveries, which is where constituents, including my own, are impacted when the service breaks down. The universal postal service is a promise that has been repeatedly broken. In October 2025, Ofcom fined Royal Mail £21 million for missing its 2024-25 delivery targets, finding that only 77% of first-class mail and 92.5% of second-class mail was delivered on time, far below the long-standing universal service targets. Ofcom has since moved to reform parts of the universal service obligation, including allowing second-class letters to be delivered on alternate weekdays Monday to Friday and adjusting headline targets while introducing new backstop measures designed to prevent extreme delays. There is a legitimate discussion to be had about sustainability and falling letter volumes, but reform must not become cover for a two-tier Britain where rural residents simply wait longer as a matter of course.
The focus must now be on delivery offices, staffing and day-to-day operational reality. In my own Reigate constituency we face ongoing concerns about the standard of postal services in the village of Banstead. Constituents have raised this with me repeatedly since the general election, and with good reason. A key issue appears to be staffing. Royal Mail has admitted to higher than normal levels of sickness and vacancies, and when I visited the delivery office that serves Banstead it was clear that morale there was extremely low. Meanwhile there is an operational inefficiency built in. Banstead is served by a delivery office based in Epsom, meaning staff travel before rounds even begin. I think we can all guess what that leads to. One constituent received 10 items of post on 30 January after receiving none in the preceding 10 days. Others report the same pattern of long gaps followed by sudden floods. If that is the experience of a well-connected part of Surrey, it should shock no one that deeply rural areas are hit even harder.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire highlighted severe delays in his constituency. The frustration felt by his constituents is wholly understandable. So what should happen next? First, the Minister should make it clear that regulatory fines are not the end of the story. Ofcom’s enforcement action was accompanied by requirements for Royal Mail to take corrective steps. The Government should press for transparent reporting at delivery office level with a particular focus on rural performance so that communities can see whether their service is improving and where the problems sit.
Secondly, Ministers must ensure that any future changes to the universal service protect rural users. If second class is delivered less often, that should not translate into worse outcomes for rural areas. Backstop measures are welcome, but they must be enforced and felt in places that have been left behind. People do not care about clever statistics if their letters still arrive late, in clumps, or not at all. Thirdly, the Government should recognise the interdependence of the system. The post office is not a shop counter; it is part of the national postal infrastructure, so any reform must be judged by a simple test: does it improve the lived experience of rural users?
I will end by returning to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire, who has done what good MPs should do: listened locally, engaged with the operators and brought the issue to Parliament for debate. To be clear, neither he nor rural Britain are asking for special treatment. They are asking for fairness and competence. A letter posted in this country should arrive when the sender is told it will arrive. A rural post office branch should not be quietly allowed to wither. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope we will hear some meaningful commitments on the issues today.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Minister, I would be grateful if you could leave a couple of minutes at the end for a wind-up speech from the mover of the debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing the debate and on making such a passionate case on behalf of his constituents. As the Minister with responsibility for postal services, I was interested to hear him talk about how that dates back to the time of Henry VIII—a political figure who was hated in Scotland, who was dangerously overweight and who had trouble with his wife, so postal services are in much different and safer hands today.
As so many Members have said, postal services in rural areas and, for that matter, across the country are not simply an administrative matter. If it was simply a case of a bank statement coming late, few of us would be so passionate about it. The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) set out how devastating the consequences of the postal service not working can be. Postal services are a lifeline, a point of connection and a cornerstone of communities.
I know from my relatives in highland areas in Scotland just how essential that connection is—to reassure the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), I will raise the issue of his wife’s missing dress and the diesel lorry with Royal Mail—and that is as true in the south of Scotland and rural areas as it is all over the United Kingdom. I say to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) that I am sorry that his grandson’s card did not arrive, and perhaps I can put a belated happy birthday in Hansard for him to in some way make up for that.
All our constituents place immense value on reliable postal deliveries, accessible post offices and the assurance that even the most remote households remain firmly connected to the rest of the country. I pay tribute, as others have, to the posties and the postmasters and postmistresses across the UK who serve their communities well over and above the level of compensation that they get. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) put it best in reminding us that whatever criticisms and complaints hon. Members have, they are in no way directed at those extraordinary staff members who work so hard.
Helen Morgan
I think we all agree that our posties work really hard, but one of the problems that has been described to me in Shropshire is recruitment and retention of posties, because their conditions are poor. Royal Mail promised me that it would put in extra rounds in North Shropshire to alleviate the problem. As far as I know, that only happened last week. Why is it acting so slowly, and what pressure can the Minister bring to bear on it to improve the conditions for our posties?
Blair McDougall
The hon. Member makes a really important point. Being a postie is a good job and we need to make sure that it is an attractive job. I will come to my discussions with Royal Mail on those and other matters shortly.
Others have mentioned the broader technological changes in society that have reshaped how people live and work and created challenges for Royal Mail and the Post Office. It is important to remember that these institutions create a sense of continuity in a time of change. We are committed to the universal postal service—the guarantee that letters and parcels will be delivered at a uniform price to every address, however remote.
Mark Pritchard
I am glad that the Government are committed to that, but I am not sure that Royal Mail is, and that is the problem. Ofcom fines are clearly not working, because Royal Mails keeps repeating the same mistakes. I hope the Minister will note this moment in time—this debate—because I am very concerned by a situation in which Royal Mail is making the same mistakes and just paying the fines, and baking that into their business plan, and the Minister is saying, as he no doubt will later on, that he has limited powers because it is now a private company. If that is the case, then it is likely that all our constituents will see a further decline in letter delivery services. Will the Minister at least commit that, in those circumstances, the Government will apply for a judicial review on the grounds of failure to disclose necessary documents at the point of sale and failure to deliver the universal service obligation—a legal obligation? If the Government do not intervene, I believe that we will see a complete collapse of the letter delivery service.
Blair McDougall
I will come to my discussions with Royal Mail shortly. I know that the right hon. Member and I are due to discuss this issue face to face in a few days’ time. I share the deep frustration that has been voiced today and agree that Royal Mail has not just a legal obligation, but an obligation and a responsibility in our democracy. There are special measures in place around postal votes. Royal Mail has traditionally taken on additional staff and done sweeps of post boxes during elections, and we would absolutely insist and expect that that happens in the elections that the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale raised.
I met Royal Mail’s chief executive and senior management yesterday, specifically to raise concerns that Members across the House have shared with me in recent weeks. Royal Mail knows that it has not always delivered, and I was given an absolute commitment that it will work to deliver the best possible service to customers, while accepting that there have been service challenges.
The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all mentioned concerns about NHS appointment letters not getting through. That is a particular issue that I am pursuing in conjunction with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, because there is an ability to make sure that those get through.
I know that South Shropshire suffered widespread disruption in early January after storms, and as a result there were times when the rotation of mail processes could not be followed and deliveries were affected. The hon. Member for South Shropshire engaged with Royal Mail, and it told me that it welcomes such engagement; it thinks that it is important for hon. Members to continue to engage with it. I know that hundreds of hon. Members will have visited their local sorting offices over Christmas.
I will personally ensure that every single issue that has been raised by hon. Members here today is communicated back to Royal Mail at a senior level, because customers, particularly those in rural areas, must see visible and sustained improvements in reliability, timeliness and delivery office performance. The discussions that we have had today will inform every engagement I have with Royal Mail. As I have said, yesterday I made it clear that people not getting their mail is simply not good enough.
David Mundell
The hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) made a very important point about the last mile. Something that really concerns me and my constituents is the sustainability of the Royal Mail in that context, because delivery companies are taking on deliveries, but they leave the hard bit—going up the track, or the miles into the valley—for Royal Mail to do. I cannot see how that can be sustainable.
Blair McDougall
I will come to that point on other parcel delivery providers shortly.
Before the takeover of Royal Mail, we secured commitments from its new owners, EP Group. In addition to retaining a golden share in Royal Mail, we secured a commitment to prevent further value from being taken out of it until the quality of service improves.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for responding to all the questions that we posed. One of mine was about the minimum wage. If a business wants to retain staff, it has to pay them a decent wage. The problem in Newtownards is that some of the staff who have been there for many years are not getting the minimum wage, so if something better comes up, they are away. We cannot blame them; if someone has to pay bills, they have to do that. Instead of Royal Mail paying a fine, which could be used to pay wages, would it not be better and more sensible for it to give workers a decent wage, retain them and improve the service from the bottom up? Is the Minister in any way able to encourage it to do that?
Blair McDougall
The hon. Member makes a really important point about staff retention. Obviously, management and the workforce are working on implementing not only reforms but the pay deal. Hopefully, that will play an important role in helping to tackle what he has just spoken about.
In addition to my discussions with Royal Mail, I have had detailed discussions with Ofcom, which has an essential role in improving standards. As the hon. Member for Strangford has just pointed out, Ofcom has told Royal Mail that it must publish a credible improvement plan that delivers significant and continuous improvement, and made it clear that, without such a plan, it is likely that fines will continue to be imposed.
The hon. Member for South Shropshire mentioned the context for this debate, which is the change in consumer behaviour and communication. The average household now receives only four letters per week, down from 14, yet the number of addresses in the country has risen by 4 million. To protect the USO for the long term, Ofcom has introduced reforms that are projected to deliver up to £450 million in annual savings, helping to get Royal Mail on to a more financially sustainable basis. We now need Royal Mail to work with its workforce and unions to deliver the service that we all expect.
Several hon. Members raised concerns about now slightly notorious parcel providers other than Royal Mail. Ministers and Ofcom have made it clear that the way they are operating is not good enough and that they are on notice.
Mark Pritchard
I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous. On the point about the golden share and Royal Mail having been put on notice, what powers of intervention or sanction does the Minister have? Can he provide to my constituents who are listening to this debate the solution they are hoping for? We have not heard it yet.
Blair McDougall
As I mentioned a moment ago, when Royal Mail was taken over, the deed included all sorts of assurances about making sure that the owners cannot take value out of the company until they improve service. Their financial interests are deeply tied to the service that our constituents receive.
Turning briefly to the rural post office network, we currently have a network of 11,500 post office branches around the country and most people live within 3 miles of one. However, as Members have pointed out, those averages do not paint the full picture. The Government have invested significantly in the post office network precisely because it provides essential services. Although it is publicly owned, Post Office operates as a commercial business with its own board of directors. It must have the commercial freedom to deliver the branch network within the parameters that we set.
Several Members raised concerns about the Green Paper process and whether we would continue with the current level of service. Our starting assumption was that we would, but we thought it was right to have a debate given how long it has been since we had that conversation. Just finally, we absolutely recognise the importance of banking services and the Post Office, which the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) spoke about. That is why I and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury held a roundtable last month to talk about continuing that relationship.
Stuart Anderson
Thank you for your excellent time management, Mr Stringer. It is great to be able to wind up the debate. I thank every Member who attended, particularly those from Shropshire and the surrounding area: the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), and my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), with whom I have really enjoyed working. He has run a tenacious campaign on this issue and is now following up with the Minister.
We have heard today that most of us are asked about this issue in our constituencies, so why don’t we all work together to find a solution? There is cross-party support. Everyone has identified that there is a major failing and a problem. The Minister would do very well to follow up with the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) and look at how his huge experience in this area could be brought into Government. We are not asking for anything new; we are asking for a minimum service level to be delivered to rural constituents. Across every constituency, our constituents are suffering from not getting their mail. We have seen the detriment from missed cancer appointments and screening, missed bank or legal letters, and isolation. This is causing problems for all our constituents, so I thank everyone for coming together today.
I say to my constituents that I will continue to follow up with Royal Mail, as the Minister outlined—I thank him for summing up today. I will raise every single case. Even if a constituent has missed just one letter, they should get in touch with me—my survey opened today—because I will follow it up. I want Royal Mail to know that I am an exceptionally tenacious person who goes after everything and will not accept no for an answer. I will campaign with many hon. Members here so that every one of our constituents gets the service they are promised and every single letter is delivered on time. I will not stop until that happens.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered postal services in rural areas.
Nurseries and Early Years Providers: CCTV
(2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and of the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the use of CCTV for safeguarding purposes in nurseries and early years providers.
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Stringer. I have now been a public servant for 15 years, initially as a local councillor and then as a local MP for nearly 11 years. A lot of people who see me doing my job will know about the bits relating to voting, legislation and making decisions on national policy, but most will not know about my casework. That casework is often on matters of life or death, whether helping women fleeing domestic violence, people fleeing persecution, or my constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was imprisoned in Iran for a crime she did not commit.
Some of the most harrowing examples of my casework have been about children. Very early in my career, I dealt with a young boy who was abducted from his mother, and taken overseas by his estranged father. I then dealt with a man who was grooming his step-daughter, and had to step in to help get him away from her. Finally, I have dealt with parents whose children have been abused, either sexually or through neglect or cruelty, in nurseries. It is very difficult to put into words what those casework surgeries are like, because they are every parent’s worst nightmare. Parents have put their child in a nursery at a time when they are unable to speak, walk or talk and entrusted it to look after them, only to find that that very place, rather than being a safe haven, has abused that trust, and that their children have been subjected to violent acts or sexual cruelty.
For six years, I was a shadow Minister for early years and early education, and I am an absolute champion for the sector. I want to emphasise that every time I spoke to early years educators and practitioners, safeguarding was the focus of all their work and they wanted to make sure children were protected. Many of the conversations I had were about strengthening security so that nurseries could do their job properly, whether that was through the mandatory two person per child rule, ensuring that Ofsted can examine digital devices or having a proper whistleblowing system in case anything problematic was happening. In particular, those conversations were about whether mandatory CCTV should be a safeguarding tool for nurseries across the country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for all she has done over the years. In the short time I have been here, I have found her to be assiduous, committed and dedicated on all these issues. As she knows, I have tried to support her in all her campaigns. Today, she is talking about another massive campaign, and I commend her for it. Child safety is core and imperative, and every one of us—including me, as a father and grandfather—worries about our children and grandchildren. CCTV could be the norm in affluent areas, but does hon. Lady agree that all those who provide care, in all areas, should be able to access affordable systems to meet this need? There is a cost—a financial factor—but it is really important that the No. 1 priority is safety.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for all my campaigns throughout the years. He has hit on a point I will definitely comment on. However, as he said, we cannot put a price on a child’s safety.
I said that I have been a public servant for 15 years, but I have been involved in the world of politics for 25 years, and I know that campaigns and legislation cannot be done on a whim. We have to look at all sides of the argument, which is why I spoke to a lot of the nursery managers and early years practitioners in my constituency before the debate to ask what they thought about a mandatory policy of installing CCTV in nurseries.
Legitimate concerns were raised, and I want to discuss them because we need to be aware of the obstacles we will face if we want to implement this policy. One of those legitimate arguments concerned price and diverting resources. Another question was whether someone would end up exploiting what we were trying to do to safeguard children. For example, would the CCTV be hacked? Would someone use artificial intelligence on that material in a manner we would not want and distribute it illegally? Those are legitimate concerns, which I will address, because if we want to change the landscape, we have to tackle the obstacles head-on, including the one the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she is doing, particularly on behalf of constituents who have been so badly traumatised by their recent experience. I am grateful to some of those parents for recently meeting the Education Committee privately to discuss the change they wish to see. On Tuesday, my Committee will hold a public oral evidence session to explore safeguarding in early years settings. Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to practical measures like compulsory CCTV, which can strengthen safeguarding in nurseries, we need to explore the operation of the inspection and accountability framework in the early years, so that every parent can be sure that when they entrust their precious child to an early years setting, they will be safe?
Tulip Siddiq
I absolutely agree. As elected officials, we must ensure that we protect our constituents and that when they trust a nursery or childminder with their children, they know they are doing the right thing.
I have some examples in which CCTV has helped to secure convictions, but I warn everyone that the details are quite distressing. The first is the very sad case of Genevieve from Tiny Toes nursery in Greater Manchester, which some people will have read about. While being placed down to sleep in the nursery, Genevieve was tightly swaddled in a blanket. She was strapped face down on to a bean bag without being checked by nursery staff. The nursery worker responsible was convicted of manslaughter using the CCTV footage obtained from the nursery. The footage also disproved the nursery worker’s claim that she had checked on Genevieve every few minutes, and later led to the conviction of one of the perpetrator’s colleagues for the deplorable neglect of four other babies. Tiny Toes nursery, where Genevieve was killed, was rated “Good” by Ofsted five years earlier, but the trial heard evidence suggesting it was run shockingly. On the day Genevieve died, only two members of staff were looking after 11 babies. The previous weekday, there were 16 babies—far in excess of the 1:3 ratio for under-2s in England. If Ofsted had watched the CCTV footage, it would have picked that up.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case. As a Greater Manchester Member of Parliament, I know that the important issue of mandatory CCTV in nursery settings is a critical part of the campaign for Gigi. There is also the issue of allowing parents to access CCTV footage. I have raised before in Westminster Hall the case of my constituent Frances, who found it extremely difficult to access the CCTV footage of an incident in which her daughter was seriously mistreated at her nursery, in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that such cases show that, as well as having mandatory CCTV in nurseries, parents need greater rights to hold providers to account and access the footage they need?
Tulip Siddiq
I am very sorry to hear about that case. I fully agree that if we are to have CCTV as a safeguarding tool, we must be able to access it in incidents like the one my hon. Friend described.
Another case I want to mention is that of Riverside nursery in Twickenham, where the local MP has been doing a huge amount of work. Roksana Lecka was convicted of abusing 21 babies at that nursery after footage showed the worker pinching and scratching children, and kicking one boy in the face. As in the case of Genevieve, which I just mentioned, CCTV was essential to the prosecution in the case. The Metropolitan police went through CCTV from the nursery, which showed Lecka pinching and scratching children, all aged 18 months to two years, under their clothes and on their arms, legs and stomachs. The Crown Prosecution Service put forward compelling evidence that clearly showed her targeting children when colleagues were either out of the room or had their backs turned. It also called on experts to prove that the injuries the victims sustained were consistent with pinch marks.
Another horrific case happened in Bristol, where a nursery worker sexually abused five toddlers in his care. The prosecutor told the jury that some of the evidence against the perpetrator came from CCTV from inside the nursery, and she used CCTV showing the nursery worker’s predatory behaviour towards young children. That nursery worker was initially caught because the nursery manager witnessed him on CCTV putting his hands down the trousers of a child. She immediately sent him home and got in touch with human resources, but he would not have been sacked, and then ultimately convicted, had the CCTV not been there.
The final example is from Australia. Some hon. Members will be aware that last August Australian federal and state education leaders signed off on plans to begin a trial of CCTV for childcare centres, in which 300 childcare centres across the country will install purpose-built daycare CCTV systems. The trial is part of a larger $189 million Government-funded initiative to enhance safety, security and reporting in the childcare sector. Funds will be released over four years to help small and medium-sized operators purchase and install CCTV cameras for childcare centres.
The Australian childcare CCTV trial is taking place as part of federal reforms to enhance safety in the childcare sector, particularly in response to a high-profile allegation of misconduct in which a childcare worker was charged with more than 70 child sex offences, including rape, after working for eight years at several nurseries, many of which did not have CCTV. During the announcement, the Australian Education Minister stressed the importance of CCTV as a safeguarding measure, referring to daytime security cameras as
“an essential component in what we need to do if we want to keep our children safe”.
He went on to say that police suggest that CCTV cameras
“can be an important aspect in deterring bad behaviour”
as well as in helping police with their investigations.
Some nursery chains in our country do use CCTV, but there is no consistent national standard. That raises questions about whether current safeguarding arrangements are sufficient. If we consider implementing this proposal, we need to consider a number of issues. One is the security of CCTV systems: whether footage is monitored, whether it is stored locally, how secure the footage is and whether there are controls around remote access. We also need to think about whether and in what circumstances we can view the footage in the case of an incident, and how that access is recorded. We could consider role-based auditable access, and also whether there is a case for authorised access for Ofsted inspectors as part of routine inspections.
Another area is data retention. How long should footage be kept? When should it be deleted? How should it be preserved automatically if a safeguarding concern is raised? Clear guidance would need to ensure compliance with data protection law and prevent inappropriate access. We need to look carefully at wider digital safeguards in early years settings and the potential benefits of introducing technical controls, such as restricting devices in early years settings to approved apps and systems, or even limiting camera or gallery functions where they are not required. Routine audits, spot checks and clear escalation processes would need to form part of that picture, alongside appropriate staff training on digital governance and responsible use.
We should also be open to emerging technologies that could help to strengthen safeguarding processes further. That might include harnessing specialist tools designed to detect illegal content quickly and automatically —for example, Project Arachnid, developed by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, which is used to identify known sexual abuse material online.
I do not claim to have answers to all the questions, but if we work collectively with the Government, we could implement this measure to safeguard the future of children in nurseries.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate; she makes a compelling case for CCTV in this area. It is difficult to listen to the harrowing stories, and everybody listening will be horrified at what has gone on. In terms of how CCTV could make an impact, does my hon. Friend believe that more needs to be done to ensure that the role of Ofsted and local authorities in safeguarding is more effective, so that incidents can be addressed faster?
Tulip Siddiq
I am coming to my questions to the Minister; I know she is highly focused on the early years sector and has done an enormous amount for it. One of those questions is about Ofsted; I will get to that in a minute.
The Secretary of State talked about appointing an expert panel on CCTV. Can the Minister give an update on that panel, and is there an opportunity for me to sit on it as a representative of the parents in my constituency? I ask the Minister for her response to the Lullaby Trust’s Campaign for Gigi. One of its three objectives is mandatory CCTV in nurseries, stating that CCTV
“should not only be checked once there has been a serious incident. CCTV can give staff the confidence to speak up when they see something that is concerning, and could help Ofsted to monitor regular practices in nurseries even before there is a concern.”
In addition, the Lullaby Trust is
“calling for Ofsted and the Department for Education to explore reviewing CCTV footage as part of Ofsted inspections. This can act as an active safeguard, revealing concerns that may not be visible during a short, scheduled inspection.”
Cost is an issue, which we are all aware of. Will the Minister commission a study to look into the costs for nurseries to install CCTV?
Before I finish, I want to make it clear that although I have talked a lot about keeping our children safe in nurseries, I am a huge champion of the early years sector. There are thousands of workers out there who work really hard to love, protect and look after our children. I sent my children to Pinocchio nursery in my constituency; it looked after them better than I did, and they still call their nursery manager Jana their second mother. In no way is this debate a slight on the people who work hard to look after our children. We owe them a debt of gratitude.
My focus today has been on the safeguarding crisis in some of our nurseries. There were almost 20,000 reports of serious childcare incidents in English nurseries in the five years to March 2024. That was up 40% on the previous five years. Meanwhile, the number of legal claims involving injuries to children in nurseries has increased tenfold over the past decade. I spoke to the late Genevieve’s father John last night. He told me categorically that, without CCTV, the investigation into his little daughter’s death would not have opened. It would not have taken place, the case would not have gone to trial, and the deputy manager of the nursery would not have been convicted of manslaughter.
I am not naive to the challenges; I do not think CCTV is a silver bullet, but I do think it is one step closer to safeguarding our children in the future. If there is any Government who should put forward policy to look after the most vulnerable, it should be a Government with Labour values.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank all hon. Members for attending and contributing to this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) on securing the debate, and on her excellent speech. She has fought hard for her constituents following the horrendous case in her constituency, and I thank her for that. She is a true champion for children, for her constituents and for those working in the early years sector who, she rightly says, spend every day thinking about how to keep children safe. I am grateful to her for sharing the views of providers in her constituency with whom she has taken the time to discuss the issue of CCTV, and grateful to her for sharing the harrowing stories that she has shared in this debate, which underline the urgency and significance of the action that we must take. She has made a very powerful case for the use of CCTV.
I look forward to reading and hearing about the outcomes of the important inquiry of the Education Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). The question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) will be considered by the panel that we are currently getting under way, which I shall say a bit more about. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) talked about the role of Ofsted. That is at the front of the Government’s mind. We have increased the frequency of Ofsted inspections in early years settings, and in our review we will continue to consider the points that she raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate asked a number of questions that I address in the speech that I have prepared; I will come on to those answers.
Nothing is more important, for me and for this Government, than the safety of our children. The Department for Education is constantly working to ensure that children in early years settings benefit from the highest possible safeguarding standards. In September, we strengthened the rules to cover safer recruitment, what to do in the event of child absences, whistleblowing procedures, safer eating and paediatric first aid training. We also introduced new mandatory safeguarding training requirements, so that all early years educators must complete training that meets our statutory criteria.
On CCTV, we are acting with the urgency that every hon. Member in this debate rightly expects. In December, the Secretary of State for Education announced that she would appoint an expert advisory panel to review how digital devices and CCTV are used in early years settings, from a safeguarding perspective. I can now go into further details on the expertise that the panel will hold, how it will operate and the panel’s objectives.
The panel will meet monthly, with the first meeting planned for later this month. It will consider key points including, but not limited to, whether CCTV should be mandated in early years settings, CCTV’s role as part of a setting’s wider safeguarding measures, how CCTV and digital devices should be managed to ensure that children’s privacy is protected alongside their safety, and what systems, training and safeguards are necessary to address concerns such as cyber-security and the possible misuse of images. We must remember that, sadly, image-generating technology can be used for harm as well as for good, and we have seen, in some of those awful cases, that the presence of CCTV has not prevented harm. Digital devices within settings have been used to generate unlawful images and perpetrate abuse. We have seen that nurseries and early years settings face risks from hackers, such as in the case faced by a nursery chain last year. For those reasons, we are working across Government to ensure that all possible angles are considered, and that any recommended changes, including those relating to any mandatory CCTV requirements, have a unified cross-Government response so that any changes are brought in with the utmost care.
The panel will consist of representatives from both the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and from the Home Office, along with relevant bodies such as the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. In addition, the National Police Chiefs’ Council will be invited, so that CCTV’s use as evidence, best practice and potential misuse are covered. It is also key that the voices of all early years providers are heard in our review, along with those of academic experts in early years safeguarding and surveillance technology. Most importantly of all, I want the voices of parents and of hon. Members advocating in this debate to be at the heart of the review. I will be in touch with any hon. Member in this debate who would like to know more about how they can be involved as soon as possible.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I want to publicly thank the Minister for attending a roundtable with the parents of Twickenham Green nursery victims last year. The perpetrator is to be deported tomorrow, and many of those parents feel that justice has not been served, but the best justice would be to make sure that such a case does not happen again, so I welcome the panel. Will the Minister assure me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), who represents the parents of baby Gigi Meehan, that we can feed into that panel on behalf of those parents to make sure that their concerns and views are heard, and that we have learned the lessons from the CCTV pilot rollout in Australia?
Olivia Bailey
I thank the hon. Member for her campaigning for her constituents, and for the powerful roundtable that she invited me to. I can reassure her that, as I just said, any parent or hon. Member in this debate who would like to contribute to the work of that panel will have the opportunity to do so. I will be in touch to explain how that will happen.
Before I conclude, I would like to say a word about safer sleep. In addition to calls for mandatory CCTV, the Campaign for Gigi has called for clear, statutory safe-sleep guidance for early years settings. My policy officials have worked with safe-sleep experts, including the Lullaby Trust, on proposed new wording for the early years foundation stage, which will add more detail without providers’ needing to refer to other guidance. We plan to make those changes as soon as possible.
In closing, I again thank all hon. Members for their passion and dedication.
Munira Wilson
I know we are talking about CCTV, but another important thing that the Australian Government have just introduced is a register for early years providers, so that perpetrators can be stopped from going on to hurt other young victims, as happened in the Twickenham Green nursery case of Roksana Lecka. Will the Minister and her Government also look at having a register for early years practitioners in the UK?
Olivia Bailey
I thank the hon. Member for that important intervention. We do have a few more moments, if anyone else would like to intervene on these topics. We are considering all the evidence; nothing is off the table for me as I think about how to keep our children safe.
Rachel Blake
One issue I would like explored is the role of local authorities in safeguarding. That issue has come up in some work I have been doing on this subject, where a gap or lack of communication is perceived between the different roles of Ofsted and local authorities. I welcome the fact that the Minister has been clear that Ofsted inspections are increasing and are part of the review. It is important that local authorities are clear about their roles with early years settings.
Olivia Bailey
My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is something the Government are focused on. In addition to frequency, we have also increased funding for Ofsted. There are also ongoing local reviews of some of the horrendous cases we have seen, from which we will also learn lessons.
I hope that the ongoing and planned work that I have highlighted today provides reassurance that, across Government, we are working urgently to implement the most effective and evidence-based changes to early years safeguarding, to ensure the most important thing of all—that our children are safe. I thank everyone for their contributions today.
Question put and agreed to.
Armed Conflict: Children
(2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered children and armed conflict.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and it is a privilege to bring this topic, which I know is an important one for many of my constituents, to Westminster Hall today.
I open the debate with an uncomfortable statistic: today one in five children across the world are growing up in conflict zones. I am sure we can all agree that that is not a statistic we should accept or ever ignore. From Gaza to Ukraine to Yemen, children are paying the highest price for conflicts they did nothing to create. Between 2020 and 2024, nearly 50,000 have become casualties of war—the equivalent of 200 full passenger planes. Those figures are just the tip of the iceberg of the true scale of violations, are limited to incidents it was possible to record and verify, something that can be extremely challenging in situations of active conflict and where access restrictions are in place. UNICEF reports that more than 100 children have been killed in Gaza alone since the ceasefire in early October 2025. That is an average of one child killed every day—and that during a ceasefire. Is the Minister considering children’s distinct needs and vulnerabilities, and their additional rights under international law, in the context of assessing Israel’s compliance with international human rights law?
The United Nations children and armed conflict agenda makes abundantly clear what has been documented: the very youngest victims of war are being caught in its merciless machinery. Children face indiscriminate harm, including killings, maiming, recruitment, abductions and attacks on schools and hospitals, at levels not previously seen and Gaza figures among the worst-affected contexts. Currently, the Occupied Palestinian Territory is the most dangerous place on earth to be a child, obtaining that title for the second year running, with grave violations committed at an extraordinary scale and pace by the Israeli forces. Most verified incidents were of the killing and maiming of children caused by the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. It must be noted that children are seven times more likely than adults to die from blast injuries. Concurrently, we are witnessing the destruction of spaces dedicated to children’s education, development and play. Armed conflict exacts its heaviest toll on children.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. As she has just mentioned education, does she agree that education for children in very difficult settings can provide them with a lifeline and a place where they can feel safe, make friends and build up their self-confidence and self-esteem, while at the same time, giving them a sense of hope and aspiration for the future? For those reasons, does she agree that it is important that the Government continue to fund education in those settings and to fund education research into what works best in trying to help and educate our children in very difficult conflict zones?
Sarah Smith
The hon. Member raises an incredibly important point. Children absolutely deserve the right to continue to have even the tiniest opportunity for some form of normality—something that helps them to imagine a world beyond the conflict that they are currently living in. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how our Government are supporting children in conflict zones, including Gaza.
Children are not simply collateral damage. With schools, hospitals and residential neighbourhoods struck, children are not just incidental casualties; they are front and centre in the decimation of armed conflict. Their places of safety, education and play are being mercilessly destroyed. Those children are forced to grow up faced with the daily nightmares of armed conflict and the impact that it has on their homes.
More than 60% of child casualties in recent conflicts are due to explosive weapons. The Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Gaza, is among the deadliest places for children. We must remember these injuries cast a long shadow: a wounded child today becomes a young adult tomorrow, scarred physically, emotionally and psychologically. Many face a lifetime without adequate rehabilitation, prosthetics or even basic medical care because restricted humanitarian access and damage to hospitals make proper treatment nearly impossible.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on an important topic. She talks about the trauma of children living in war zones. According to UNICEF, 100% of children in Gaza face mental health challenges, and are in need of mental health and psychosocial support. Does she agree that that is a crucial part of protecting children during conflict and helping them to recover from it?
Sarah Smith
Absolutely. I recognise my hon. Friend’s expertise: she worked in this area prior to coming to this place. Unfortunately, that statistic is no surprise, given the situation that children face in Gaza.
This Parliament has repeatedly affirmed that human rights are universal, that the rights of the child are not suspended at borders or battle lines, and that international law must be upheld consistently and without double standards. The convention on the rights of the child obliges us to protect children from all forms of violence, including during armed conflict, yet in Gaza that obligation is being flouted with impunity. The United Nations continues to verify grave violations, and keeps parties that violate children’s rights on its monitoring list—a solemn reminder that we cannot look away. I ask the Minister whether the Government will push Israel to agree to and implement a UN action plan to reduce harm to children, and ensure it remains listed in the report until that has been fully achieved.
I commend the work of the Labour Government. The latest figures show that they have provided £241 million in official development assistance to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including £154 million in humanitarian funding, between 2023 and 2025. That has enabled more than 500,000 medical consultations, food for about 647,000 people and sanitation for another 300,000. I pay genuine tribute to the important work that my hon. Friend the Minister does, and I thank him for his dedication to the region, both before coming to this place and since he has taken on these responsibilities. He has made huge diplomatic efforts since the horrific and unforgivable events of 7 October.
It is important to return to the United Nations children and armed conflict agenda. I know the Government champion it and have committed additional funding to support its mandate. Its yearly report identified the five most dangerous places to be a child in the world—the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Haiti and Nigeria—and is an important tool, acting as a catalyst for behaviour change.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does she agree that children are often used as tools, and even child soldiers, in many areas of conflict? In Sudan, for example, the conflict between the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese armed forces has affected more than 10 million children, 200 of whom have been raped. Wherever possible, we must hold Governments to account, whether in India—where children are being deliberately targeted in Kashmir—Yemen, Sudan or Gaza. We cannot allow these situations, where children are the biggest sufferers, to go on. In my constituency, I see many young men from Afghanistan with mental health issues who are here seeking asylum or as refugees. We must give them the help that they deserve and need.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that the time for this debate is tight, so interventions should be short and to the point.
Sarah Smith
Unfortunately, the official numbers no doubt do not represent the full situation yet it is devastating to hear what my hon. Friend says. His intervention also points to a broader challenge, although it is not part of this debate, about the need for the international or global human rights order at the current time, and the importance of organisations such as the International Criminal Court and the UN in upholding that order and campaigning on these critical issues.
What matters now is whether we act on what the research from the UN’s children and armed conflict agenda makes unmistakably clear. Childhoods are being destroyed and places of learning, safety and sanctuary are being decimated. We need to uphold international law and be a country that is promoting peace.
It is welcome that Gaza’s key Rafah border crossing is gradually being reopened. According to local hospitals and the World Health Organisation, about 20,000 sick and wounded Palestinians are waiting to leave Gaza for treatment. Can the Minister inform parliamentarians what discussions have taken place with the Israeli Government on the process for the evacuation of all severely sick children now that the Rafah crossing is beginning to open? Does that allow for humanitarian and medical specialists, UN agencies and civil society organisations to gain access to the Occupied Palestinian Territories to support the unobstructed monitoring and reporting of grave violations against children?
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm. That gives us just under 30 minutes, and seven Members are standing; I think three and a half minutes each would be appropriate, but please try to keep interventions brief. I remind Members to keep bobbing before I call somebody to speak.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate.
There is no period of greater importance than childhood. Every child deserves dignity, protection and the support needed to give them the best possible start in life. Yet today, more than 500 million children are living in active conflict zones around the world. Every day, we are confronted with the human cost of war on children: the 20,000 Ukrainian children abducted and taken to Belarus and Russia, many of whom may never see their families again; the 10.8 million children in Yemen denied food, clean water, healthcare and education; and the millions of girls in Sudan facing displacement, starvation and the constant threat of abduction, exploitation and enslavement.
The scale of trauma being inflicted on children worldwide is both incomprehensible and intolerable. Ending this suffering requires two things from a Government such as ours—adequate humanitarian and development assistance to meet children’s immediate needs, and the political courage to prioritise human rights and the prevention of harm over political expediency. On both counts, unfortunately, this Government have failed, in my view. At a time when children’s suffering has never been more widespread, the Government chose to halve the overseas aid budget. That was not an unavoidable necessity, but a political choice, and one that has stripped millions of children of access to food, healthcare, education and protection. Now is not the time for retreat; it is a time for leadership. Instead, the Government have turned away from their responsibility to uphold the most basic human dignities.
However, this failure goes beyond aid. The Government have also failed to take the political action necessary to prevent and halt the conflicts that devastate children’s lives in the first place. Nowhere—nowhere—is that more evident than in Gaza. For over a year, this Labour Government stood by as Palestinian children were bombed, shot and starved, and as their schools, hospitals and homes were destroyed. Through their inaction, the Government have been complicit in the destruction of the conditions children need to live, learn and grow. They stood by as their lives were reduced to bare survival, or taken away altogether.
We cannot soften the reality of the physical, emotional and psychological trauma inflicted on these children. A recent study led by the University of Cambridge found that constant bombardment and starvation have left children in Gaza
“too weak to learn or play”,
and convinced that they will be “killed for being Gazans”. These children have lost not only their homes and health, but their hope and their faith that the international system will protect them.
Children in Gaza will have lost the equivalent of five years of education since 2020. Rebuilding education across Palestine is going to cost billions. As a result, children will depend on foreign aid for decades, not because this was inevitable, but because the Government failed to stand up for international law when it mattered most. We must be honest about our role in this devastation. The suffering did not occur in a vacuum, and our silence and inaction were not neutral. Lives were destroyed because it was politically convenient to look away.
Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) on securing such an important debate. The effects of war on children are devastating, as often seen in the media, but we must look beyond what we see. We see humanitarian disasters; we do not see the recruitment of child soldiers beforehand, the mental trauma and the loss of education. What we do see we must take seriously, as it reflects a sad reality that many children live in. That should never be overlooked.
That is why the Government must invest in conflict prevention and peacebuilding strategies. We need to address the root causes that make children vulnerable, such as poverty and lack of support within the community. We need to lead the way in preventing humanitarian crises. The UK humanitarian framework is committed to doing that, but I ask the Minister whether the Government are introducing or considering any new strategies. We need to act early and take precautionary and preventive measures. There needs to be investment in the way that children can report grave violations, and the stigma associated with them must be addressed. I ask the Minister to liaise with other leaders in the UK and internationally on how that can be done. In developing these strategies, we must find a way to give children a voice to express what they need, for they are very often the silent victims. I therefore ask the Minister: how are the Government giving children a voice in a safe, supported way, and will they liaise with charities such as Save the Children, which has conducted a vast amount of research on this topic and how to improve this?
The UK, as a member of the UN Security Council, donated £450,000 to UNICEF’s monitoring and reporting mechanism in 2025. Do the Government intend to increase that donation, given that, in 2024, less than 2% of global security funds went towards peacebuilding and peacekeeping? That is a small sum compared with the weapons of war that are produced every day. The way to combat issues such as displacement, child soldier recruitment and denial of humanitarian aid is not to decrease spending on peacebuilding. Only recently, The Independent stated that nearly 23 million additional deaths are expected by 2030 as a result of cuts in overseas aid. Many of those will be children. They will be denied a future. What could they provide if they were allowed to live, and not live in these warzones? That is the tragedy of these cases.
There needs to be more long-term investment to minimise the life-changing effects on children living in armed conflict. Just because war ends, it does not mean that the effects do. Children are left with mental trauma, with a lack of support, infrastructure and community, and, tragically, a lost education. We need to use our leadership and diplomacy to find new ways to protect children. The grave violations against them are rising, and it is imperative that our framework keeps up with that. This is not a political question; it is a moral one, and we should not be found wanting.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for setting the scene incredibly well and for all the work she has done on the issue over the years and in her time in Parliament. She has championed the protection of children in armed conflict in the past and has done well to set the scene today.
We must confront a deeply troubling reality. Children are not only being drawn into armed conflict; they are increasingly becoming its direct victims. According to a 2023 United Nations report on the recruitment and use of child soldiers, tens of thousands of boys and girls worldwide, some as young as eight or nine, are recruited and exploited by armed forces and armed groups, with their roles ranging from combatants and cooks to spies and messengers and, most disturbingly, victims of sexual slavery. Of growing concern is the use of children to plant explosive devices, which reflects the brutal evolution of modern warfare. As conflict continues to escalate across the globe, we must ask ourselves, “What more can we do?” What more can the Government do to protect children from lives that no child should ever be forced to endure?
Chris Evans
The hon. Gentleman speaks from experience, himself knowing conflict, and he knows that Belfast is now a vibrant European city, with education on the rise. Can he give some advice on what can be done to address the matter of children who grew up in that conflict and how they have adapted to modern life?
Jim Shannon
I was talking to the Liberal Democrat Northern Ireland spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), last night, and he asked me a similar question. We have the urban and the rural: in the urban areas—Belfast, Londonderry and the big cities—the influence on people is perhaps more direct and harder to get away from. If people are living in the smaller towns or villages, as I have, there is not the same direct influence. Government collectively are trying to work to ensure that we can deliver a better life. Some of that involves such things as Catholics and Protestants playing together, going to school together, and playing football and other games together. Lots of things are being done, but there is more to do, and we have to influence that. There is a role for churches to play as well. I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) Gentleman for that intervention.
I draw the House’s attention to the particularly harrowing context of Nigeria. Boko Haram’s sustained campaign of violence, particularly against religious minorities, has devastated countless lives. Children have been forcibly recruited into armed groups, while many more have lost parents, families, access to education and even their own childhoods. Some girls have borne children while still children themselves, as a direct result of captivity and abuse.
In 2024, the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which I chair, and our secretariat, the Freedom of Religion or Belief Foundation, had the privilege of leading a parliamentary delegation to Nigeria, alongside other hon. Members and Julie Jones, the director of the foundation. We worked with the Gideon and Funmi Para-Mallam Peace Foundation, and met women and girls who had survived Boko Haram captivity. The Gideon and Funmi Para-Mallam Peace Foundation continues to work tirelessly to secure the release of those still held by the group, often at great personal risk.
One of those children is Leah Sharibu. I pray for that wee girl every day. Leah is now in her eighth year of captivity, having been the only student not released following the abduction of 110 Dapchi schoolchildren by Boko Haram on 19 February 2018.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that kidnap is increasingly being used as a tool of war in areas of conflict, whether Ukraine, where thousands of children have been abducted and torn from their homes, or in Nigeria and Sudan? This is becoming more prevalent, and it is causing immense worry.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In Ukraine, some 30,000 children have been kidnapped and taken away from their parents—that cut-off between parents and children is devastating.
In Nigeria, young Leah has given birth to three children. Her freedom, and the freedom of many like her, remains unresolved. Too often, children affected by armed conflict are forgotten once the headlines fade, yet their suffering does not end when the world looks away.
I am therefore grateful that we can use our voices as Members of this House, in this debate and others, as well as on the global stage, to advocate for the protection of these children and to press for accountability, rehabilitation and long-term peace for them. I say honestly to the Minister and the Government that I am proud to support a Government who recognise that every child, wherever they are born, has the right to grow up in a safe, healthy and protective environment. We should be encouraged by a Government who state that.
Finally, to those children who, in the face of relentless adversity, continue to hope for a better future, I end with scripture. John 16:33 says:
“In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing the debate. I know how interested she is in these issues, and how much she cares about them, so it is good that we are having this debate today.
I make no apologies for enumerating some figures that I think we would all do well to remember. As we have heard, for the second year running, the Occupied Palestinian Territory was the most dangerous place in the world to be a child. In 2024, Israeli armed forces were responsible for 7,188 grave violations against Palestinian children. That means that Israeli forces were responsible for more than one in five of the total number of verified grave violations committed globally in 2024. The verified number of Palestinian children killed and maimed by Israeli forces in 2024 was 3,867. Most instances were caused by the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. As of July 2025, over 40,500 children in Gaza were estimated to have been injured. The occupied Palestinian territory is now home, shamefully, to the largest cohort of child amputees in modern history.
As of July 2025, at least 21,000 children were living with permanent disabilities, which included traumatic brain injuries, burns, complex fractures and hearing loss. The Save the Children report, “Children and Blast Injuries”, explains that the reason for that is because children are uniquely vulnerable to blast injuries, as they are more likely to die as a result of attacks, or to suffer more severe physical harm, in comparison with adults. The situation is compounded by the rise of new weapons technologies such as cluster munitions, and the increase of conflict being conducted in cities, with bombs and drones often striking—in fact, targeting—schools, hospitals and homes. The report makes a number of calls on the Government, one being to publish what would be the first-ever cross-departmental children in conflict strategy. I hope the Minister will address that in his winding-up speech.
I was very pleased that the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) mentioned education in conflict zones. It is an issue that the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown raised a number of years ago. He said that those living in conflict zones have the right to expect medical care, and that children in conflict zones should have the right to expect an education, in spite of what is going on around them, no matter how difficult that might be.
I am sure that we all have a view about the board of peace that has been created to look after Palestine and Gaza. I have many concerns about it, but I want to talk about one today: the fact that there is only one woman on the board of peace. I do not for one moment suggest that men do not care about children, but I think that women have a particular perspective. They are often the people who are now left to look after children with no support, often having lost their breadwinner. The Government could use any influence they have to advocate—
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. My thanks go to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this debate.
For me, the most depressing and terrifying departmental questions that we have in this place are Defence questions. We had a session on Monday this week, and it was no exception. There always seem to be questions from nearly every corner of the Chamber about increasing military spending: about more money for more bombs and more weapons—“Let’s make Britain a defensive industrial powerhouse.” Respectfully, if anyone thinks that the route to improving living standards for millions of people in this country is making drones, weapons and the like, I am confident that they are wrong.
When we watch the news and see what is happening in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Syria and other places across the globe, do we think that what the world needs right now is more killing, more death and more weapons? I do not. I categorically think that we need less. When I watch the news and see children in warzones, sitting in rubble, traumatised, starving and orphaned—the victims of the horrors of war—I feel overwhelming sadness.
But should we not also think about the weapons that have been used to create this appalling humanitarian situation? In Gaza specifically, we have seen parents carry the bodies of dead children. Doctors have come to Westminster to tell MPs about tending to children who have been shot in the head by Israeli drones. Millions of people have taken to the streets all across Britain to protest at the deaths of innocent civilians. Save the Children—not a fringe organisation—says that more than 20,000 children have been murdered. On average, one Palestinian child has been killed every hour by Israeli forces over nearly 23 months of war. More than 1,000 children killed were under the age of one, while at least 42,000 children have been injured and 21,000 have been left permanently disabled.
During so many urgent questions and statements in the main Chamber, Foreign Secretaries have said that arms sales are a complicated issue, but thousands of children being massacred is not complicated.
Tahir Ali
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should cease all arms sales to Israel, given that the Israel Defence Forces general, Aharon Haliva, is on record as saying that 50 Palestinians must die for every death that happened on 7 October, and
“it does not matter…if they are children”?
Brian Leishman
I am in complete agreement. I have said that many times in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber, and in the media as well. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: there is no justification for arms sales to Israel.
It is important to talk about that because, in the wider scheme of things, history will absolutely judge politicians in this place. Politicians will be judged on their complicity in this genocide by continuing those arms sales to Israel. Keeping global pools and supply chains stocked is no justification for killing children and other innocents.
A ceasefire in name only is no cause for celebration because the killing has continued. This week alone, Israeli airstrikes killed at least 32 Palestinians, including several children. We must get our heads around the truth because it is important. The truth is that the genocide has not stopped.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, not least as a neighbouring colleague. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this valuable debate.
In Gaza, aid workers and medical teams have become used to using the world’s most heartbreaking acronym: WCNSF—wounded child, no surviving family. The phrase was born in Gaza’s hospitals as overworked trauma surgeons had to deal with so many injured, unaccompanied children that they simply scrawled WCNSF on their files. As Kieran King, head of humanitarian at UK charity War Child, told us at a briefing in Parliament last month, Gaza is the first conflict where such a term has been needed because of the sheer number of wounded children.
The UN’s child protection agency UNICEF cited Gaza’s Health Ministry statistics from last September, recording that 2,596 Palestinian children had lost both parents and a further 53,000 had lost at least one parent, of whom 47,000 will grow up with no father and 5,920 will grow up with no mother. Those are not just ordinary statistics. Gaza has the highest rate of child amputations of any modern conflict. Those are all individual human beings whose stories need to be shared.
The powerful new film “The Voice of Hind Rajab”, which was screened for MPs in Parliament last month, bears witness to one of those stories as it follows the Red Crescent response during the killing of a six-year-old Palestinian girl by the IDF. Those of us who saw that film will never forget it.
I was proud that within days of the Gaza ceasefire, the Government, working with Labour MPs, brought over 50 children to the NHS to be treated for their complex injuries. But there is much, much more we can do to rebuild the healthcare, schools and social services that children desperately need in Palestine.
The other often forgotten conflict that involves children is of course in Sudan, where a civil war, now in its third year, rages between Sudan’s army and the RSF rebels. The scale of the suffering is enormous: in 2026, a staggering 17 million children are expected to need urgent aid. More than 5 million children have been forced from their homes—the equivalent of 5,000 children displaced every single day—many of them repeatedly, with attacks and sexual violence often following them as they move. Only yesterday, five more children were killed in another drone strike by the paramilitary RSF on a health centre in the city of Kadugli.
UNICEF has been clear:
“Children in Sudan are not statistics. They are frightened, displaced and hungry, but they are also determined, resourceful and resilient. Every day, they”—
like the children of Gaza—
“strive to learn, to play, to hope”.
Ending the child suffering in both countries, through all the powers that we have in diplomacy, aid and trade, is a moral necessity. Those responsible for that suffering should be held accountable under international law. The reckoning will come. It may not come this year, but it will come one day.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) on securing this debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for her campaigning to return the stolen Ukrainian children. Worryingly, children are increasingly the deliberate targets of violence, including in the severe disaster unfolding in Sudan.
The UN Secretary-General’s children and armed conflict mandate has documented a severe escalation in grave violations against children, most of all by the RSF. The RSF, which controls most of south-west Sudan, has nearly 1,200 attributed violations against children in the past year. Those violations kill and maim children every single day. Sexual violence, abductions and recruitment are used as routine weapons of war. They are not sporadic acts but a systematic campaign of terror against children.
Forces in Sudan are using hunger and sexual violence as weapons to target entire ethnic communities. UNICEF and local non-governmental organisations have reported widespread sexual violence against women and girls, and against children as young as one year old—a baby. The children of Sudan will carry the physical and mental scars for the rest of their lives. As they rebuild and reconcile, they will need unprecedented support to overcome injuries, including the injuries of those who have lost limbs, and to overcome traumatic stress and the collapse of their entire world as they knew it.
I believe that we have a human obligation to support the Sudanese people, but also to account for our long and complicated relations with Sudan. I was contacted by a constituent concerned that British-made military components could be diverted to the RSF. Given the RSF’s atrocities, I want the Government to resolve that any diversion of military components would be morally indefensible.
I am grateful for the Minister’s recent response to my letter on that point. He confirmed that officials have reviewed over 2,000 licences, considering the allegations of diversion, and stated that there are no current licences for the reported equipment and none has been issued to the United Arab Emirates in recent years. I would be grateful if the Minister reiterated that reassurance, because vigilance is essential—we cannot stop. Our commitment to prevent British-made components from fuelling atrocities must be absolute and we must act with urgency, transparency and determination.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this vital debate. As we have heard, today one in five children live in areas affected by armed conflict, displacement or related violence. Such children face a daily threat to their lives, their health and their education. Such children are forced to flee their homes, are pulled out of classrooms, are separated from parents and are exposed to violence that no adult should have to endure, let alone a child.
The damage does not end when the fighting pauses. Trauma, lost education and broken health systems follow children for decades. Britain has a proud history of leadership in this space. It has saved the lives of millions of children through vaccinations, nutrition, clean water and frontline healthcare; through support for UN monitoring and reporting for accountability; and through funding programmes that have helped to secure the release and reintegration of child soldiers. But at a time when the number of armed conflicts is at the highest level since the end of the second world war, the UK is choosing to look away: cutting aid to its lowest level this century with devastating consequences for children.
I will speak briefly about the conflicts that are bringing this issue into sharp focus. In Ukraine, children are growing up under constant missile and drone attacks from Russia. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian children may have been abducted and taken into Russia or Russian-controlled areas without consent and under coercive conditions.
In Gaza, the impact of the conflict on children has been devastating, as we have already heard. Hospitals and schools—places that should be sanctuaries—have been systematically and repeatedly struck. I will never forget the testimony given to the International Development Committee, on which I serve, by a doctor working at a Gaza hospital who was treating children targeted by drone attacks.
Save the Children estimates that over 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza, which is one every hour during the two years of war. Of those children who are still alive in Gaza, UNICEF tells us that there is a ton of emptiness and deep sorrow that can be seen in them. Some 39,000 children have been orphaned and 17,000 children are unaccompanied. Children in Gaza often play in areas that are at risk from explosive ordnance, putting them at high risk of injury or death. In turn, that is leading to high rates of disability; many children have had hands and legs amputated.
These children are suffering from hunger, disease, displacement and cold. Eight infants have died of hypothermia this winter alone, and over 100 children have been killed since the ceasefire. Some children need urgent medical evacuation, which is simply not happening at scale, while others are growing up with trauma that will shape the rest of their lives.
As Israel moves to tighten and in some cases end the registration of international non-governmental organisations, it risks forcing dozens of those INGOs to halt lifesaving operations across the Gaza strip and the west bank. The lifeline agency for Palestinian refugees, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which runs over 700 schools, has had its ability to function curtailed.
In Sudan, one of the world’s most severe and—tragically—most overlooked crises affecting children is unfolding in the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe. UNICEF has warned that nearly half a million children are now at risk of acute malnutrition as the conflict intensifies. That is a stark reminder that for many children in Sudan, survival itself is becoming increasingly uncertain. Checkpoints are armed by boys—teenagers—while girls are at risk from endemic sexual violence.
The United Nations continues to verify thousands of cases each year of children being recruited and used by armed groups, which is a grave violation of international law. Children are deployed not only as fighters but as guards, scouts and messengers, exposing them to extreme danger and lifelong trauma. In camps in north Darfur in Sudan, survivors describe how RSF fighters killed parents and abducted children as young as nine, blindfolding them and driving them away. Some were told that they would “look after livestock”, which is a euphemism for enslavement.
The persistence of child recruitment across multiple conflicts reflects the collapse of protection, education and accountability, and preventing it must remain a central test of the international community’s commitment, and indeed of our commitment here in the UK, to the laws of war. Across all these different contexts, the pattern is the same: children are not a sideshow of war, but are among its primary victims. That is why the Government must commit to treating the protection of children not as a secondary concern but as a central pillar of their foreign policy.
First, our diplomacy must put children at the heart of peace efforts. The safety of children—their access to schools and hospitals, and the reunification of families—must be built into peace processes from the beginning. Britain has both the responsibility and the leverage to lead, as a major international actor and as the penholder at the UN Security Council.
Secondly, our humanitarian response must go beyond survival alone. Education must be protected, and schools must be treated as humanitarian spaces in a conflict zone. Mental health support for children affected by conflict should be provided for by core funding. A child who survives war but who is left traumatised, uneducated and unsupported is still a casualty of conflict. If we ignore that trauma, we should not be surprised by the consequences. Entire generations growing up with grief, anger and abandonment become a fertile ground for radicalisation, with many children and young people ending up in terrorist groups such as Hamas.
Thirdly, accountability matters. We must make every effort to ensure that crimes are recorded, that journalists are allowed into conflict zones and that we call out breaches of international humanitarian law wherever they occur. That must apply to allies and adversaries alike, because selective outrage weakens international law. We must name violations consistently, support independent investigations and back consequences when the law is ignored. Finally—
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) on securing this important debate. I also thank colleagues across the Chamber for their thoughtful contributions and interventions, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), who is not in her place now, but served as the special envoy for girls’ education during the last Government. I thank her for that.
Children are not incidental victims of war. Increasingly, they are its deliberate targets. Whether through forced deportation, indoctrination, recruitment into armed groups or the destruction of schools and healthcare, children are being used as instruments of conflict. That should shame us all and it should compel action.
I want to start with Ukraine, where the abuse of children has been systematic and calculated. Thousands of Ukrainian children—some estimates put the figure at more than 20,000—have been forcibly taken from their families and deported into Russia or Russian-occupied territory. Some were taken from orphanages and others removed from parents at gunpoint. Many are subjected to so-called re-education—stripped of their identity, language and nationality. Behind every statistic are a child, a family torn apart and a future placed deliberately out of reach.
The UK has rightly condemned these crimes, but condemnation alone is not enough, so I ask the Minister these questions. What practical steps is the UK taking to support efforts to identify, track and return abducted Ukrainian children? Through which international partners are the Government principally working? What progress has been made on sanctions enforcement against the individuals and entities responsible for these deportations? We know that evidence exists, so what is holding up further designations? Finally on Ukraine, will the Minister update the House on how the UK is supporting international accountability mechanisms, including the ICC, to ensure that those who have committed crimes against children are brought to justice—not in theory, but in practice?
I now turn to the middle east and an issue that requires care, seriousness and balance. Israel faces a real and ongoing security threat from Hamas, a terrorist organisation that cynically embeds itself among civilians and has itself committed grave abuses against children, including hostage taking and indoctrination. At the same time, children in Gaza have suffered enormously. Many have lost family members, homes and access to education.
If we are serious about breaking cycles of conflict, we must look beyond the immediate crisis to what comes next. I want to touch on reconstruction and education. Schools are not just buildings; they are foundations of stability and hope, so what is the UK doing to press for the rebuilding of schools in Gaza once conditions allow? Which organisations and mechanisms are the Government principally working through, and how are they ensuring that planning for education recovery is happening now, rather than being left to become an afterthought?
Education must never be a vehicle for hatred. There have long been serious concerns about elements of the Palestinian curriculum that risk inciting violence or glorifying extremism. UK taxpayers rightly expect our aid not to entrench these problems, so I ask the Minister this directly today. What pressure is the UK applying to the Palestinian Authority to secure root-and-branch curriculum reform? What specific benchmarks are being used, and what evidence, if any, is there of meaningful progress to date? How are UK-funded education programmes monitored to ensure that they promote peace, tolerance and co-existence?
I now turn to Sudan and a crisis that all too often slips from the headlines but which represents one of the gravest humanitarian catastrophes in the world today, particularly for children. Children in Sudan are being killed, displaced, recruited by armed groups and denied access to basic healthcare and education. We know that girls face heightened risks of sexual violence. Entire communities have been uprooted. Humanitarian access remains dangerously constrained. The UK has spoken about leadership on Sudan, so I ask this. Where is that leadership now, and what concrete steps are the Government taking to secure humanitarian access?
More broadly, across all these conflicts, children are paying the price for impunity. I ask the Minister about the Government’s overall approach to children in armed conflict: how is the UK ensuring that the protection of children is embedded in its diplomatic, development and defence policy—not siloed, not rhetorical, but operational?
Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the long-term consequences of failing these children, not just for them but for global stability? Children who are denied safety, education and justice today are far more likely to inherit conflict tomorrow. The Conservative party has long been clear that protecting children in conflict is not optional; it is a moral duty and a strategic necessity. The UK has the diplomatic weight, legal expertise and moral standing to lead. Leadership requires consistency, urgency and follow up, and I urge the Government to match their words with decisive action.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing the debate. I hope Members will bear with me; a lot has been raised. I will make progress covering Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan, and make some general remarks on children in armed conflicts before taking interventions, which I will endeavour to do before the end of the debate.
We are clearly witnessing a deeply troubling trend. Not only is conflict spreading but, as many Members have said, it is becoming more dangerous for children. We must keep their welfare in the spotlight as we respond to these crises. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore) would have been glad to participate today, but he is unavoidably travelling on ministerial duties. It is therefore my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government. I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions, and will try to respond to them in the order that they spoke.
According to the United Nations Secretary-General, grave violations against children surged by 25% in 2024. Children are being killed, maimed, abducted and abused at staggering levels. That is, clearly, absolutely indefensible. We will keep pushing, loudly and consistently, to protect children wherever we can. We are focused on preventing these crimes, stopping them when they happen and pushing armed groups to follow international law. We are a party to the UN convention on the rights of the child, and we take our responsibility seriously. We play an active role in the UN Security Council working group on children and armed conflict, calling out abuses and pushing for accountability. We will keep championing the UN children and armed conflict mandate as well as UN monitoring.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) pointed out that, this year, we are spending £450,000 on UNICEF’s monitoring and reporting mechanism. That is on top of £250,000 spent last year. We are working to boost global efforts and, on the question raised by many hon. Members about the Government’s strategy, we are looking closely at whether a dedicated children in conflict strategy is the right next step. I can confirm to the House that that work is well underway. We are also considering how we can strengthen our expertise on children in armed conflict through developing a new practical toolkit for officials.
I will turn to the specific conflict zones that have been raised. I must, I am afraid, repudiate almost everything said by the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan). We have been many things, but silent is not one of them. We have not looked away; we have taken tangible action in relation to the crisis in Gaza from the very moment that I became a Minister and we became the Government. I have seen for myself the horrific impact of that conflict on children in Gaza; I have seen it in the region, and on the faces of the children who I am proud we have assisted here in the UK.
I was asked an important question by one of my hon. Friends about the partial opening of the Rafah crossing. At the moment, that is being prioritised for those most medically vulnerable. There are still small numbers crossing on foot—mostly into Egypt, although there is some two-way traffic. It is absolutely vital that that crossing opens to the scale that it operated at before June 2024, and we need to see all the crossings opened so that medical assistance and vital reconstruction materials are in place to provide children in Gaza with the support that they need.
We cannot shy away from the scale of devastation in Gaza. Our assessment is that, since October 2023, at least 20,000 children have been killed. That includes 100 children who have been killed since the ceasefire was announced nearly four months ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) pointed out, thousands more children are now living with life-changing injuries. It is a grim statistic that Gaza now has more child amputees than anywhere in the world.
Unexploded ordnance will continue to threaten lives even after the ceasefire, and it also prevents access to humanitarian assistance. That is why the Foreign Secretary has announced £4 million for the UN Mine Action Service in Gaza. We are providing £81 million in humanitarian early recovery support for Palestine as part of our £116 million package, but clearly the questions of access that so many hon. Members touched on are absolutely vital. About £10 million of that will go straight to UNICEF for infant formula, clean water, sanitation, mental health support, and assistance for families.
To date, UK-Med teams have supported more than 950,000 patients with consultations. We have provided nearly £30 million to UNRWA to try to keep education and healthcare moving. I will not provide too much commentary on the status of UNRWA, but I recognise the points that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), made about the education curriculum. We are engaged with UNRWA on those questions, which we have discussed with it and indeed with the Palestinian Authority.
I want to address the deeply concerning reports of mistreatment of Palestinian children in detention. We continue to raise the matter repeatedly with Israel. Due process must be followed when children are detained, in line with international justice standards. The International Committee of the Red Cross, which has extensive experience of these issues, must have full access to all detention facilities.
As so many Members rightly pointed out, the crisis in Sudan is destroying the lives of children. We are showing the UK leadership that the Conservative shadow Minister asked for. This morning, after visiting the Chad-Sudan border, the Foreign Secretary announced a further £20 million in new support for survivors of conflict-related sexual violence and for women and girls facing violence. Our humanitarian support should help more than 2.5 million people to access food, clean water, medicine and shelter. UNICEF has grimly assessed that nearly 90% of Sudan’s school-aged children are no longer in school due to the conflict. Some 200,000 children in Sudan and neighbouring countries have received help to stay in school, but knowing the region as I do, I know the extent of the trauma that those children will be suffering.
Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has unleashed some of the most shocking abuses that we have seen. Reports show that around 20,000 Ukrainian children have been forcibly taken to Russia or Russian-controlled territory. Another 1.7 million children live under occupation, and many are subject to efforts to erase their identity. The shadow Foreign Office Minister asked about who our primary partners are. We have committed nearly £3 million to help Ukraine to return these children home and support their recovery. Our primary partner is the Ukrainian Government, but we work internationally with our partners. The Minister for Europe is chairing such a meeting this afternoon to ensure there is continued attention on these issues.
I want to touch briefly on wider issues, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale—
Mr Falconer
I will come to the matter of Nigeria in a second.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale touched on the importance of explosive weapons and de-mining, particularly in relation to children. I want to be clear that we stand firmly behind the agreements that will reduce these threats: the mine ban treaty, the convention on cluster munitions and the convention on certain conventional weapons. We also back the explosive weapons in populated areas declaration and the safe schools declaration. We are funding de-mining and education on the risks of explosives in 12 countries including Ukraine, Palestine and Sudan. Since 2024, we have helped clear 26 million square metres of land, helping to make life safer for more than 94,000 children.
Where we can, including in Nigeria, we seek to help children injured by war to ensure that that aid reaches all children affected by conflict across lines, including in Nigeria and the conflicts that I have referenced. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn for bringing us together for this debate. I know the degree of her personal commitment to these issues, and indeed the commitment of my other Labour colleagues who have worked on these issues both in this place and in their previous lives. This work could not matter more. We will continue to push for action to protect children caught up in warzones, because no child should have their young life wrecked by conflict.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered children and armed conflict.
Written Corrections
Ministerial Corrections
Work and Pensions
(2 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Western
… That is just part of our youth guarantee, which we are rolling out so that every young person gets the chance to earn or learn; and it accounts for part of the more than £1.5 billion that was made available for employment and skills support at the Budget, which will create around 355,000 new training or workplace opportunities.
[Official Report, 28 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 1006.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western):
Andrew Western
… That is just part of our youth guarantee, which we are rolling out so that every young person gets the chance to earn or learn; and it accounts for part of the more than £1.5 billion that was made available for employment and skills support at the Budget, which will create around 300,000 new training or workplace opportunities.
Andrew Western
… The hon. Lady asked about the timing of the roll-out of the youth guarantee. The first tranche—the first 55,000 opportunities—will be in place from April, and by September we will see the roll-out of the full 300,000.
[Official Report, 28 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 1008.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western):
Andrew Western
… The hon. Lady asked about the timing of the roll-out of the youth guarantee. The youth guarantee will roll out over the next three years.
Other Correction
Rebecca Smith
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill
The following extract is from the Second Reading of the Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill on 03 Feb 2026.
Rebecca Smith
Many of us on the Opposition Benches grew up on benefits. I am one of those people, and I was in fact worse off when the Labour Government came into power in 1997; they scrapped the child benefit and replaced it with working tax credit, and my mum supported my dad’s business and did not go to work in her own right while she raised her four children.
[Official Report, 3 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 228.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith):
Rebecca Smith
Many of us on the Opposition Benches grew up on benefits. I am one of those people, and I was in fact worse off when the Labour Government came into power in 1997; they scrapped family credit and replaced it with working tax credit, and my mum supported my dad’s business and did not go to work in her own right while she raised her four children.
Written Statements
Implementing the Employment Rights Act: February Consultation Package
(2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
This Government’s top priority is to grow the economy and improve living standards. We are clear that you cannot build a strong economy while having people in insecure work. For too long, employment law has failed to keep pace with fundamental changes in how, when and where we work. This has allowed some businesses to take advantage of loopholes in the current law via exploitative practices, fuelling a race to the bottom, undercutting responsible employers and eroding the living standards of working people. We are clear that unfair competition is bad for business, bad for workers and bad for growth.
Our plan to make work pay will modernise our employment rights legislation, extending the employment protections already given by the best British companies to millions more workers across the country. Strengthening this underlying framework will help build an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers, and fair reward for hard work.
We are taking a phased approach to engagement and consultation on these reforms. This will ensure that all stakeholders have the time and space to work through the detail of each measure and to help us implement each in the interests of all. Today we are launching consultations on fire and rehire and on trade union recognition, with further consultations seeking views on tipping, flexible working and agency work to follow in the coming days. Alongside a programme of direct stakeholder engagement, these consultations will support us in determining how best to put our plans into practice.
Consultation 1: Fire and rehire
The Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces important new protections to end unscrupulous fire and rehire practices. If an employer uses fire and rehire to change an employee’s contract in relation to core terms such as pay, hours, leave or specified changes to shift patterns, it will be an automatic unfair dismissal, unless they are in, and can evidence, severe financial difficulties that threaten the viability of the business. These are referred to as restricted variations.
Dismissals related to changes in non-core terms, such as location or job role, will not be automatically unfair but will be subject to enhanced protections. This means that for non-core terms certain factors must be taken into account, including whether any consultation has taken place with the employee or a recognised trade union, and whether the employer offered anything in return for the variation.
The Act provides delegated powers for the Secretary of State to set out in regulations which changes to shift patterns will be restricted variations, as well as to limit the scope of the restricted term on pay to exclude specified expenses and benefits in kind. The forthcoming consultation will seek views on these details and inform the regulations so that they strike an appropriate balance between protecting employees from being unilaterally forced into accepting disadvantageous terms and preserving employer flexibility to make reasonable and operational changes.
This consultation will run for eight weeks and will close on 1 April 2026.
Consultation 2: Code of practice on trade union recognition and unfair practices in electronic balloting
The Employment Rights Act makes several changes to the statutory trade union recognition process to ensure that workers have a meaningful right to organise through trade unions. This includes removing the requirement for a union to demonstrate at the application stage that it is likely that there will be a majority for union recognition, and the requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the appropriate bargaining unit supporting union recognition.
We have revised the code to ensure that all parties, including employers, workers and unions, understand how these changes affect them.
The code is not mandatory but seeks to advise employers and unions on how they can comply with legal requirements in relation to access and unfair practices during a recognition or derecognition process. The code is admissible in employment tribunal proceedings and therefore can have some legal effect.
The consultation document explains that the draft code follows the settled policy in the ERA and asks questions in relation to the detail as to how changes in the ERA regarding access and unfair practices should be implemented in practice.
In our plan to make work pay, the Government committed to allow unions to use modern and secure electronic and workplace balloting for statutory ballots, bringing union participation into line with modern voting practices that political parties and listed companies already use. There is already a live consultation on the code of practice for electronic and workplace ballots that addresses hybrid and pure electronic ballot methods.
However, before pure electronic balloting is permitted for recognition and derecognition ballots, the Government want to ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place to prevent any interference in these ballots. Therefore, the consultation on the code of practice on access and unfair practices during the recognition and derecognition process seeks views on Government proposals to legislate for new unfair practices to prevent interference in electronic recognition and derecognition ballots.
This consultation will run for eight weeks and will close on the 1 April 2026.
Consultation 3: Tipping
The Government are consulting on our commitment to strengthen the law on tipping. The new requirements will build on the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023, which introduced the legal requirement for all tips, gratuities and service charges to be passed on to the workers who have earned them.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 goes further by protecting and enhancing the voices of those workers. The Act sets out that, prior to developing a written policy, employers will be required to consult with the representatives of recognised trade unions or worker representatives, or, where there are no such representatives in place, workers likely to be affected by the policy. The Act also sets out a requirement for the written policy to be reviewed at least once every three years.
When reviews take place, employers must follow the same process of consultation with workers. Employers will also be required to make available a written, anonymised summary of the views expressed in the consultation to all workers at the place of business.
This consultation will allow the Government to consider the views of all interested parties and groups about how we can most effectively implement the new requirements. It will also provide an opportunity to review how the existing legislation and statutory code of practice operate in practice, to identify where improvements could be made.
This consultation will launch shortly and will run for eight weeks.
Consultation 4: Improving access to flexible working
We are changing legislation through the Employment Rights Act to make it more likely that flexible working requests are accepted, prompting employers and employees to think creatively about the types of flexible working that might be feasible and suitable in their circumstances.
These changes will require employers to accept flexible working requests where they are reasonably feasible. It will remain the case that employers can reject requests that cannot be accommodated given their specific ways of working.
If employers are considering rejecting a request, they will be required to follow a new process to first consult the employee, creating an opportunity to consider ways to overcome obstacles with the initial request, or explore potential alternatives.
This consultation will:
Gather feedback on a proposed new process for employers consulting with employees if they are minded to reject a flexible working request. By providing enough detail for employers to aid in compliance, without being overly rigid, we aim to help businesses more effectively to navigate the handling of flexible working requests.
Understand what training, resources and support can help businesses navigate flexible working requests, to help us shape future guidance and resources. It will also gather high-level insights on where respondents might like to see further policy development on flexible working.
This consultation will launch shortly and will run for 12 weeks.
Consultation 5: Modernising the agency work regulatory framework
The regulatory framework for the temporary recruitment sector in Great Britain consists principally of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003—the conduct regulations—and the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. The sector has evolved significantly in recent years, due to digitisation, new business models, and changes in the ways in which people work and hire. The emergence and rapid growth of umbrella companies—a type of payment intermediary—has created new opportunities but also challenges due to increasing non-compliance with employment law.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 amends the definition of an “employment business” in the Employment Agencies Act 1973 to bring umbrella companies into scope for regulation through the conduct regulations. This consultation contributes to the key objectives in our plan to make work pay on ensuring fair treatment for workers, as well as the wider Government commitment to reduce administrative burdens for businesses by 25%. The consultation therefore seeks views on updating the regulatory framework for the temporary recruitment sector to allow for the effective regulation of all involved in the modern-day recruitment sector, including umbrella companies. It focuses on ensuring security, transparency and choice for workers, while reducing administrative burdens for businesses. Depending on the responses to this consultation, we may consult further on specific proposals to reduce administrative burdens.
Alongside this consultation, we are publishing a post-implementation review of the requirement for employment businesses to provide work-seekers with a key information document before agreement to terms of employment. This review outlines the need to reform the requirements around information provision for workers to improve transparency, and the consultation is designed to aid the development of policy options to facilitate this.
This consultation will launch shortly and run for 12 weeks.
Next steps for consultation
This package of consultations sets out the next steps in delivering our plans. They are critical to shaping the practical implementation of this legislation, helping the Government to deliver reforms that are both effective and inclusive. It is in everyone’s interest to get the relationship between employer and worker right. These consultations will help us make work pay for both.
[HCWS1304]
Membership of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly
(2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Lord Stirrup KG GCB AFC has been appointed as a full representative and vice-chair of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of Lord Ricketts GCMG GCVO.
The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) has been appointed as a full representative of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam).
The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) has been appointed as a full representative of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja).
[HCWS1299]
Fostering Reforms
(2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
Today I am setting out the Government’s plan to increase the number of foster care places in England and to renew fostering for modern family life. Foster families provide the stable, trusted relationships that children in care need, yet the number of foster carers has fallen by 12% since 2019. This shortage means that too many children live far from their communities, are separated from siblings, or are placed in residential care unnecessarily.
To address this, we will create 10,000 additional foster care places by the end of this Parliament, backed by £88 million over the next two years. Our plan will reverse the decline in foster carers, strengthen support around foster families, and put trusted relationships at the centre of decision making for children in care.
We will launch a national recruitment and awareness campaign, supported by improved digital tools and strengthened data collection. A £25 million capital programme will help existing carers expand or renovate their homes to care for more children, including sibling groups.
We will enhance regional collaboration by expanding fostering recruitment hubs, supported by £12.8 million, providing a single route into fostering with consistent assessment and post-approval support. A further £10.8 million will support new regional care co-operatives to increase placement availability and improve stability for children.
To encourage innovation, we will invest £12.4 million to test new models such as step-down care, weekend and short-break fostering, strengthened supported lodgings, and additional remand foster placements. We will also improve retention by investing £8.9 million in over 100 new Mockingbird constellations, and by strengthening training, support and the handling of allegations. We will also pursue greater transparency in foster care financial support.
Finally, we will simplify the fostering rulebook. We will update fostering standards and guidance, work with Ofsted to reshape inspection around trusted relationships, and set clearer expectations that the assessment and approval process should not exceed the six-month standard that we have for adoption. Foster carers will be empowered to make day-to-day decisions for children in their care, and we will strengthen support for kinship foster care, working hard to protect children’s links to trusted adults.
Alongside the publication of the Government’s action plan, we will launch a consultation and call for evidence, to ensure that our next steps are informed by foster carers and children with lived experience.
By simplifying the rules, improving support and acting both nationally and regionally, this Government will increase the number of children able to live in loving, stable homes and build the long-term relationships they need.
A copy of the consultation and the call for evidence will be placed in the Library of the House.
[HCWS1300]
Advanced Nuclear Framework
(2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Today we are publishing the “Advanced Nuclear Framework” for private projects, which reinforces the golden age of nuclear. The framework sets out our approach to enabling privately led advanced nuclear projects, including small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors.
Recent global events have highlighted the importance of energy security and the need for a resilient, clean energy system. Nuclear energy has a vital role in delivering stable, affordable, and clean baseload power. The UK is already progressing major projects such as Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, alongside Rolls Royce being confirmed as the preferred bidder following the Great British Nuclear small modular reactor technology selection process. We are now entering a new phase in the golden age of nuclear, one that harnesses private sector innovation to deliver advanced nuclear projects.
The framework explains how Government will create the enabling policy landscape for the private sector to initiate and deliver advanced nuclear projects. It is focused on supporting the development, commercialisation, and deployment of advanced civil nuclear private projects within the UK’s energy sector.
This policy direction is reinforced by the Government’s response to the nuclear regulatory taskforce, ensuring that regulatory reform keeps pace with the ambition of the framework. The Government accept the principle of all 47 of the taskforce’s recommendations. A full implementation plan will be published within three months, with reforms completed within two years, subject to legislation. Departments, regulators and industry should act now to support faster, lower-cost delivery of new nuclear and strengthen energy security.
The taskforce set out that these reforms could have a fundamental impact on the sector. They are intended to drive forward new nuclear in a safe, affordable way, save tens of billions from the cost of decommissioning legacy nuclear activities, and lower energy costs for consumers, industry, and public services.
This bold action will make nuclear energy more affordable, quicker to deploy, and will uphold high safety standards while boosting sector growth and investment. The strengthened regulatory framework will build a more agile, innovative, and collaborative environment, positioning the UK as a global leader.
The framework sets out a pathway for private sector participation in the delivery of advanced nuclear projects, specifically small modular reactors, advanced modular reactors and micro-reactors. It defines the principles, processes, and support mechanisms.
Key elements of the framework include:
The UK advanced nuclear pipeline and a project readiness assessment process to endorse viable projects and unlock private investment.
A suite of enabling measures across finance, planning, regulation, fuel supply, and skills including potential support through the National Wealth Fund, planning reforms, and targeted protections for high-impact, low-probability risks.
Projects that meet the relevant criteria will progress through the assessment process and join the pipeline, receiving early Government endorsement to boost investor confidence and helping developers unlock private capital.
The publication of this framework marks a significant step in delivering a secure, low-carbon energy future and supporting innovation and investment in this critical sector.
Alongside the “Advanced Nuclear Framework”, this Government have also published the “Statement on civil nuclear fuel use”. This statement outlines the Government’s expectation around fuel use in the UK, making sure we enable the highest standards of nuclear security, support industry planning, prevent delays, and foster a secure, sustainable nuclear sector that helps operators align with a consistent nuclear fuel policy environment.
[HCWS1302]
National Cancer Plan
(2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
The national cancer plan is published today, World Cancer Day. Building on the foundations set out in the 10-year plan for the NHS, it sets out how we will drive improvements in cancer care across England. One in two people in this country will get cancer in their lifetime, and this plan provides a clear and focused approach to deliver better outcomes for patients, focusing on earlier diagnosis, faster treatment and better survival rates. We will work to end the postcode lottery—everybody should have access to prompt and effective care and treatment no matter where they live or what their background is.
The plan includes actions and commitments which clearly show how we will achieve our goal of 75% of people surviving cancer for five years or more by 2035, making England a world-leader for cancer survival. Actions in the plan will cover a range of areas including:
Improving NHS cancer performance: We are committed to meeting the cancer waiting time standards by the end of this Parliament. By March 2029, 80% of patients getting a diagnosis or all-clear within 28 days of an urgent suspected cancer referral (faster diagnosis standard), 85% of patients will start their treatment within 62 days of referral, and 96% of patients will start treatment within 31 days of a decision to treat them. We will increase productivity in diagnostics by using digital pathways and the latest technology, and use innovation to speed up treatment decisions.
Early diagnosis, lung cancer screening and treatment: More people are surviving cancer than ever before, but progress has slowed over the last decade, and England remains behind other comparable countries. We need to catch cancer earlier and faster because we know early diagnosis is key to cancer survival. We will expand screening where evidence supports this—including completing the roll out of lung cancer screening by 2030. In addition, we will continue community testing to identify people at higher risk of cancer including fibro-scans for people with cirrhosis and fatty liver disease, as well as invest in the latest tech and AI to spot cancers earlier. We will also increase access to the best innovative cancer treatments as they become available.
Prevention: Many cancers are preventable, which is why we will stop as many cancers as we can by cracking down on illegal underage sunbed use, eliminating cervical cancer through HPV vaccination, as well as tackling obesity and creating the world’s first smoke-free generation. We will also complete a national roll-out of self-testing to women who have not otherwise taken up the offer for cervical screening by 2029. In addition, we will increase awareness of cancer risk factors, and of cancer symptoms.
Living well: Cancer care will be designed around patients’ lives, with every patient sitting down with their care team and getting a personalised cancer plan and named clinical nurse specialist or other named lead to support them through diagnosis and treatment. By 2028, patients will also be able to manage screening invitations, appointments and treatment plans through the NHS app. We will also move more cancer care out of hospitals and into local neighbourhood settings, with patients getting a named neighbourhood care lead to co-ordinate their care and support after treatment.
Children and young people with cancer and their families will get better support, with a guarantee that travel costs do not leave parents out of pocket and create a barrier to accessing NHS care and providing full wraparound care, including psychological support to children with cancer.
Ending the postcode lottery for cancer care: No matter where people live, they should have access to high-quality, specialist care, and also to all the incredible breakthroughs in cancer care we are seeing through the NHS, such as robotic surgery, using genomic testing to assess risk, create targeted treatments, and replace invasive biopsy with faster blood tests across the country.
Inequalities: We will tackle inequalities in cancer mortality. Some places in England, including Blackpool, Knowsley and Kingston upon Hull have an age-standardised premature cancer mortality rate twice as high as the best-performing area. People from poorer parts of the country are more likely to be diagnosed late and less likely to get the best care, while people with disabilities, LGBT+ people, and people from some ethnic groups are less likely to access screening and clinical trials. Solving this is a priority for this plan.
Research and innovation: We will provide strategic leadership across the lifetime of the plan to ensure we are world leaders in cancer research and innovation. Our priorities for research are aimed at increasing cancer survival, as well as achieving better performance and providing excellent quality of life. We will speed up implementation of technology proven to improve cancer outcomes, as well as accelerating access to new tech via our new national HealthTech access programme. We will also establish a cancer trials accelerator programme to increase the speed, scale and reliability of cancer clinical trials—more broadly we will make cancer trials more accessible by making it easier for people to join them locally, for example via their own GP.
Rare cancers: Patients with rare cancers will also benefit from a move to specialist multidisciplinary teams, that cover multiple providers. This will allow them to benefit from the input of specialist centres and so access to the best evidence-based care. We will reduce the number of rare cancers, including brain tumours, being diagnosed in emergency settings. To hold us accountable, and to marshal progress, we will designate a new national lead for rare cancers with a mandate to provide clinical advice and support delivery of these goals.
This plan was developed in partnership with cancer charities, clinicians and most importantly patients who have shared their own experiences. Our call for evidence received over 11,000 responses, and the main messages we heard were that patients want quicker diagnosis; to know they are being offered the latest and most innovative treatment backed by the latest research; and to be supported to live well with cancer. Our plan sets out how we will deliver these improvements.
The national cancer plan will provide a basis for England being a world leader in cancer survival and improving quality of life for those with cancer in this country over the next decade. By focusing on patients and what they need, we can build on improvements of recent years and capitalise on new innovations to allow more people to survive cancer.
[HCWS1306]
Greater Cambridge Development Corporation: Consultation
(2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I am today setting out the next steps the Government are taking to unleash ambitious and high-quality sustainable growth in Greater Cambridge as part of our plans to supercharge growth in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor.
The economic growth of Cambridge over recent years has been a phenomenal success and the city and its environs are now home to the most intensive science and technological cluster in the world. We know that Greater Cambridge has the potential to make an even greater contribution to the UK economy and the Government are determined to make this happen.
While local partners share the Government ambition, there remain significant barriers to further growth. If we are to realise the full potential of Greater Cambridge, to the benefit of its existing communities and the country as a whole, we must tackle a range of challenges including infrastructure deficiencies, commercial accessibility and housing affordability.
These constraints are not new, and local leaders and institutions have worked hard to address them over many years. However, due to their nature, scale and complexity, overcoming these challenges in a way that enables the delivery of nationally significant growth in Greater Cambridge requires a delivery vehicle with the necessary powers, authority and access to finance.
I am therefore launching a consultation today on proposals to establish a centrally led urban development corporation for Greater Cambridge. This Greater Cambridge development corporation would align national capabilities with local expertise and insight to drive further growth across the area at the scale and pace required.
A centrally led approach would provide the stability, capability and capacity needed to co-ordinate complex infrastructure delivery across multiple local authorities, landowners, delivery partners and agencies, and to secure the significant public and private investment required to unlock growth at the desired scale.
Building upon the exceptional quality of place seen across much of Greater Cambridge, the objective of the development corporation would be to deliver exemplary development in the form of high-quality, well-designed, attractive, and sustainable homes and neighbourhoods.
The proposal to establish a centrally led urban development corporation for Greater Cambridge is intended to support the emerging Greater Cambridge local plan. In its initial phase, the proposed development corporation would build on the work of the Cambridge Growth Company, and work in close partnership with local authorities to increase both the pace and quantum of development at sites identified in that draft local plan. in the medium to long term, the development corporation would prepare a long-term spatial plan for Greater Cambridge, with a focus on providing major new strategic sites for growth.
The consultation invites general feedback on the Government proposal to establish a centrally led urban development corporation in Greater Cambridge. It also seeks views on a number of specific issues, including:
The proposed objectives and activities of the development corporation.
A proposed operational boundary for the development corporation that is aligned with the current combined administrative areas of Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council.
The proposed spectrum of powers that the development corporation could be granted, including plan making powers and development management powers for use in relation to sites of strategic importance.
The proposed approach to embedding local democratic representation in the governance of the development corporation.
I encourage all those with an interest in the future of Greater Cambridge to respond to the consultation and share their insights and knowledge. Your representations will help guide us as we work toward delivering high-quality sustainable growth in Greater Cambridge to the benefit of new and existing communities alike. The full consultation is available on gov.uk.
[HCWS1305]
Local Government Best Value
(2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
This Government are committed to taking the action necessary to fix the foundations of local government. Today, I am updating the House on the steps we are taking to support Nottingham city council recover and reform.
Nottingham city council has been under intervention since January 2021. New directions were placed on the council in February 2024 and commissioners were appointed until February 2026.
I am today publishing the commissioners’ fourth report, received on 5 December 2025, which provides their comprehensive assessment of the council’s improvement journey to date. The commissioners have also set out their proposals for the approach that could be taken after February 2026 to ensure the council can continue its improvement. The council has also written outlining its requests.
Having carefully considered all the information, including the commissioners’ report and the council’s letter, the Secretary of State believes that there has been significant improvement in many areas of the council’s operation.
The council’s member and officer leadership is strong. They should be commended for their constructive and collaborative work with the commissioner team, and for their willingness to seek further support. Since the appointment of commissioners, and under the leadership of councillor Neghat Khan and chief executive Sajeeda Rose, we have seen the pace of improvement accelerate considerably.
The Secretary of State is satisfied that the council has made progress and is meeting its best value duty in most themes as described in the statutory guidance published in May 2024. The council has shown significant progress in its leadership, strengthened strategic direction and accountability. It has improved its financial management, governance and scrutiny, and member-officer relationships. However, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the council is not yet meeting its best value duty in the themes of continuous improvement and service delivery.
After nearly five years of intervention, it is critical that the council builds on its recent progress and addresses remaining challenges. Continued effort is needed to make sure the improvements are put in place across the whole council, its services and the outcomes experienced by residents, particularly in the context of potential local government reorganisation.
Some service redesign is in the early stages and implementation remains a key priority. This is especially the case for children’s and adults’ services, where the council is seeking external support. The Secretary of State considers that the council needs ongoing, but less intensive, support to ensure that momentum is maintained and that continuous improvement thinking is put in place across the organisation.
In recognition of the progress made, and the council’s strong leadership, the Secretary of State is minded to extend the intervention but reduce its scope.
The Secretary of State is minded to exercise powers of direction under the Local Government Act 1999 to issue new statutory directions to the council, overseen by two ministerial envoys, to be appointed by him. The envoys would work collaboratively with the council in an advisory and mentoring capacity. They would not hold powers to exercise any council functions. All decision making would return to the council. The council would be directed by the Secretary of State to establish a bi-partisan continuous improvement committee. This would be chaired by the leader and include the envoys and other sector experts, including the experts on adults’ and children’s services whom the council have requested. The committee would oversee delivery of a continuous improvement plan, which would be agreed with the envoys. The envoys would report on progress to the Secretary of State at six-monthly intervals.
I am now inviting representations from the council on the Secretary of State’s proposals, by 11 February. We want to provide the opportunity for members and officers of the council, and any other interested parties, especially the residents of Nottingham, to make their views known. Should the Secretary of State decide to act along the lines described here, he will make the necessary statutory directions under the 1999 Act.
I am committed to working with Nottingham city council to ensure their compliance with the best value duty and the high standards of governance that local residents expect. This Government are working to deliver a consistently fit, legal and decent local government sector that provides good-quality essential statutory services for all residents.
I will deposit in the House Library copies of the documents referred to, which are being published on gov.uk today. I will update the House in due course.
[HCWS1303]
Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 2
(2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases currently waiting to be heard in the Crown Court. Behind those case numbers are victims, many of whom are waiting years for justice.
That is why the Government commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, one of the country’s most esteemed former judges, to undertake an independent review and make recommendations for how to reform our criminal courts.
Sir Brian conducted his review in two parts, with the first part published on 9 July 2025. That set out a blueprint for structural reform in our criminal courts. Today, 4 February 2026, Sir Brian has published part 2 of his review.
The Government are extremely grateful to Sir Brian and his panel of expert advisers for their work and I will place copies of Sir Brian’s “Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 2”—overview, and volumes 1 and 2—in the Library of the House.
Sir Brian’s second report makes 135 recommendations to improve the efficiency of the criminal courts. It is thorough and I welcome his ambition to see real improvements to the system. The report highlights many areas where existing process can be improved and where we can do more to deliver faster and fairer justice for all. It makes recommendations about new technologies, including AI, and sets out clear steps to help modernise the system.
As Sir Brian makes clear in his report,
“more money and efficiency measures alone will not be sufficient to allow the system to operate as it should”.
Efficiency can only be one part of our plan to deliver faster and fairer justice. On 2 December 2025, I set out why I agreed that structural reform is necessary, alongside investment and efficiency. We will bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
We will urgently consider the proposals set out today, alongside Sir Brian’s remaining recommendations from part 1, and respond to them in the coming months. It is clear that we need to expand the use of technology in our courts and modernise the system to tackle the inefficiencies we inherited. Improving efficiencies alone is not a silver bullet to the crisis that victims are facing in our justice system, but it forms a key part of our plan. It is only the combination of pragmatic reform, investment and modernisation that will ultimately deliver faster and fairer justice.
[HCWS1301]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, as is customary on these occasions, I advise the Grand Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, which is highly likely, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes. I also advise the Grand Committee, after consultation with the Clerk of the Parliaments, and as eagled-eyed Members of the Grand Committee will have spotted, that Schedule 18 is misprinted on the first page of the Marshalled List. It curiously appears at the top of the second page, where it has no business to be. It will come after Clause 37, just in case anybody is confused on that.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Wednesday 4th February 2026
(2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 150-V(b) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (4 Feb 2026)
Baroness Pinnock
“(2) Notwithstanding any powers conferred under this section or Schedule 16, the Mayor of a Combined County Authority may exercise strategic planning powers only where the constituent local authorities have been consulted and, within limits prescribed by regulations, have the power to approve or veto such decisions.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that constituent local authorities have a consultative and limited veto role over strategic planning powers, with any regulations setting those limits made by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, it is really good to be able to take part in the debate on the devolution Bill, particularly to speak to Amendments 126 and 127 in my name. These amendments seek to explore the depth of the devolution that we have been promised in the Bill, which is, after all, called the English devolution Bill. For us Liberal Democrats on these Benches, devolution involves enabling—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but would she prefer to sit when speaking?
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I will stand, as I am not speaking for long, and will sit if I need to, but I thank the noble Lord very much for his consideration.
For us on these Benches, devolution involves enabling governance at the lowest possible level to make the appropriate decisions. These two amendments in their different ways seek to explore whether that is in the Government’s thinking and whether they would accept the suggestions that these amendments make.
The purpose of Amendment 126 is to provide clarity concerning the powers of the mayor and the combined county authority. Clause 35 consists of just two lines and is a very brief statement of the powers of land acquisition and planning development. Further details are provided in Schedule 16. Clause 35 confers on the mayor and the CCA the power to acquire land and develop it. Presumably, though it is not entirely clear—and maybe this is where the Minister will be able help the Committee—this would be by providing an outline allocation of the site for housing development under the strategic planning powers in the Bill.
This may result in a major housing development being agreed in principle without the consent of the constituent local planning authority or, indeed, of the local council concerned. The consequences are then very significant if the development fails to include, for example, a condition for the provision of necessary additional facilities, such as school places, GP surgeries and transport and highway infrastructure. It may also mean that a significant housing development—as a general rule, given that it is coming through a strategic planning process, it will be a major site of 200-plus houses —is given permission in principle without consultation and the engagement of the local community affected by it. Imposing new developments on communities in this way will only build resentment and further discredit the notion of local democracy. Amendment 126 would provide safeguards to ensure that such engagement and consultation take place.
There is a provision within Amendment 126 for a veto, but it is a qualified veto. It is included but is constrained by regulation, which would ensure that a housing development is not simply rejected by those who do not want any development but rejected on acceptable planning grounds provided by the constituent authority.
The Minister may say that we have to build houses, and with that I agree. But we have to build them with the consent of the communities in which they are placed. In my own area, I have experience of where a mayor has the powers to impose without consultation and engagement. The local community is furious. It has done no good at all to either the mayor or the infrastructure that is being planned, because the mayor has not taken the community with them, which is what the amendment is about. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that.
Amendment 127 is less of a challenge for anybody. It just refers to land acquisition powers. In Schedule 16 there is a list of authorities to be consulted when a mayor wants to acquire land, but the list fails to include parish and town councils. Parish and town councils are statutory consultees for planning applications, so they also ought to be statutory consultees for land acquisition by a mayor. In addition, given the nature of the Bill and the guidance that has been given about increasing neighbourhood governance in some form, making the case for parish and town councils is the right way to go, because I can see them becoming increasingly important as large unitary councils become the norm.
The new unitaries are expected to have a population of around 500,000 people, so wards are likely to be large. Each councillor will represent maybe 5,000 voters, which is the norm where I am. That is easily the largest ratio of elected representatives to voters of any western European nation. It therefore seems that more parish and town councils will be created, and that they will be an increasingly important part of our democratic representation. Given that, it is equally important that those councils can be formally consulted on sensitive issues in local areas, such as land acquisitions. The depth of our devolution is what I am exploring today. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 131. There is an interesting pot-pourri of subjects in this group. Amendment 131 would require the appointment of a statutory chief planner for local planning authorities and strategic authorities. Noble Lords who participated in the debates on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will recall that we had positive debates on this subject during the passage of that legislation, and I do not apologise for returning to it.
The need for a statutory chief planner role is, if anything, increasing. The argument is very straightforward. We are increasingly, and I think the Government are deliberately, seeking to raise the status of the planning profession, increase the strategic responsibilities of planners and ensure that, through the planning reforms, we accelerate housing delivery and growth. The planning profession is instrumental to making this happen. Although on previous occasions the Government’s response was that this was something that local authorities can choose to do, and therefore we should not require them to do it by appointing a statutory officer, all the messages that are coming back to us from across the profession demonstrate that this would enable the planning profession to step up fully to the role that is envisaged for it through the legislation that we passed last year and this year.
Some of the examples will be known to noble Lords. The national scheme of delegation—I am looking forward to soon seeing the first statutory instrument implementing it—will enhance the role specifically of the chief planner, who will work with the chair of a planning committee in a local planning authority. Indeed, noble Lords will recall that the Government’s consultation document referred explicitly to the role of the chief planner, without there necessarily being a chief planner in all these planning authorities.
We are also adding to the number of chief planners needed overall, by reference to the strategic authorities and the increasing role of development corporations, each of which will have planning powers. Amendment 131 includes not only local planning authorities but strategic authorities. Why? Because spatial development strategies —which, if I remember correctly, are to be implemented under the Town and Country Planning Act but are a result of the Planning and Infrastructure Act—are a very significant strategic planning function in strategic authorities. There is a significant risk that, without a chief planner role, the spatial development strategy will be seen as an adjunct to a local growth plan and an economic development initiative, whereas, for it to be successful, it must be implemented by officers who understand and can use the National Planning Policy Framework and government guidance and mesh them together with the views of their elected members and the combined authority.
This was previously the subject of debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The Royal Town Planning Institute, whose support for the amendment I am grateful for—I am also grateful for the other signatures on Amendment 131—has added to that support by reference to a number of quotes. I will not keep the Committee for a long time but I want to read some out, if I may.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Having broken my ankle before, I feel her pain. I will speak to Amendments 132 and 222B in this group and, if time permits, Amendment 241E in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon.
The Minister will be aware of my interest in SUDS. What I am seeking to do here is align her department with Defra, because Defra is much keener than her department is on bringing in mandatory standards for sustainable drainage. I hope that we can bring them closer together so that they speak with one voice.
The importance of SUDS as a natural containment of water is twofold, but it is primarily to prevent flooding and to prevent floodwater from being displaced. For example, if as few as 30 or 60 houses have been built on a waterlogged field—it does not need to be a major development of 300 houses—it can displace the water into existing developments. I saw this when I was the MP for Filey, for my last five years in the other place. Flooding of sewage was caused when rainwater mixed with the additional sewage into the combined sewer. It went onto the highway, meant that households, including some pensioner households living in bungalows, had to be evicted for six months and caused £1 million of damage to Filey School.
I know that the noble Baroness will reply by saying that the Government published guidance in June 2025 and that SUDS is part of the National Planning Policy Framework, to which I would say, even more firmly than before, that these are, regrettably, not mandatory. Since my earlier attempts to put SUDS on a statutory basis during the passage of the levelling up Bill and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, there has been a court case, which I will come on to now.
With this amendment, I am seeking to ask the noble Baroness to conduct sustainable drainage assessments relating to planning applications by strategic authorities, before those applications are approved. The assessment
“must include consideration of whether existing public sewerage systems have capacity to support proposed developments in planning applications.”
I refer to the excellent report by the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place, Flood Resilience in England, which was published last year. It makes two references to SUDS, one in particular. I quote its paragraph 48:
“We heard that the Flood Risk Management Strategy requires Lead Local Flood Authorities to maintain a register of flood risk assets, but that implementation is inconsistent and that many assets, especially SuDS and nature-based features are not captured”.
That was the initial background to this. It also emphatically recommended, in its conclusions in paragraphs 30 and 31, that more needs to be done on the whole issue of surface water.
I part company with the Minister in that I believe the guidelines need to be mandatory, we need a legal basis and we need to implement Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, because of the ruling last month in the case of Gladman Developments Limited v the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Lancaster City Council. This is important and has caused much concern among practitioners, in particular the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, with which I did some interesting work on bioresources, removing the solids out of sewage and making money out of that, but that is for another day.
CIWEM is deeply concerned because this case set aside the sequential test. I quote from its letter, which I will make available to Hansard. The court judgment
“has a large impact on Planning, not just the Sequential Test which is worrying but also the status of SuDS in development. At the original appeal the inspector dismissed the application as A sequential Test was not carried out but required. The applicant then went to the High Court, contending that the inspector has erred in law, by treating the NPPF as establishing a requirement that planning permission must be refused in every case where the sequential test had not been undertaken… The court agreed and quashed the decision, finding that this is one matter that needs to be weighed up against the other factors and not a sole reason to refuse an application. The scheme was for 64 new homes in Lancaster”.
In the view of CIWEM and others:
“This not only weakens Flood Risk Policy but also the implication that weakens the stance that if a development does not include SuDS is this a strong enough reason in the planning balance to refuse an application on its own”.
That court case has driven a coach and horses through government policy, and I would argue most vigorously that we need to have a mandatory basis and set aside these voluntary guidelines. We need to have one mandatory standard respected by all planning authorities the length and breadth of the country—otherwise we are not doing our duty to householders to have a safe residence, free from the prospect of flooding and, in particular, free from sewage coming into their homes.
I turn now to Amendment 222B. I spoke in the clean energy Bill, when the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who has just taken his place, was an excellent Minister. He has now been replaced by another excellent Minister. I was staggered by the way in which these battery energy storage systems were criss-crossing north Yorkshire and the rest of rural England and causing complete havoc. We do not yet know what additional resources are being given to the fire and rescue services, but we know that they are not statutory consultees to these developments. We had a major wildfire—and there were 196 wildfires in England last year, which takes an enormous amount of resources in terms of water and the fire and rescue services. The wildfire came perilously close to burning down farms and residences, and it also imperilled livestock.
The thinking behind Amendment 222B is to ensure that fire and rescue services will be statutory consultees going forward. My main concern is that, for example, in my former constituency, the village of Scotton, which is very important to me, because my niece lives in Lingerfield, one of the villages next door to it, is going to have two of these large battery storage plants, and for good measure, one of the largest solar farms in the country is next door to it. There is another one elsewhere in what was my constituency, in South Kilvington, also perilously close to a school. If both those units were to go on fire at the same time, as well as there being a wildfire in a different part of north Yorkshire, what resources are there? To make sure that that is considered at the time of a planning application, I am asking that there be a duty to consult fire and rescue services and that they be statutory consultees.
Briefly, I bumped into the chief executive of the North York Moors National Park, who briefed me on the earlier amendment on national parks and strategic planning. I put on record that it goes the extra mile to ensure that it consults with every single body, including other planning authorities such as North Yorkshire Council and others, including NGOs, to make sure that any planning application on its land is fully considered.
With those few remarks, I hope that the Minister will finally agree to a mandatory duty for SUDS, and also that fire and rescue services will be statutory consultees.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 241E is in my name. I hope that it does not need much introduction, because it pretty much does what it says on the tin. Where a spatial development strategy involves a national park, the national park authority should be involved in the development of the strategy. That sounds so much like a no-brainer that I would not be surprised if the Minister tells me that it is in the Bill already, but my understanding is that, without this amendment, although the national park authorities need to be consulted before a strategy is submitted, they do not need to be consulted while it is being developed in the first place.
This may come from the thinking that a national park is a big, empty wilderness just for nature, but the South Downs National Park and New Forest National Park are places where nearly 500,000 live, and even more work, and cover around 10% of the land in England and Wales, including key bits of national infrastructure, such as roads and energy projects. It seems clear that working with the national park authority is the best way in which to plan a spatial development strategy within or affecting a national park. The relevant national park authority has experience and expertise about so many aspects crucial to an SDS—infrastructure and planning, the rural economy, the tourist economy, opportunities for nature recovery and climate targets—so excluding it seems to set things up for failure. This amendment aims to give national park authorities a statutory role during the planning of an SDS in a really simple way, and I very much hope that the Minister agrees with its sentiments, at least, and will consider tabling a government amendment along these lines.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, this is a very interesting group of amendments. I look forward to the responses of the Minister to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who made quite a number of important points, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon.
I just want to say something in relation to Amendment 131 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others, including myself. I do not want to repeat what he has said—indeed, in debates on previous Bills we have had long discussions on the issue of chief planning officers—but I hope that the Minister will take this very seriously. Let me explain a further reason why I think Ministers need to do that.
There are several areas of competence in the Bill for mayors. Four of them require planning advice. One is transport and local infrastructure, a second is housing and strategic planning, a third is economic development and regeneration and a fourth is environment and climate change. Each of those will have either an elected member or a commissioner leading, as it were—I will not say “in charge”, because commissioners have to report to the mayor, and the strategic authority would be making the relevant decisions.
The point is that in any one person, to have the professional capacity in each of those four areas of competence that I have identified, you have to have professional expertise. I do not see in either the Bill or the Explanatory Notes exactly how that is going to be provided. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made an unanswerable case for there being a chief planning officer who brings all these things together within a local planning authority and within the strategic authority. No doubt we will come back to this on Report, but I hope that the Government understand its importance. If you are trying to drive growth, you have to have professional expertise in place to do it and I suggest that chief planning officers are one of those positions.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not having been here previously. I was not a Member of the House when the Bill first came to the House, so I could not speak on it then, but I would like to speak on it today. I will set out some context about my understanding of planning and where I come from. I was eight years as a planning lead in my local council, as the regeneration and planning cabinet member. I should also point out that I am an employee of the Local Government Association and I am still a councillor, so my remarks will be based on my own opinions and experience.
I will speak on Amendment 126, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for explaining her position on her amendment. I want to challenge that perception with my experience. I do not think this amendment is needed in actual practice. The points around democratic accountability and community involvement are based within the planning system already and the planning reforms that have come through. Good local plans should have involvement of the community and are democratically voted on in a full council chamber. Should an applicant come to a local council with a planning application and in good faith follow those policies, there should be some safeguards around making sure that those plans are upheld and seen through in development coming forward.
In my experience in London, in the eight years that I was planning lead, not one application needed to be called in or used by the Mayor of London to challenge what the local council had done, because we made sure that the developer or the applicant was able to follow the planning policies. So it is important to note that, in a good planning process, the local plan should be where the heavy lifting is done through community engagement and democratic accountability.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 131 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, also supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The amendment requires local planning authorities, separately or jointly, to appoint one qualified and experienced person to be chief planner. It would give due recognition to the officer responsible for planning matters in each local authority, as promoted by the Royal Town Planning Institute—I declare that I am an honorary member of the institute. A very similar amendment was debated in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill last October. At the conclusion of that debate, the Minister said that she would
“keep this issue under review as we progress with further reforms to the planning system”.—[Official Report, 27/10/25; col. 1199.]
Our hope is that she will now be able to accept this proposition.
The case for a chief planner seems an excellent one. It would be a boost to the morale of those working in local planning authorities. It would represent an acknowledgement by the Government that planning needs to be recognised, as it once was, as a very prominent part of local government. When we debated this matter last year, it was noted that identifying the chief planner role is now more significant than it was following the Government’s action to achieve a national planning scheme of delegation for planning decision-making. Decisions on whether a planning application should be taken to the planning committee or dealt with by officers alone will depend on the judgment of two individuals: the elected member who chairs the planning committee and the chief planning officer. This important responsibility underlines the need for an enhanced status for the planning officer at the helm.
In preparation for the debate on this issue during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I spoke to the chief planner for Glasgow City Council, where legislation already confers a statutory status on the chief planning officer, accompanied by guidance from the Scottish Government on the duties, responsibilities, qualifications, skills and experience required. Glasgow’s chief planner told me of the importance of having one fully qualified person holding the position of chief planner, not least in enabling everyone to identify the key person responsible for planning matters. Indeed, events are now being organised that bring together chief planners from across Scotland, now that it is clear who shares this common identity. I spoke to an experienced planner in Wales who told me of hopes for a similar measure for Wales to that addressed by this arrangement. I strongly support this amendment as part of the devolution package for England.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I, too, welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—it is great to see her back here on her two feet. I shall speak first to Amendment 130 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. This amendment is straightforward. It provides that greenfield land should not be designated for development unless the relevant authority
“is satisfied that no suitable brownfield land is available within the relevant area”.
There appears to be universal agreement that building on brownfield first is the right thing to do. It provides a number of advantages. Not only does it save greenfield land, but it helps regeneration, utilises existing infra- structure and minimises transport distances, whether that is to work or to employment. It creates a better environment and promotes growth. While this is recognised, what does not appear to be recognised is the difficulty of building on brownfield land, particularly in high-cost areas such as London, due not only to the remediation costs but to high existing land use values.
When it comes to financing, if you are building an apartment block, you cannot generally sell an apartment until you have built the whole block, whereas if you are building on a green field, you can virtually sell house by house. Time scales tend to be longer and costs higher, due to the complexity of building in urban areas. Because of the high and early capital outlays, return on capital is often the determining factor, meaning that delays inevitably make projects unviable. In urban areas, it is all too easy to find grounds for objection, delaying the process. While a committed applicant may get through all these hoops, it can take years, by which time the project is no longer viable. Many do not even try, or they seek to build with lower quality in order to recoup their costs.
That is a particular problem in London. Last year only around 5,000 new private homes were started, against a target of 88,000 new homes. That has real-world consequences. London Councils estimates that more than 200,000 people in London are living in temporary accommodation or are homeless, of whom around 100,000 are children. That is more than 50% of the UK total. The previous Government introduced a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This has proved to be a very effective tool in delivering development in rural areas because the relatively low upfront costs and the potentially sudden significant uplift in land values where there is not a five-year supply mean that landowners and developers can profitably challenge the planning system and regularly do so. Local planning authorities generally recognise this and tend to be much more reasonable with applications because they do not want planning by appeal and the risk of unplanned and poor-quality developments. This does not appear to work in urban brownfield areas, where, as I outlined earlier, high upfront costs and the complexity of development militate against challenging planning decisions, with developers often taking the easier route of seeking greenfield development opportunities elsewhere.
If we are to get more brownfield development, the balance between brownfield and greenfield needs to be tilted more in favour of brownfield. That is why the previous Conservative Government proposed a strong material presumption in favour of development on brownfield land. The purpose of this amendment is to oblige planning authorities to look at brownfield first, to recognise the potential additional costs and timescales of brownfield development and, through the strategic spatial plan, to seek to address them. With greater certainty and speed in the planning process, we will get the homes that this country needs with more on brownfield, helping urban regeneration and protecting greenfield sites. While the Minister may say that this is already in guidance, that has been the case for many years and it is simply not delivering. It needs to be stepped up; it needs to be in legislation.
I will speak briefly to the other amendments in this group. The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, reflect a shared concern that strategic planning powers must be accompanied by safeguards, transparency and engagement with local communities. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, would extend this to national parks in a similar vein. My noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 131 relates to a chief planner. We believe it has considerable merit, and I have heard similar from both the industry and the planning profession, as he outlined. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering rightly raised again the issue of flooding and the role and benefits of SUDS. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed. I look forward to the Minister’s response on all these issues and, in particular, on whether this Government are prepared to take the necessary step of legislating for brownfield development.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling Amendment 132. Local planning authorities already carry out flood assessments as part of their duties, just as with conservation assessments, tree assessments or bat assessments. Flooding is already part of the routine of planning authorities’ assessments. SUDS are constantly being put in. The number of SUDS is constantly changing, and I fear that a statutory duty would cost money that could be put to better use. A local authority is best placed to assess which flooding remediation is best for an area. We have to remember that regional flooding bodies also review flooding in catchment areas as part of their duties. I fear that this amendment would cause duplication and put an excess financial burden on local authorities and the Government.
Regarding Amendment 241E, I would have thought that the national parks were protected land in a similar way to metropolitan open land, which is highly protected. As it is part of a planning authority’s duties, it should consult with all relevant parties already.
I thank the noble Lord for bringing forward Amendment 130, but I believe it would delay the building of the homes that, as he eloquently said, we desperately need across the country. Planning authorities can look only at developments that come before them; they cannot force a developer to bring an application for brownfield land, or any land. They can judge only the applications that come before them. I fear that this amendment would cause delay in delivering the houses that we so desperately need in this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I also welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is very nice to see her back in her place, and I hope her leg is recovering speedily.
I thank noble Lords for these amendments relating to planning and housing. I understand the spirit of Amendment 126, which seeks to restrict the use of strategic planning powers. It is important that the right checks and balances are in place in the governance of strategic authorities. However, we believe that the Bill already puts the right procedures in place. Combined authorities and combined county authorities already have to make decisions collectively. Constituent councils each have at least one voting member and, thanks to Clause 6, decisions will require a majority to be taken forward.
Even then, there are some circumstances where we go further. For example, mayors and their authorities must consult the relevant constituent councils and local planning authorities before using compulsory purchase powers in their area. Non-mayoral strategic authorities cannot acquire land in this way without consent. I can assure the noble Baroness that when a mayor exercises their powers on mayoral development orders, there will be consultation with local communities and local planning authorities. That will be set out in secondary legislation.
Where the mayor exercises strategic planning functions directly, there are appropriate checks and balances. For example, the mayor’s spatial development strategy cannot be adopted until the combined authority or combined county authority has passed a motion to do so. I thank my noble friend Lady Shah for sharing her experience of the planning process. Introducing a requirement that every use of a strategic planning power requires the consent of every constituent council would be excessive and fetter the ability of strategic authorities and their mayors to make strategic decisions for the benefit of their whole area.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for Amendment 127. We have often had discussions about parish and town councils, and I know how strongly she feels about them. Schedules 16 and 17 already place requirements on strategic authorities to work with their constituent councils and local planning authorities, such as national park authorities, before seeking to use compulsory purchase powers on land in their area. The types of organisations they must consult or get the consent of are the same as those from which existing strategic authorities already must seek consent. Extending these requirements to parish councils would, I believe, take this too far. There are over 10,000 parish councils in England.
This amendment as written would give parish councils the ability to veto compulsory acquisitions of land. It cannot be right for a parish council to unilaterally block a strategic purchase by a strategic authority—on which all the constituent councils have agreed—that may have benefits beyond that parish. While it is of course right that strategic authorities consider the views of local communities, including parish councils, in their decisions, individual parish councils should not be able to block those decisions.
I turn to Amendment 130 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, which seeks to require mayors, combined authorities and combined county authorities to prioritise brownfield over greenfield land when they designate land for development. Once the relevant provisions of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 are commenced, combined authorities and combined county authorities, including those with mayors, will have a duty to produce a spatial development strategy. Spatial development strategies will guide local plans in their area; identify broad locations for development and key infrastructure requirements; and set housing targets for local authorities. They will not themselves allocate specific parcels of land for development. When preparing a spatial development strategy, authorities will be required to have regard to the need to ensure that their strategy is consistent with national policy.
The promotion and reuse of brownfield land is a central part of the current National Planning Policy Framework. Authorities are expected to give substantial weight to the benefits of using suitable brownfield land within existing settlements to maximise density. The framework particularly emphasises the importance of appropriate uses in town centres, although, of course, it will not be appropriate in all cases for development to be situated on previously developed land and town centres.
We aim to go even further to cement this approach in the proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, on which we are currently consulting. New policies on development inside and outside of development boundaries promote a sustainable pattern of development by steering proposals to appropriate locations, maximising the use of suitable land in urban areas and taking a more selective approach to the types and locations of development outside settlements. Mayors will also be able to grant upfront planning permission for specific types of development on specific sites through mayoral development orders. We want to ensure that the legislation is flexible enough to allow mayors to use these orders for a range of different uses across different types of land, reflecting the mayor’s plans to support the growth of their area.
Paragraph 125 of the current National Planning Policy Framework states:
“Planning policies and decisions should … give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs”.
Following the revision in December 2024, this paragraph has been strengthened further. It now states that proposals for such brownfield sites
“should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused”.
It is of course right that we promote the effective use of previously developed land, but we should avoid creating overly inflexible legal requirements that may not work in every situation and would serve only to inhibit the growth that this country needs; my noble friend Lady Dacres referred to these issues. Although I appreciate the intent behind this amendment, I do not think that it is necessary or proportionate.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. The key issue here is the one to which I referred. We have had guidance for many years. I appreciate that there is potentially to be some mild strengthening of that guidance but the fact is that it is not working, as I illustrated with the very low number of houses that are being built in the large urban area of London. We therefore need to step up. This is not about preventing development elsewhere or slowing development down. This is a strategic plan. It is about facilitating development and putting a greater onus on mayors to find brownfield land because we know that, as we have illustrated, it is more difficult to develop on brownfield land, whether or not it is contaminated. This is not a slowing mechanism but a mechanism that will create more sites and get more development done—and with more of it being in urban and brownfield areas, protecting some of our greenfield land. It is not about slowing; it is actually about the reverse.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand what the noble Lord says. I do not have the statistics in front of me but I have visited a number of very good brownfield sites in London. The issue of building on brownfield is not the only issue preventing building in London; there are viability issues that are quite unrelated to that. I accept that viability can be an issue on brownfield land. Indeed, we are very much taking into account some of the issues around viability in the new packages that we are developing with London in order to encourage London boroughs and the Mayor of London to think about how we can work further to deliver against the housing demand in London.
This is a key issue, but it is not as simple as a lack of use of brownfield sites. Nearly all the housing sites that I have visited right across the country have been, to one extent or another, developments on brownfield sites. That is the right way to go. We will of course continue to monitor this, but I do not want to create an inflexible requirement that will mean that people who are in a situation where they cannot use brownfield sites cannot develop anything. We must be very careful about this, but I understand the points being made.
I turn to Amendment 131. I am glad to see that the House of Lords is taking our environmental responsibilities very seriously, because we have a number of amendments to this Bill that have been recycled from the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, of which Amendment 131 is an early contender. However, I appreciate that this amendment is slightly different in that it relates specifically to strategic development strategies. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. His amendment seeks to make it a statutory requirement for local planning authorities, either separately or jointly, to appoint a suitably qualified chief planning officer. I absolutely understand the intention behind the amendment. As we discussed during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, I share the view that it is very important for planners to have a presence within the leadership structures of local authorities. As I have said previously, it is our mission to try and make sure that we highlight the role and importance of planning for all local authorities, whichever level of planning they are operating at.
However, I do not believe that this is an issue that should be addressed through legislation at this stage. The Government consider it essential that each authority should retain the flexibility to determine the most effective way to organise its own planning functions, particularly because, in England, they vary widely in scale and nature. In practice, many already operate with a chief planner, as I think the noble Lord said, or the equivalent senior role, although what that role entails varies widely between, for example, a county authority focused mainly on minerals and waste, a small district council and a large London borough.
As I promised to do during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I will continue to keep this matter under review as we take forward further reforms to the planning system. This is something that I am happy to explore further with local authorities and the sector as part of that work. I will aim to expedite that work, but it would not be appropriate to introduce this into legislation without doing that first. I therefore want to do a bit more work on this before we take any decisions on it.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for Amendment 132, which would require strategic authorities to prepare sustainable drainage assessments. I admire her persistence on the issue of sustainable drainage systems; she has a great deal of knowledge on this that I greatly appreciate her bringing to planning matters. I reassure her that the Government are committed to taking a systemic approach to tackling drainage issues and , in particular, improving the implementation of sustainable drainage systems. Through this Bill, we are giving mayors of strategic authorities outside London the ability to call in planning applications of potential strategic importance. Where a planning application is called in, the mayor must consider the application in accordance with the development plan for the area and national planning policy.
In December 2024, we revised the National Planning Policy Framework to require all developments that may have drainage impacts to incorporate sustainable drainage systems. We are proposing to go further through the current consultation on the new framework, which proposes that all sustainable drainage systems should be designed in accordance with new national standards introduced by the Government last year. The consultation also includes proposals for clearer engagement between plan-making authorities and wastewater companies when plans are being made, taking into account the impacts of planned growth. This is to provide a clearer understanding of capacity and any additional infrastructure needs.
Against this background, I am concerned that the noble Baroness’s amendment would impose a burden on strategic authorities without being effective. Mayors of strategic authorities will deal with only a small number of planning applications themselves, so it would be disproportionate to expect them to produce a statutory drainage assessment, which would likely be very partial, as they would not be able to look holistically at all potential development coming forward in their area. Nor should this amendment be necessary, given the steps that we are taking to improve the assessment of drainage needs and the delivery of sustainable drainage systems and the clear requirement for drainage matters to be addressed when individual development proposals are being considered.
I will take back the issue that the noble Baroness raised on the specific legal case. That is as a relatively new court decision, so I am sure that the MHCLG team are reviewing any impact on the Bill. I will respond in writing to her and other Members of the Committee on that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The Minister said that the judgment was on 15 January. If she and her department consider that their policy is being set aside by very clever planning barristers, would she perhaps bring forward an amendment from the department that would be much better worded than my humble effort in this regard? It is completely inappropriate for the sequential test to be set aside in the way that it has been, and it is contrary to what she is trying to do in her department.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think it would be best if we look at the legal judgment and come back to the noble Baroness on that issue. I undertake to do that.
Amendment 196E was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who is in the Chamber. It relates to the definition of planning data as set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. I recognise the intention to expand the data standards provision to ensure that it covers other types of plans produced by strategic authorities, such as local growth plans and local transport plans. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 grants the Secretary of State the power to specify in regulations which planning information must meet set data standards. Given that data standards can evolve, the Secretary of State has the power to define those standards. The types of plans referred to in this amendment are intended to be considered as part of plan-making and in determining planning applications, both of which are relevant planning functions under the existing planning data provisions. Further, the Secretary of State has the power to specify the organisations and planning legislation that the data standards provisions apply to, providing flexibility to data provision powers as needed. We are confident that the current provisions are sufficiently broad and flexible to cover the plans specified in this amendment, but I welcome further details on the amendment’s intentions and objectives.
Amendment 222B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, seeks to add fire and rescue authorities as statutory consultees for planning applications involving energy projects, such as battery energy storage systems. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I refer to them as BESS in future—I have a granddaughter called Bess, so that feels a bit weird to me, but never mind about it. Let me emphasise that the Government take fire and safety extremely seriously, but we do not consider this amendment to be necessary or proportionate, and we are concerned that it may create unintended consequences. On 26 January last year, the Chancellor announced a moratorium on the creation of any new statutory consultees within the planning process together with a wider review of the statutory consultee framework to ensure that it supports the Government’s ambitions for growth. A Written Ministerial Statement issued on 10 March 2025 set out a package of measures to reform statutory consultees, ensuring that they provide high-quality expert advice swiftly to support well-designed development and timely decision-making. The Government have now consulted on statutory consultee reform, and we are currently analysing the responses. No decisions will be taken until that analysis is complete. Adding fire and rescue services to the list of statutory consultees would pre-empt that review and place additional burdens on them.
I know that battery energy storage system sites are of particular interest. These sites are already regulated by the Health and Safety Executive under a robust framework that requires designers, installers and operators to maintain high safety standards. Planning practice guidance also encourages developers promoting these developments on a larger scale to engage with local fire and rescue services, and local planning authorities are encouraged to consider guidance issued by the National Fire Chiefs Council. I repeat what I said in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill discussions: because someone is not a statutory consultee does not mean that they cannot contribute to a planning application discussion if they feel they need to. The Government are also considering further measures to strengthen oversight of environmental and safety risks associated with BESS. Proposals were recently included in Defra’s consultation on modernising environmental permitting for industry which proposed adding BESS sites to the environmental permitting regulations. Defra is currently considering the responses to that consultation and will publish its response in due course.
I turn to Amendment 241E in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, which seeks to change the role of national park authorities in the preparation of a spatial development strategy where it covers a national park or is likely to have a significant effect on the purposes of a national park. Although I agree absolutely with the need to ensure that national parks remain protected—we had much discussion on that during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—the existing arrangements already provide national park authorities with opportunities to have input into the preparation of a spatial development strategy and, more generally, to shape development.
Under Section 12H of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, strategic planning authorities must consult
“any local planning authority for an area that is wholly or partly within, or adjoins, the strategy area and is affected by the strategy”.
This includes national park authorities. More generally, we will expect strategic planning authorities to engage closely with national park authorities where relevant, and we intend to provide guidance to support early and effective engagement. Finally, as local planning authorities, national park authorities will continue to prepare local plans for their areas, which will set out more detailed policies on the use and development of land in the national park.
With the assurances that I have given this afternoon, I hope that the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Bennett, Lady McIntosh and Lady Freeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—
Lord Lansley (Con)
Forgive me, but I wish to speak before the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, responds to the debate. Her Amendment 127 raises an interesting question on Schedule 16. When mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities are compulsorily acquiring land, they do not require the consent of constituent councils at all, whereas non-mayoral combined authorities and single foundation strategic authorities do require the consent of constituent councils. Can the Minister explain why one route requires consent and the other does not?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I am out of time, may I respond to the noble Lord in writing? I am happy to do that.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this has been quite a long debate on a number of issues regarding strategic planning and its consequences.
Amendment 126 in particular referred to the new strategic powers that mayors—not just combined county authority mayors but existing metro mayors—will acquire and how those will knit with local plans. Perhaps I should have said at the beginning that I am a councillor currently serving on a large met authority in Yorkshire. It is clear to me that greater thought must be given to how strategic plans by the mayor and local plans by the local authority will work together and not come into conflict. Those who come from the London experience do not understand, perhaps, that the new mayoral authorities will not have the equivalent of a London Assembly where these things can be debated. They will consist of the leaders of the constituent authorities in West Yorkshire, which is five people. If that is deemed sufficient, it is not devolution.
I thank the Minister for her reply, which, as always, went into substantial detail on the probing questions that were asked; I am sure that some of them will be asked again when we get to Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Support for Mayoral Development Corporations
4A (1) Section 198 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) After subsection (2), insert—“(2A) The Secretary of State may—(a) provide financial assistance for the creation of Mayoral Development Corporations;(b) provide financial assistance for the acquisition of land or property by Mayoral Development Corporations;(c) provide guidance to Mayoral Development Corporations on any aspect of governance, land acquisition, development and regeneration, and ongoing management.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to support the creation of Mayoral Development Corporations.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to the three amendments in this group, starting with Amendment 133, which has the heading
“Support for Mayoral Development Corporations”.
The amendment concerns the measures in Part 2 of the Bill that will facilitate strategic authorities establishing mayoral development corporations and development corporations of combined authorities, including combined county authorities. These development corporations can take on planning powers and land acquisition and development powers.
I believe that these development corporations could create the real alternative that we need to the current reliance of government on a small number of volume housebuilders, on which we all depend for the delivery of most of the 1.5 million homes planned for this Parliament. The hope is that these developers will plan, design and construct the majority of new housing development, achieving high housing standards and a good quantum of affordable accommodation for local communities. But these companies have often failed to achieve the speed or quality of development, let alone to include a fair proportion of affordable homes.
An alternative is badly needed and the development corporations could be that alternative. Development corporations can trace their origins to the establishment of planning and development bodies for the pre-war garden cities and then for the post-war new towns. The London Docklands Development Corporation utterly transformed that part of east London and, more recently, the London Legacy Development Corporation —the LLDC—has been doing great work in the redevelopment of the 2012 Olympic Games site and its environs.
The excellent 2018 Letwin review recommended ending our dependency on the oligopoly of developers that, entirely predictably, work at their own pace and negotiate down the standards and quotas of affordable housing to maximise their profits. In their place, Letwin advocated the establishment of development corporations that would acquire the land and capture the increase in its value when planning consent was subsequently granted. The corporation’s master plan can then parcel out the site to different profit-making and non-profit-making bodies, incorporating a mix of house types, green space, play areas and a mix of providers—housing associations, SME builders, specialist players et cetera. Development corporations will be the chosen vehicle for the delivery—
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, development corporations will be the chosen vehicle for the delivery of the new generation of new towns. I was delighted to hear today the Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, announcing a consultation on the details of creating a development corporation for greater Cambridge. This model can be used far more widely, for other developments and area regeneration as well. But my worry is that this does not happen elsewhere, that new development corporations do not appear and that this part of the Bill—unless amended by Amendment 133—turns out to be a damp squib. Mayors and combined authorities have other important matters to handle and may fail to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the Bill to create the development corporations that really can achieve more and better new homes and communities.
Amendment 133 is intended to enable government to engage with the strategic authorities to incentivise and support the setting up of development corporations and sometimes to provide them with financial assistance, perhaps via Homes England, as well as ongoing advice on their governance, on land acquisition—including through compulsory purchase—on the creation of the masterplan and on the subsequent oversight of the management of the new development. The measures in this amendment could help to radically change the way housing and infrastructure are currently delivered. Publicly accountable bodies empowered to work for the common good could dramatically improve the speed of build-out, ensure more affordable homes and achieve the benefits of great place-making for the communities destined to live there.
Amendments 240 and 242 in my name have been grouped with my amendment on development corporations. These two additional amendments would insert a new clause with the heading
“Duty to optimise the use of public land”.
The amendments attempt to ensure that the precious asset of land owned by local authorities, including strategic authorities and development corporations, is put to best—“optimal”—use. The amendments seek to resolve long-standing complexities and arguments over the treatment of land holdings by public bodies. I pay tribute to the land economist, Stephen Hill, supported by leading real estate experts and a large number of public interest institutions, for his help in preparing these two amendments.
The amendments address the barrier of land prices being too high to allow for new developments to embrace important social purposes. The amendments would bring down the value of land by requiring public bodies to make available their own land holdings and redundant buildings on terms that make possible their best use. They would have to follow the 2018 principle of law set out by Mr Justice Holgate, which holds that true market value must reflect compliance with public policy. So this amendment would ensure that the market value of land must take account of the cost of abiding by the obligations both set out in the local plan and contained in central government’s requirements. Local authorities would have a duty to create a land use management plan for sites in their ownership to ensure that developments are ultimately for the public good.
Since the duty to optimise the use of public land would very often be of relevance when it is planned to dispose of land to others, the amendment also provides clarification on the meaning of the phrase “best consideration reasonably obtainable”, which governs the sale of publicly owned land at present. Public bodies believe that this means that they must accept the highest price offered, irrespective of the effects of this on their local community. Taking this line can prevent efforts to improve the quality of life for local citizens for generations to come.
I will illustrate this by reference to negotiations in which I was involved to acquire a redundant hospital building for an extra care housing development for older people. This use of the old building and surrounding land would provide a service that meant substantial annual savings for the NHS and care services as a result of the housing with care provision. But the NHS trust was adamant that the sale must be to the highest bidder—in this case to a developer of luxury flats, principally for overseas buyers, forfeiting the gains to the community in return for a short-term financial receipt.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to say a word in support of Amendment 133 from the noble Lord, Lord Best, about creating a statutory provision to enable financial assistance to be given to the establishment of a mayoral development corporation—and also, perhaps, just to note that my former constituency lies within the area where the Government have announced today a consultation on the establishment of a centrally led development corporation for the whole area of the city council and South Cambridgeshire.
Noble Lords on all sides might like to stop and examine this substantial issue. All decisions relating to sites of strategic importance in two council areas will, according to the proposal, from 2029 at least be decided by a development corporation and not the councils themselves. That is quite a substantial change. I am not saying that I am for or against it; we were always expecting it and had been expecting it for quite a long time. It is relevant to this debate because the reason why, in greater Cambridge, people not only expected this to happen but, by and large, supported it—I remind noble Lords of my registered interest in the Cambridgeshire development corporation—is that it comes, as announced, with £400 million in investment and infrastructure, and development corporations need to be driven by an infrastructure-first approach.
That is relevant to this debate because, if this were a mayoral development corporation—we have a mayor, so it is not inconsiderable that it could have been—it does not follow that anything like those resources would have been available to a mayoral development corporation in the way that they are for the centrally led development corporation. That is not to say that mayoral development corporations cannot get financial assistance from the Government. For example, in London the Old Oak development corporation has had money from the Government through the Homes England housing investment fund and some capital grants for land acquisition. But I do not think that is quite what the noble Lord, Lord Best, is looking for.
We are looking for two things: first, the ability for the Government to provide resources for the establishment of a mayoral development corporation, rather than for financial support for some of its activities. Secondly, we may be looking at mayoral development corporations, particularly in some of the new towns, where the funding requirement is at scale and is particular to that development corporation and not simply a subset of the grant-making powers that are available to the relevant government department for other purposes.
I remember the days when I was a financial officer for a government department. Having the statutory power is necessary if you are going to have substantial resources devoted to something over a significant period of time. It is not good enough simply to regard it as an extension of other powers that were devised not for that purpose. Giving specific statutory powers to fund the establishment of mayoral development corporations and to enable long-term funding from the Government potentially seems to be an essential part of the new towns programme. I support the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I was involved in the London Olympics for 19 years, from day one. Our first meeting was at the Bromley by Bow Centre, with three of us, in 1999. These projects take a long time, and it was only after that first meeting that I dared to go and see the architect Richard Rogers at his house. When he heard our vision and thought about it, he decided to be part of the team as well, and one thing led to another.
It was a very long journey, and it did not begin as a development corporation. The ideas for what eventually became the legacy company grew up among a small group of leaders, including Sir Robin Wales, the Labour leader of Newham at that time, who focused, over many years, on the place, the history of the place and a vision for the future. It was a long journey.
When, eventually, we won the bid, lessons were learned and it did not begin as a development corporation. It became known as the Olympic Park Legacy Company, which was a social business—for those of us who remember it in detail—which wanted to make sure we had the right people around the table who could begin to drive the legacy programme and not do what had happened in so many Olympic projects around the world, many of which I went to see, which had no legacy and ended in wastelands.
As we gained competence, what began to happen is that politicians and the system began to realise that we needed to be given planning powers. It was only after a number of years, as we grew as a company in skills and had a clear vision, that we became the London Legacy Development Corporation. The wise thing at that time was that the directors were not changed and moved on, and we did not have the usual churn that goes on; we were encouraged to stay as a group of people to follow through on this development.
What are the lessons learned over that very long period of time around this development corporation process? Our first lesson was to have a clear vision that is deeply rooted in the history of the place and the people who live in the place. That is absolutely critical.
Secondly, bring together the right people with the right skills and ensure that you have the right business skills on the board. It is not about having boards—if I am honest—that are just council representatives; it is about the right individuals from the public sector, the business sector and the social sector who come together.
Thirdly, good leadership with the right business skills is absolutely essential.
Fourthly, a development corporation has to take the long view. It will pass through different Governments and different local councils. It is really important that continuity is seen as an essential element of any development corporation.
Fifthly, create a learning-by-doing culture focused on quality, not a tick-box culture.
Sixthly, create integrated environments wherever you operate, bring people together and resist silos.
Seventhly, focus on people and relationships, not just process.
Eighthly, government needs to get interested in the detail. This is my thought at the moment. There are real lessons out there, but development corporations across the country are not all good and all the same thing. Get interested in the detail and what works.
Finally, if you look out there at what is going on, you will find that some development corporations are far better than others, some have had some successes and some have failed to learn the lessons.
This amendment is important, and I certainly want to support it, but the detail on this and the practice really matter.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. I support all three of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The contributions so far have been very helpful; I hope that the Minister will take due notice of them.
I particularly support the optimal use of land. Amendment 240 talks about placing
“a statutory duty on English local authorities and all forms of development corporation, to secure the optimal uses of their land, including when disposing of it, to achieve public policy objectives and requirements”.
This really matters. It is fundamental to achieving the housing growth objective that the Government have set themselves. I very much hope that the Minister will be very positive when she replies; if not, and if the noble Lord, Lord Best, wants to return to this issue on Report, he will have our support in so doing.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak briefly in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Best, has raised with these three amendments.
First, Amendment 133
“would enable the Secretary of State to support the creation of Mayoral Development Corporations”.
Noble Lords have already outlined why development corporations are a good idea, so I will not repeat that. The one thing I will say is that, in getting things done quickly, there may be some issues with the wording; there is still a role for local councils, too, and we want to make sure that they are not forgotten.
I have a few specific questions for the Minister. First, how will the Bill directly strengthen the role of development corporations, both improving their effectiveness and ensuring that they are readily used to support strategic plan-making? Secondly, do the Government believe that the powers currently available to development corporations are sufficient to meet their ambitions on large-scale housing development and regeneration in mayoral areas? Finally, do the Government see development corporations as a central delivery vehicle for the future mayoral growth strategy? If so, why is that intent not reflected more clearly in the Bill?
If I understand them correctly, Amendments 240 and 242 are similar in effect, but one applies to public land and one to local authority land. They aim to secure the optimal use of public land,
“including when disposing of it”,
in pursuit of wider policy objectives. The intent behind these amendments is plainly sound. Numerous Governments have sought over the years to ensure that public land is used strategically, transparently and in a way that supports the long-term social and economic outcomes we all desire. The Government may have some issues with the drafting—in particular, taking into account whole council objectives, not just the specific objectives mentioned—but I hope that, in that spirit, they will reflect carefully on whether the Bill, as currently drafted, goes far enough to meet these ambitions, as well as whether there is scope for the legislation to do more to embed those principles in practice.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his keen interest in and support for the Government’s intentions on mayoral development corporations. I can announce that earlier today, Minister Pennycook announced a consultation on a development corporation for Greater Cambridgeshire.
I begin with Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. Clause 37 and Schedule 18 extend the ability to establish mayoral development corporations to all mayoral strategic authorities. They are powerful delivery vehicles that let mayors bring together private and public sector expertise to tackle strategic spatial challenges in their area. However, it remains the decision of each mayoral strategic authority as to whether a mayoral development corporation is the right vehicle in its area and for each challenge.
Lord Best (CB)
I am very grateful to noble Lords for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is as experienced as anybody in this field and my noble friend Lord Mawson brings community-based experience as well. They are heavyweights in support of my amendments, and I am most grateful for that. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for not only supporting the amendment on mayoral development corporations but for his amendment on the optimum use of land.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, who rightly pointed to the role that councils must play within a development corporation set up by a mayoralty or a strategic authority of any kind. Local authorities must continue to play their part within that. He asked some important questions which I am not sure we have had very full answers to from the Minister. He basically said that central government has the power to support local initiatives and local development corporations and has strategic funds available to those mayoralties that could be used to promote new development corporations. My problem is that in a lot of cases, this will not be a priority. It will be something put to one side. Some incentive is needed to unlock that opportunity for the mayors and the strategic bodies, something that enables priority to be given to this way of producing homes that will end our dependence on that oligopoly of volume housebuilders and bring in a new way of doing things.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported these two amendments, and we live to fight another day. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(d) take account of the statutory health duty and health inequalities strategy prepared by the strategic authority, and(e) promote community wealth building, cooperatives, mutuals and the wider social economy as mechanisms to narrow health inequalities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that local growth plans explicitly take account of the statutory health duty and the proposed Health Inequalities Strategy. It strengthens the link between economic growth and health improvement, complementing the government’s intention that devolution should support inclusive growth and stronger communities, while maintaining local flexibility.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 140 would strengthen the link between economic growth and health improvement, complementing the Government’s intention for devolution to support inclusive growth in stronger communities while maintaining local flexibility.
Devolution should give local leaders the tools to make a tangible difference to the lives of their citizens. However, if poor health and widening health inequalities continue to constrain economic participation and the effectiveness of public services, and if local growth plans are not used to drive better health, devolved leaders will fail to deliver real change to their communities. I believe that this Bill is a hugely significant moment for regional governance, with its explicit expectation that devolution should support improved outcomes, including health outcomes, for communities.
In many UK regions, long-term illness is now the single largest driver of economic inactivity. This can be seen most clearly in areas of historically high deprivation. The economic impact of poor health is stark. The Health Foundation’s independent Commission for Healthier Working Lives found that
“8.2 million working-age people report a long-term health condition that limits their ability to work … Poor workforce health is estimated to cost UK employers up to £150bn a year through lost productivity, sickness absence and recruitment costs”.
I warmly welcome the Government’s ambition to address regional economic inequality. Improving health and reducing inequalities are prerequisites for economic success. However, health currently remains largely absent from most local growth strategies, although not all. In the Oxfordshire strategic plan—the plan that I know best—health inequalities are a primary focus. The plan explicitly integrates social well-being with economic growth to address the county’s stark internal disparities. It pays specific attention to the foundational economy, which is to say the sectors providing basic goods and services, such as health and education, and identifies these as providential elements on which well-being depends.
Without considering health as a core objective and precondition for growth, local growth plans are less likely to be effective in delivering long-term sustainable growth. Some places in the UK are pioneering new approaches, including the West Midlands, which has implemented the inclusive growth framework. This aims to ensure that everyone benefits from growth by focusing on all types of investment, such as public, private, capital, revenue and time, which are all given attention. However, practice is uneven and lacks a consistent understanding of impact. This amendment aims to recognise the relationship between health and local growth so that further devolution reduces rather than widens inequalities.
I recognise that the number of co-operatives and mutuals is expanding and that the Government are calling for new growth plans across the mutual sector. That is very welcome—I am a Co-operative Member of the House of Lords. My amendment therefore dovetails with the current policy. It is right that local growth plans should promote co-operatives, mutuals and community wealth building—the practice of creating an inclusive and democratically owned economy. This puts people before private equity profits and champions the kind of economic development activity that gets overlooked by industrial strategies. Instead, it focuses on the everyday economy where most people work.
In Preston, for example, community wealth building is changing lives and has been linked to an incredible 9% increase in life satisfaction and an 11% rise in median wages. This has led to a reduction in daily antidepressant prescriptions of 1.3 units per person and a drop in depression prevalence compared to similar areas of 2.4 per thousand. I am sure that the Government would agree that these results should be replicated across the whole country.
I suggest that community wealth building is the missing piece of the puzzle to unlock growth for the benefit of all citizens, everywhere. Scotland already has a community wealth building Bill passing through its Parliament and I hope that this amendment ensures that England does not fall behind. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will take these things into account. Economic growth will be the lifeblood of mayoral combined authorities, but their ability to achieve that growth will be diminished if health and health inequalities are not an integral part of their plans. I beg to move.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I will introduce Amendment 141B in my name. This amendment is designed to help address perceptions that economic growth and environmental growth are in competition with each other. Tony Juniper of Natural England said it as eloquently as anyone could:
“we need to ensure that Nature and the economy are partners rather than seen as choices. That means weaving Nature recovery into the growth planning up front—the cheapest point at which to invest in Nature, and the one that also yields the biggest returns”.
In essence, this amendment calls for the Secretary of State to publish a local authority guide to constructing a win-win: best practice in growing the natural economy as part of the growth plans, and how nature-based solutions and easy mitigations to protect wildlife can help local economics.
The amendment covers a range starting with responsibilities to individual wild animals and birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which was picked up by the Animal Sentience Committee as something that was slightly missing when we discussed the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I cannot help mentioning my beloved bird-safe design of buildings as a specific example of something that might be covered. Just as a reminder to those who might have missed the fun and games on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, buildings that are poorly designed in their use of glass and light can pose a serious threat to birds and are thought to kill around 30 million a year in the UK. Simple tweaks to the design of buildings in the planning stages can make them much safer to birds at no cost at all. But not many people know this, so guidance is necessary. Local authorities can use that guidance as they wish.
The amendment goes on to cover broader responsibilities to the environment and natural world. It would carry best practice advice on all the environmental services that can be harnessed to reduce flooding and pollution and to provide green spaces—all opportunities that can help local authorities to reach environmental as well as economic targets. So many developments that have gone badly wrong at the interface between economic and environmental growth could have been entirely turned around if, at the very outset of planning, the right expertise had been applied. It could make all the difference if a guide to best practice was a necessary part of the pack given to support local authorities. Without it, more avoidable issues might arise to the detriment of both the economics and the environment.
I completely recognise that I am not a drafter of legislation and that this amendment is very roughly worded. I anticipate that the Minister will say that the schedule already allows the Secretary of State to publish any guidance that they want, but I hope that the Government grasp this opportunity to put forward their own amendment to the Bill that commits to publishing a best practice guide that shows that they do not believe that protecting wildlife and helping nature is an opposing aim to wanting economic growth and that helps local authorities to see how both can be done together in a virtuous circle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I will be very brief. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, and to recollect with great fondness the debate on bird-safe buildings. The Committee will probably be pleased to hear that I will not go further, but please, if noble Lords were not there, they should read it—is really important.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I was going to speak in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Royall, which is great, but I will respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, wearing my ex-energy hat.
There are sometimes tensions between growth and environmental protections. I pray in aid the saga of Hinkley Point C and the waste of years and millions of pounds spent in relation to acoustic fish deterrence. There are many examples of very bad practice by some of the environmental authorities in the way they deal with these issues. The history of major infrastructure projects in this country is so appalling in relation to the length of time taken that we need to look at this very carefully.
The noble Baroness is probably aware of the Fingleton review into the regulation of nuclear power stations, which was commissioned by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister and came out in the autumn. Broadly, they have accepted it, but at the end of this month they have to respond in detail. What Fingleton recommended is controversial. He basically said that there needs to be one overriding regulator. This is subject to pushback from environmental lobbies at the moment, but people interested in growth are saying that we really have to go with Fingleton. All it illustrates is that sometimes there are tensions and I am not sure that we have yet found a way through them. Clearly, we all want to protect the environment and our habitats, but we also need to have growth. It will be interesting to see how the Minister responds to this.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
This is supposed to be a guide to best practice. The noble Lord has noted some of the poor practices. A guide would help to avoid some of those. That is important. I totally agree that there has been some terrible practice and it is usually done through ignorance.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
We also have a terrible risk-averse culture among regulators in this country, which we need to tackle as well—but I really rose to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I have a later Clause 53 stand part notice, which partly covers the same ground.
Nye Bevan is a great hero of mine. He founded the NHS, but he made one mistake. He beat Morrison in Cabinet in 1947 in terms of the role of local government. Morrison of course had been leader of the London County Council, which, pre-war, had certainly been the largest hospital authority in the world. He argued that local government should be at the centre of the National Health Service. That was rejected, which was a great pity.
I have always believed that local government should play a much larger role, not just in health service provision, but also in health as a whole. My noble friend illustrated why that is important. She mentioned the Health Foundation’s report, which is stark in making clear that health outcomes in the UK are falling far behind those in other countries now. The country that we are most aligned with now is the US, whose health outcomes are pretty disastrous.
We know that we need a co-ordinated, system-wide approach, but what we have is fragmentation. The health service is outwith a lot of the discussions that noble Lords have been having in this Committee. It is very centrally driven. I had some happy years driving it from the centre, but I have concluded that it just does not work like that. We have seriously got to devolve. Local government deals with so many issues that relate to poor health, including transport, low incomes and poor-quality housing—all the things that noble Lords have been discussing. What I am doing, basically, is encouraging my noble friend the Minister to say that her department recognises that it has a bigger role to play in health than it may think.
Clause 44 is welcome. What we are trying to do is urge the Minister’s department to be as ambitious as possible and to do everything that it can to ensure that local government as a whole takes advantage of this. Mr Osborne’s agreement with the leader of Manchester City Council and its chief executive—in 2014 or 2015, I think—led to Devo Manc, which embraced health; it was the responsibility of the combined authorities rather than the mayor. There is enough evidence there to suggest that this is a good thing and that we need to build on it. My disappointment is that nothing has happened since then. The moment Mr Osborne left, no one in government was interested any more. I hope that we can resurrect it and say to local government, “We’re not going to improve our health without you being really important partners in this”.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, as well as what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has just shared with us.
Earlier, I mentioned “learning by doing” cultures. What do they actually look like? We have been engaging in depth in east London for 42 years. We have pioneered a lot of the things that we now take for granted across the country in parts of the health service, including social prescribing. We have the long view. We spent time looking up the telescope, not down the telescope from government. When you engage in a local community in depth, you soon start to discover that health and wealth are absolutely connected—they are fundamental —yet the siloed systems of the state absolutely miss what all of this might mean and the opportunities that are there in practice.
The Bromley by Bow Centre, which I founded and of which I am now president, has pioneered wide-ranging approaches to these precise issues over the years. Today, we are responsible for 55,000 patients and we have built 97 businesses with local people. If they were here, our integrated health team would tell you that, on a vulnerable housing estate in the East End of London, getting a job has more of an impact on your health than anything that doctors can do in our health centre. All of them would tell noble Lords this. Yet, despite hosting 70 Government Ministers from different parties coming to see us over the past 30-odd years, when we share all this, they all say, “Yes, yes”, then go away. Nothing changes. In Bromley-by-Bow, we are still grappling with 62 different funding sources coming from the Treasury, all of which go down into different silos. We then spend a lot of money, with our staff, on putting things together around the same families. It is ludicrous. I share this with noble Lords: lessons are not being learned. In my view, the fundamental question that is being asked in this amendment is absolutely critical.
This Government are starting to talk about prevention and getting upstream. I agree with all of that but, if you talk to our GPs and our team—we have 2,000 visitors a year, from all over the country, looking at our work—they will tell you that the jury is out on whether this Government are serious about joining the dots around these issues. We will go not on what they say but on what they do. As far as we can see, at the moment there is little evidence that these dots are being joined up, but, if the Government get interested in practice, there is a great opportunity for this Administration and future Administrations coming down the line. This is not a party-political matter; it is a matter for us all and for the health of the nation.
In the 1990s, we realised, through practice actually, that the only way to gain scale with these kinds of issues is to start to partner with the private sector. We took these relationships seriously and today, both in east London and in a programme I lead nationally, we work with the private sector around place-making, and I declare my interests. The private sector is also concerned and interested in these questions. People in the private sector have children and families. Get to know them, dig under the carpet and create learning-by-doing cultures with them, and you will find opportunities to take these kinds of questions to scale. I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, but I hope that we will move beyond amendments and yet more talk into practice and detail and get curious about what this actually looks like for local people.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for his salutary warnings. It is very real when you have the experience of somebody in a particular local area who can say that the dots are not joined and that the funding streams are too many and are simply not joined together. There is a huge opportunity here if the Government can take it. This amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, seems to me to be central. I hope that the Minister is going to be helpful in her response. Local growth plans should take account of statutory health duties, and they should be brought together. There is a clear link between economic growth and health improvement. There should be that clear link. Health improvement has to be integral to growth plans. This seems to be unanswerable as a proposal, so I hope the Government will be in full listening mode.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, is important. It is helpful that she has proposed a way forward through statutory guidance. I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. There is a serious danger that growth plans will lead to competition between economic growth and environmental growth responsibilities. I think the Government can help here by publishing guidance on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about the nuclear industry. I can think of other examples where there is a conflict between an environmental consideration and a growth consideration. Given the new world that we are about to enter with mayors and strategic authorities, clear guidance would be a big help in this area. I hope the Government will be in a positively responsive mood.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lady Freeman of Steventon, for tabling these amendments. As we have heard, Amendment 140 would ensure that local growth plans take into account statutory health duties and health inequalities strategies prepared by the strategic authorities. Councils have a crucial role to play and are often well placed to better understand and address local health issues, but I still bear the scars from trying to do this locally many years ago. It requires the NHS to devolve powers—and, as importantly, money—down. I tried. It was very positive to begin with —that is what they wanted us to do—but when push came to shove, acute hospitals always kept the money.
Until government can sort things out between the NHS and local authorities, that will not happen, which is a great shame. As we have heard, local authorities can create really safe environments that are more conducive to community well-being, promote healthy lifestyles and collaborate with other organisations to make really targeted interventions on the issues in their communities.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
It is interesting that at the moment the Government are trying to get the NHS to have an additional allocation to community health services in the planning guidelines. But all indications are that it is not happening, because the integrated care boards are saying that they have to protect acute services first. So community health services are not getting real additional funding. Before 1974, community health was of course run by local government and, with the suggestion to take it out again, I am beginning to wonder whether we do not need to be much more imaginative—basically to ring-fence resources.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I absolutely feel the pain of the noble Baroness, because we also feel the pain from the other end of the telescope. It is really difficult, and a lot of these systems are profoundly broken. However, this is an opportunity for this Government. The reason why practitioners like me are suggesting that the Government need to create learning-by-doing innovation platforms at place, in real communities, is because that is where the social sector, GPs, the local authority and the NHS can come together to do this stuff and then really learn the practical lessons. That is the only way; it is not through academic papers at 60,000 feet or policy people who have never built anything. It is about practice. Through practice, you will learn where the real blockages are, and what you then need to do is share the lessons learned. Until we get to that place and learn from the micro, I fear that we will keep talking and very little will change.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the two noble Lords for their interventions. I will just say that I do not believe it is about anything but power and money coming down—that was my experience. I tried to go to the full endgame; I tried to join the local director of children’s and adult care services with the local director of the NHS. I tried, but it did not work because health would not give up its power and its money.
Amendment 141B would add environmental responsibilities and opportunities to the local growth plan guidance published by the Secretary of State. While this is a well-intentioned amendment to help ensure that local growth plans balance environmental and economic considerations, which all local authorities have to do, we recognise that councils have to take into account a range of factors when drafting their local growth plans.
Indeed, councillors will be aware of their local area’s precious habitats and the places where nature is valued most. In my opinion, local communities are best placed to evaluate trade-offs between those environmental opportunities and economic growth, so we believe that this should be left to local councillors rather than for the Secretary of State to set out a potentially one-size-fits-all approach to this.
I am grateful for the contributions to this thoughtful and interesting debate and I am really looking forward to the response from the Minister.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that this has been a very thoughtful and interesting debate. I am grateful to all contributors and for the amendments to Schedule 20 on local growth plans.
I will start with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, which draws our attention to the important role of mayors in addressing health inequalities in their areas. Through Clause 44, we are introducing a new legal requirement for combined and combined county authorities to have regard to the need to improve the health of people in their areas, and to reduce health inequalities between people living in their areas. This will reinforce our ambition to ensure that health is considered in all policies and will support our health mission in England.
I add that the mayoral competencies set out in the Bill specifically include health, well-being and public service reform, so that means that that should be taken into consideration in all the work that the mayor and the strategic authority do. It is the Government’s intention that mayors should sit on ICBs, which I hope will start to address some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lady Royall about how we get that linkage between what is going on in the national health and what is going on at local level.
There are some great examples across the country of what is happening—obviously, Manchester is the best known because it has specific powers to tackle health, and I really welcome that, but in a district council like my own, we took great interest in tackling some of the key health challenges in our area to help the economy, such as tackling obesity, smoking and some of the big, long-standing mental health challenges that we faced, and we worked closely with partners in doing that. Of course, there is no better example of the contribution that local authorities can make to public health than the response of local authorities to the Covid pandemic, in those very unique circumstances, so we know it can be done.
Although I recognise that it is not explicitly stated in relation to local growth plans, I can reassure the Committee that this new duty will apply to all functions, including developing a local growth plan. Indeed, as I said, many places are already demonstrating this awareness.
I know that many of my noble friends will be very sympathetic to the benefits of co-operative and mutual models in addressing these challenges—I know they are aware of my history in the co-operative movement. I hope they will also recognise that a key principle behind local growth plans is that they must be locally owned, in line with the fundamental principles of devolution.
I recognise the community wealth-building principles so clearly articulated by my noble friend Lady Royall, and the example that she gave of Preston, which has been a leading proponent of using the power of public procurement and provision of infrastructure and services to tackle inequalities in its local area. That has been very important, and Matthew Brown and his colleagues have done a very significant piece of work on that. However, while we may commend those local examples, we must afford local growth plans the flexibility for local challenges to be addressed in response to the local context.
I hope my noble friend feels reassured that mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities are already considering health as part of their plans, and that the new health improvement and health inequalities duty will achieve the desired effect. On that basis, I hope my noble friend feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 141B is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, and I thank her for all the discussions we have had around her environmental issues, during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act and recently. The amendment would provide the Secretary of State with the opportunity to set out in guidance how mayoral combined authorities should align growth measures in their local growth plan with considerations of nature, wildlife and the environment.
I want to reassure the Committee on two points. First, this is already possible. We have set out that the guidance on local growth plans can cover a range of matters. That includes the information to be included in a plan—that is to say, its content—and the ways in which the authority may have regard to the plan when exercising other functions. But the guidance is not limited to just these matters; it can cover additional matters not explicitly set out in the primary legislation. I reassure the Committee that this enables us to set out the matters included in this amendment, should that be needed.
Secondly, mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities are already subject to several requirements linked to this amendment. This includes the recently strengthened biodiversity duty, which supports the delivery of legally binding biodiversity targets, as well as statutory duties related to air quality. Local growth plans will provide an important framework for economic growth, but they will sit alongside a range of other statutory plans, strategies and duties. Decisions that impact protected species, nature recovery and the environment will still need to consider relevant policy frameworks—for example, local nature recovery strategies, about which we had much discussion during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for setting out so clearly how important it is to ensure that in our planning process, whether it is local growth plans or spatial planning, we aim to create that win- win for development and the environment. We made some significant steps with that in the Planning and Infrastructure Act, and I hope that local growth plans will contribute to that as well.
That said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, will feel reassured that the matters in her amendment must already be considered by mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities. I hope she will feel reassured that, should further guidance be necessary, it remains possible to set this out in the guidance on local growth plans. I therefore ask that her amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her response, because she clearly understands the issues. I am super-grateful for all the contributions from noble Lords around the Room.
We are all absolutely in agreement that good health is a prerequisite for economic growth in our country. I realise that the Bill takes more account than ever before of the need for these new strategic authorities to act in relation to health and health inequalities. I hear all the frustrations around the Room about the fact that it has not really worked before. Manchester is working really well, and that is brilliant, but as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, pointed out, the dots simply are not joined, either in funding or in services terms. I know that a lot of that is because of the siloed way in which each of our public services receives its money. For it to work really well, we need to have properly funded local authorities and a well-funded health service.
This is a great opportunity, and I am sure that the Bill as it stands will take us a long way. Still, if we could have a statutory health duty in the Bill, it might be a catalyst for further action; it might be a real catalyst for discussion between the Treasury, the NHS and the MHCLG. I would really like to discuss this further with my noble friend before Report. I do not know how far we will get, but this is a great opportunity to make the system work better. I do not want to give up just yet, but I do not want to make her life a complete pain. I would like to come back to this matter before Report and have a discussion with my noble friend the Minister and her team but, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(2A) The mayoral combined authority must include amongst the projects identified measures that will promote growth through the safeguarding and promotion of existing cultural, creative, and community infrastructure such as grassroots music venues, theatres and other live performance spaces.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, connected with another in the name of Baroness McIntosh of Pickering, seeks to ensure that local growth plans include provision about cultural venues.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the amendments in this group. I thank my noble friends—I call them that—Lord Clancarty and Lord Freyberg for supporting them. I support Amendment 147 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, but I will speak particularly on Amendments 141, 146 and 222.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I will be fairly brief, because last week we had a considerable discussion on cultural concerns. I support all the amendments in this group and have put my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
The noble Baroness rightly points to cultural infrastructure. I would go further than venues. We should also be thinking about rehearsal spaces, artists’ studios, recording studios and ways of developing opportunities for the artists themselves, technicians and arts organisations, such as theatre companies, bands, orchestras and so on. There should be a consideration of public access to cultural services, such as museums and libraries. Indeed, every area of arts, culture and heritage should be considered to the extent that a separate cultural plan should be put in place to sit beside the local growth plan, and my Amendment 147 would put that in place.
As with the local growth plan, there are clearly different ways in which an area can develop its own arts and culture. No area is going to be the same. Every area will have its own individual plan, as it should do.
I am grateful for the discussions I have had with Culture Commons about this. I am also very grateful to the Minister for the very constructive discussions some of us had with her about this area yesterday.
Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is on the agent of change principle. We have had extensive discussions about this during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Nevertheless, this is an important amendment.
The grass roots music venues are very grateful for the 15% reduction in business rates, but this is not an either/or. A venue that is doing well can fold because the agent of change principle is not being properly or effectively applied.
The guidance alone is not working, as the Music Venue Trust is so clear about. As I said in the discussions on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, it points to the significant difference between Scotland, which has a statutory requirement and where the system works well, and England, which does not have a statutory requirement and where it does not work well at all. The Music Venue Trust has intimate knowledge of this, because it deals with cases.
I believe the amendment would make a significant difference. I fully support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I also support Amendments 141, 146 and 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and Amendment 147 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to all of which I have added my name.
Taken together, these amendments recognise that culture does not operate in isolation but as an interconnected ecosystem with different parts depending on one another, as the noble Earl has said. That is why Amendments 141 and 146 would strengthen the place of culture in planning and strategic decision-making, while Amendment 147 rightly promotes a more systemic approach across the culture sector.
While I do not wish to repeat the arguments that I made at length during the passage of the planning Bill on the agent of change principle—this is another recycled amendment from that Bill—I want to underline the central point here and echo much of what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, namely that the agent of change principle is now widely accepted. Few would argue that new residential or commercial developments should be able to externalise their impacts on existing cultural venues, forcing those venues to absorb the cost of mitigation or, too often, close altogether. The Government have acknowledged this and announced their intention to implement agent of change through policy. However, the difficulty is that policy alone, whether in planning guidance or licensing frameworks, has consistently proved insufficient. Non-statutory approaches are applied unevenly, interpreted narrowly and too easily overridden when competing pressures arise. Guidance can be ignored, policy can be diluted, and, without a clear, legislative footing, enforcement becomes discretionary rather than expected. For cultural venues operating on tight margins, that uncertainty is, in itself, deeply damaging.
If the Government accept that the agent of change is necessary at all, and their own statements suggest that they do, it surely follows that it must be implemented in a form that is effective, durable and legally robust. That is precisely what Amendment 222 seeks to do. It would not create a new principle but give statutory force to an existing one, moving us from aspiration to assurance. For that reason, and for the coherence it brings alongside Amendments 141, 146 and 147, I strongly support Amendment 222 and urge the Government to look favourably upon it.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister knows, I wholly welcome the Bill, and I am delighted to hear Preston and Manchester being cited as examples of good practice, because, as the Committee knows, the north-west was my region. However, I rise to support the principle that local growth plans should include provision for cultural venues, especially live grass-roots venues.
If we look to music and the recent success that we have had at the Grammys, we see young women from disadvantaged backgrounds who came through the BRIT School, a free school, and worked in local live venues. If we look to the recent UK success at the BAFTAs and the Oscars, we see young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who have been able to come through theatres and other live performance spaces, as the noble Earl said. We have, for instance, wonderful scripts, workshopped by local young people in local spaces, that then have huge success.
I particularly want to talk about youth theatre. People will be aware of the success of Liverpool’s Everyman Youth Theatre—I will stop talking about the north-west in a minute. I was born in Coventry. I have to say that youth theatre and youth education, which was provided in a joined-up way by the youth service at that point, gave me a pathway forward, and it gave a lot of my contemporaries an opportunity to have a way forward, as well as hope and participation, when a lot of our fathers were being made redundant from car factories in Coventry. I therefore hope that my noble friend will consider including in local growth plans the provision of live cultural venues and the development of local cultural plans.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the four amendments in this group should be supported in principle. We had a lengthy discussion on cultural and heritage issues last week during earlier Committee days considering the Bill.
Amendment 147, on cultural ecosystem plans, really matters. I support this amendment because it is the means whereby clarity will be produced about who in the mayoral and local authorities is responsible for what, particularly the funding of local cultural assets and support.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to these amendments that relate to culture. I again welcome the good work of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on culture, and we welcome the spirit of Amendment 147, which seeks to have a cultural ecosystem plan and to protect cultural assets.
Culture is not always easily defined, and decisions about the forms or expression of culture that should be prioritised can be the subject of significant debate. Nevertheless, we often recognise culture when we encounter it. It is the old adage, “Try describing an elephant, but you sure as hell know what it is when you see it”. Much of it is often taken for granted, whether that is historic buildings, works of art, cultural events or long-standing traditions, such as choral music in our churches. Mayoral combined authorities and local councils should recognise the cultural assets that exist in their communities and do what they can to support them. That said, I have some reservations about this amendment as currently drafted; it needs careful thought on that drafting just to ensure that it does not end up encouraging either vanity projects or leading to a more rigid and formalised definition of a cultural asset. That potentially risks some limiting. It is drafting that we feel we need to think through. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for his commitment and for this amendment.
Amendments 141 and 146 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering seek to ensure that local growth plans make provision for cultural venues. My noble friend raises several important points, and I hope the Minister will address them directly.
Finally, Amendment 222 would place a duty on local authorities to have regard to the agent of change principle, and I will not recycle all the arguments we went through in the last session of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. While the drafting may need a little refining, I hope that this amendment serves as a useful nudge to the Government to reflect further on how best to protect cultural venues from unintended consequences of development.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering —who never tests my patience, she has so much knowledge and experience—and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for their amendments on the role of culture in local growth plans and on the agent of change principle.
On Amendments 141, 146 and 147, the Government are committed to ensuring that arts and culture thrive in every part of the country. In January, the Government announced an investment package of £1.5 billion, of which £1.2 billion is new, to support arts, culture, museums, libraries and heritage. Noble Lords have made a very powerful case for the inclusion of culture, heritage and arts to be included in mayoral competences, which is still under active consideration. We have committed to working with mayoral strategic authorities, including through a devolved fund, to drive growth in this important sector.
We know that mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities recognise the role of culture and the creative sector in supporting thriving communities. I also mention the cohesion role that they play, which was mentioned so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, in an earlier debate on this subject. Indeed, many of them are raising culture in their local growth plans. Many places are taking this further, such as Greater Manchester with its dedicated culture strategy and the West Midlands—for the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin—establishing a partnership programme with the industry. Indeed, the noble Baroness gave other powerful examples. I take this opportunity to congratulate those two absolutely brilliant young women from the BRIT School who won Grammy awards. They absolutely stormed it at the Grammy awards the other day—so congratulations to them.
Introducing an additional duty would be burdensome and, as demonstrated, is not necessary to achieve the desired effect. In December, the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, published her independent review of Arts Council England. Following that, the Government are considering how to ensure that culture is supported by strategic authorities. As part of this, we are considering how it relates to all strategic authorities, not just the mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities that are developing local growth plans.
Specifically on the amendments from noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which relate to the pipeline of investment projects that must be set out as part of local growth plans, I point out that our guidance sets an expectation that this pipeline should be a shortlist of projects that are critical for unlocking growth, with the potential to crowd in private investment, and capable of unlocking significant returns. It is our view that, ultimately, it must be up to local areas to determine which projects fit that bill. These amendments would run counter to that principle and would require a one-size-fits-all approach that I know many Members are wary of. Rather than being mutually reinforcing for local growth, and the arts and culture, these amendments could cause confusion over the types of projects to include as part of that investment pipeline.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her Amendment 222, and share her desire to ensure that new housing does not constrain the operation of existing facilities in the surrounding area. I think that the music trust makes a very powerful case in this regard. However, new legislation would be duplicative of existing policy and is also less flexible, as it gives authorities less ability to weigh important considerations when making planning decisions. The agent of change principle is firmly established in the planning system as a relevant policy consideration. The current National Planning Policy Framework is clear that businesses should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established.
Local planning authorities can request noise impact assessments when they consider it necessary; when making decisions, they have the ability to consider factors such as the type of development and how close it is to major sources of noise. The planning process can help to reduce adverse impacts by using measures such as careful layout and good design to limit noise transmission. The licensing regime also already enables local authorities to consider the agent of change principle when making decisions. The legislation is designed to recognise that different communities face different challenges, and local licensing authorities are able to incorporate the principle into their statements of licensing policy if they consider it necessary or useful to do so.
Furthermore, local authorities can consider a range of factors when deciding whether a complaint amounts to a statutory nuisance. They have a legal duty to investigate each case individually, taking into account relevant circumstances and their knowledge of the local area. I recognise the importance of safeguarding key cultural establishments from new residential development, and we are already taking a number of steps to improve the implementation of the agent of change principle. I hope that answers the points from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about this being in place. We want to toughen it up, and I will talk now about some of those steps.
In planning, we are consulting on a new National Planning Policy Framework, which includes the option of strengthening the agent of change policy and clearly setting out that applicants must consider both the current and permitted levels of activity for nearby existing uses, such as licensed music and cultural venues. As I pointed out before, although the National Planning Policy Framework is not a statutory document in itself—it cannot be because it needs to be flexible as circumstances change—it sits in the statutory planning process and carries substantial weight because of that.
In licensing, we recently conducted a call for evidence as part of the licensing reforms programme, which included a question on the application of the agent of change principle within the licensing regime. Detailed analysis covering responses to this will be published in due course.
For all these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, will feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken; it goes to show the breadth of knowledge we have, both in the Committee and in the House, among those involved. I was particularly taken by the reference that the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, made to the BRIT School. It is outstanding that we had two clear winners at that time.
On the venues, I think it is important that we continue to stress these, but on the principle of agent of change, I am afraid I have to say that I am not content with the Minister’s response. I should have known, being a non-practising Scottish advocate, that we have a statutory basis for this in Scots law. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has proven very eloquently how we are operating under an inferior system here. Certainly, it is the wish of all those who gave evidence to the inquiry on the reform of the Licensing Act 2003, albeit in 2016-17, that it could operate better. We are still in a position where we do not have statutory guidelines.
I simply do not accept, for the same reasons I gave in the earlier debate on SUDS, that planning guidance is planning guidance. You can have a legal basis in an Act such as the Licensing Act, which we recommended be reformed, or this would be the ideal Bill in which to put it. If that is what licensing and planning practitioners are asking us to do, I feel honour-bound that we should do this. I wish to bring this back on Report and would welcome a meeting with the Minister and others who are concerned by this before that time. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to understand why the provision is limited solely to current employees of a constituent council of a combined authority, and does not extend to other employers participating in the LGPS. It aims to explore the rationale for excluding staff of housing associations, admitted bodies, and other local employers who play a significant role in the community, and to question whether this distinction is justified or creates unnecessary inconsistency within the scheme.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook.
Noble Lords from across the Grand Committee and indeed the House will be aware that the pensions Bill is currently in Committee and that the first two days of scrutiny were marked by a substantial number of amendments probing the Government’s approach to the Local Government Pension Scheme. We tabled numerous amendments on the technical detail of the valuation methodology, contribution rates, consultation requirements and interim reviews. I am sure the Minister will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to rehearse those matters again today.
Likewise, I do not wish to upset the Minister in any way, but I note that it was disappointing that no Minister from the MHCLG was present during the discussions. The LGPS sits squarely across the responsibilities of both the DWP and the MHCLG. While long-standing, this overlap too often creates complexity and tension, and I fear that it could result in policy that is not always well aligned with the realities on the ground.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will be very brief because we ought to hear from the Minister on the range of questions that have been produced, and I do not want to simply restate them. I have always supported greater investment by local government pension schemes. I should declare an interest, since I have a very small local government pension from the days when councillors were able to be part of the scheme. I just make that absolutely clear, even though the sum I receive is really very small.
I have always wanted local government pension schemes to invest more in their areas to drive growth in their areas. It seems an entirely laudable objective, but it has to be consistent with the scheme managers’ fiduciary responsibilities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, made clear in their explanatory statements, scheme managers have to remain independent and focused solely on the interests of scheme members. There are those two competing requirements.
I want to support the Government’s objectives here. This has to be the right thing to promote, although one has to be extremely careful. At this stage, that statement of principle from me is probably sufficient, and it would be useful to hear the Government’s response.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for Amendments 148, 149, 150 and 153. I will try to clarify the questions that she asked and, if I cannot, I am more than willing to write to her. Some of these pension aspects are very technical.
These amendments relate to the important requirement that strategic authorities work with the Local Government Pension Scheme funds in their area. This mirrors the duty to co-operate with strategic authorities placed on LGPS funds in the Pension Schemes Bill. The aim is to help strategic authorities to identify local projects that are appropriate for pensions investment and drive growth.
I recognise the noble Baroness’s intention, in tabling Amendment 148, to seek to broaden the provisions to include other employers participating in the scheme. The clause requires the strategic authority itself, rather than its constituent authorities, to co-operate with the relevant pension fund. In my view, this is the correct approach. Strategic authorities are responsible for driving local growth; as such, they should be aware of the interests of housing associations, admitted bodies and other local employers. An additional requirement for multiple other organisations to collaborate with the LGPS would place an unnecessary burden on those employers.
I turn to Amendments 149 and 153. I recognise the intentions to preserve the independence of LGPS-administering authorities and to reduce the burden of regulation on their functions. I assure noble Lords that the Government are not seeking to undermine the fiduciary duties of local pension funds in any way. The decision on whether or not to invest in a particular asset will be made by the asset pool, not the fund. This will help protect the fund against potential conflicts of interest, ensuring that all investments are made in the interests of the fund. Supporting guidance will be clear that investments should only ever be made where that investment helps the investing pension fund to meet pension liabilities.
The Government want to see funds and asset pools working closely with combined authorities, including corporate joint committees in Wales, in order to identify and develop appropriate investment opportunities so that the investment might of the Local Government Pension Scheme can drive local growth. I share the view of the noble Baroness that this requirement must be workable. For this reason, the high-level requirement does not put a restrictive framework on exactly how strategic authorities must work with the scheme. It will be up to strategic authorities to establish a system that is workable for them. Further, I point your Lordships to the existing guidance for strategic authorities on the development of local growth plans, which supports strategic authorities in establishing a productive relationship with investors.
I turn now to Amendment 150. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for asking important questions regarding a requirement for funds to participate in an asset pool. Asset pooling is the cornerstone of the Government’s investment reforms for the LGPS, bringing significant benefits of scale and expertise. As I have said, the Government are not seeking to undermine the fiduciary duty of local pension funds in any way. The responsibility to set an investment strategy—the key driver of investment returns—will remain with funds, ensuring that they retain local accountability and decision-making and that they can drive performance. The duty in this clause is complementary to the duty that will be placed on LGPS funds through regulations made under the Pension Schemes Bill. It will work effectively only if the concept of participation is defined in the same way in both pieces of legislation. That is why the Government are tabling amendments to this clause to reflect changes that have been made to the Pension Schemes Bill.
A question was asked about pooling. Integrated models in which strategic advice and investment management are both delivered by the same fiduciary manager are commonly used in private sector schemes and internationally. These models can deliver greater value for money and economies of scale. Asset pool companies will be required to have robust policies and procedures to identify and manage conflicts of interest. In contrast to external advisers, asset pools owned solely by LGPS AAs are expected to provide services in their interest. They do not stand to gain financially from the partner fund taking their advice or from providing poor-quality advice. I will look again at the noble Baroness’s speech in Hansard to make sure that we have covered all her questions and so that she has what we are doing in writing.
I turn now to government Amendments 151, 152, 154, 155, 156 and 157. These minor and technical amendments correct the definition of participating in an asset pool company. They will accommodate a pool company structure where the pool is owned by a holding company, thereby allowing an existing pool—the Local Pensions Partnership—to be included in the definition. This is not a change in policy but a correction.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, the Government have now confirmed a substantial programme of reform of the Local Government Pension Scheme through this Bill and the wider pensions Bill. Taken together, these measures represent a significant moment in the evolution of LGPS asset pooling and governance.
“(ab) being a shareholder in another company which is the only shareholder of the company, or”Member's explanatory statement
This reflects changes to the definition of an asset pool company in the Pension Schemes Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This reflects a numbering change in the Pension Schemes Bill.
“(ab) being a shareholder in another company which is the only shareholder of the company, or”Member's explanatory statement
This reflects changes to the definition of an asset pool company in the Pension Schemes Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This reflects a numbering change in the Pension Schemes Bill.
“(ab) being a shareholder in another company which is the only shareholder of the company, or”Member's explanatory statement
This reflects changes to the definition of an asset pool company in the Pension Schemes Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This reflects a numbering change in the Pension Schemes Bill.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I am intervening as the Whip just to say that this is rather a large group, which will probably take us to the time at which we should finish, at 8.15 pm. It is in the hands of noble Lords whether we complete the group or whether we have to split it and end up discussing it again in the next session.
Clause 44: Health improvement and health inequalities duty
Amendment 158
Lord Addington
Lord Addington (LD)
That is a challenge that the Committee should probably face more often.
The amendment calls on the function here of strategic authorities. It talks about sport and recreation and comes under the heading of health. There is a general consensus that exercise is the wonder drug. If you make your body exercise correctly, it has huge health benefits, physically and psychologically. This is about making sure that the strategic authorities allow these activities to take place. When I drafted this amendment, I was thinking about it on two levels. One was grass-roots sports—that is, are you allowing organised sport to take place and are you providing enough pitches for your football and rugby teams, and so on? Are you allowing enough recreational spaces for people to be able to take part in sport?
I look at the rest of the group, and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, is the only person to mention physical activity in her amendments, so I may be ploughing a lonely furrow—but I hope that it is not an inappropriate one. Unless we know that this is being taken on board and something is being done about it, it will get forgotten. Much of the structure here, especially in grass-roots sports, is under pressure anyway. The school structure is largely in individual academies, and public parks are difficult and expensive to maintain, if you want a flat, even surface to run around on. Very few sports do not have that basic requirement. It means keeping them drained and at least clean enough for you to go on them without risking injury or illness. It is a big ask.
Most noble Lords here are much more experienced in local government than me, but we do not do things like tennis courts that well and they are easy to cut. Can the Government give us some idea of what they are going to do here to make sure these facilities are kept available? They are preventative health, they maintain your health and they are a community asset. I have not even started to talk about sports centres and swimming pools—maybe we will take those as read—but what is the Government’s activity here and with how much seriousness do we address this? Sport is often regarded as not being important or anything to do with public health. That is the way it can seem to many of us, but it is actually a key component.
I have spoken enough so, bearing in mind the words of the Government Whip on this, I will curtail my comments here and beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to Amendment 159 and a number of other amendments in this group. I begin by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that he is not ploughing a lonely furrow. I would have signed his amendment if I could have caught up with myself, among many other things. Last night—or this morning; I have lost track—we were talking about these issues in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. As was evident there, I am sure we can get a similar head of steam for this Bill, and I am we can build up a head of steam when we get to Report, if it is necessary.
In the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I was pushing very hard for England to have a play sufficiency strategy at the national level, focused not so much on the formal team sports arrangement, like the noble Lord, but on the places where young people can simply go out, run around, climb a tree and all those sorts of things. That is something I am certainly very keen to pursue.
However, I am now going to make the Whip very happy. It is not something I say very often, so I hope the Whip has noticed. Although this is a very large list of amendments, many of them have the same intention as Amendment 159, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, has kindly attached her name. As the explanatory statement says, this
“broadens the list of health determinants and health outcomes”.
There is a large number of amendments here, and I will leave it to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, to explain the technicalities, rather than us going through all this twice—because she is definitely the expert in this space.
I tabled this amendment because health experts came to me and said that the Government’s wording is not right, and that they are not up to date with the latest ways of approaching and talking about these issues to make sure that they are not missing anything out. I very much hope the Minister will be prepared to work with interested people to make sure that the Bill is up to date with the latest thinking about public health, because it is surely important to ensure that mayors and strategic authorities start from the right place on public health.
I will devote most of my time to Amendment 168 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and to which I have attached my name, giving mayors the ability to carry out their functions regarding the display of advertising, transferring the powers under Section 220 of the Town and Country Planning Act to mayors and local authorities so they consider the impact of advertising on public health, and enabling them to regulate the content of advertisements deemed to have an adverse impact on local health and likely to exacerbate inequalities in health outcomes. This is an underconsidered area in which so much of the rest of the world is progressing, while we are not.
I have spoken before about how Sheffield, for example, with a visionary public health leader, has taken real steps to control the advertising occurring on council-owned billboards, et cetera. But, as I said, we are way behind. The excellent campaign group, Adfree Cities, charts how there are now 1,300 towns and cities around the world that have banned billboard advertising. Most recently, Amsterdam banned adverts for fossil fuels, flights, meat, and other harmful and high-carbon products.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 159, to which I have added my name, and a series of amendments in my name. I apologise to the Committee that they had to be put in individually for procedural reasons, but essentially they would add to the list in Clause 44, and they all have to be done twice because it appears twice. I hope to keep this as short as possible. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, these amendments were all suggested by researchers into the determinants of health to bring the clause into closer alignment with current research on the subject, as well as definitions, such as those used by the World Health Organization.
Everyone is delighted to see Clause 44 because there is good evidence that structural changes without changes in resourcing can make measurable differences to people’s health. I hope I can delight the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, further by picking on Manchester as another well-studied, brilliant example of the effects of devolution. The results showed higher life expectancy in the lower income areas, which researchers think are related to improved collaborations between different services rather than more money being spent. If this is a causal effect and can be replicated elsewhere, it would obviously be great, and it would be great to measure it. This is why the researchers want to get right the things being measured and being taken account of by a mayor.
This is where my little list comes in. First, it is important to take account of the right health outcomes. Researchers suggested the list of health outcomes in Amendment 159, which I did not prepare to speak about, but I think they are self-explanatory, so we can leave that there. The series of amendments in my name alter the list of determinants of these outcomes. They are things that we know might affect someone’s health, so we have to keep an eye on them. Some that are known from research are missing in the current draft of Clause 44. Amendment 167A would add the availability of housing to standards of housing in new Section 24A(5)(a) because homelessness and housing security, which are known to affect physical and mental health, would not technically fall under standards of housing.
Amendment 167B would add noise pollution as one of the environmental factors in new paragraph (b). It is well recognised by those who study public health that exposure to noise pollution can contribute to cardiovascular risks and poorer mental health, so we need to take it into account like we do other forms of pollution.
Amendment 167C would put educational opportunities and attainment alongside employment and earning prospects in new paragraph (c). In the WHO’s report, A Conceptual Framework for Action on the Social Determinants of Health, education is a key underlying structural determinant that can affect jobs, income and all the other downstream aspects. So improving access to educational opportunities is key to reducing inequalities, including in health.
Amendment 167D is more specific on the sorts of public services referred to in new paragraph (d), making it clear that they should include retail and health and leisure facilities—they can, therefore, include the negative effect of retailers of less healthy foods, for example, or the absence of active transport facilities—as well as education, employment and access to health and leisure facilities, encompassing all the key services that are known to shape people’s health.
Amendments 167E and 167F would modify new paragraph (e). As drafted, it is about the use of tobacco, alcohol and other lifestyle factors that may be harmful to health. Amendment 167F would explicitly add diet and physical activity as important determinants to be considered. Of course, we know how much these can positively or negatively affect health. Amendment 167E would therefore add “exposure to”, as well as “the use of”, to recognise that some people are passively exposed to not just tobacco but advertising for tobacco, alcohol and less healthy foods; this is a known determinant of health and driver of inequalities.
Finally, Amendment 167G would specify that
“any other matters that are determinants of life expectancy or the state of health of persons generally, other than genetic or biological factors”
should include
“social and structural conditions, including social class, gender, race, ethnicity and any other characteristics or forms of social inequality that influence exposure to advantage or disadvantage”.
That would better cover the remainder of other determinants of health that are well recognised and to which we would want mayors to have regard.
I hope that the Minister will consider the substance of these amendments because, although they are not professionally drafted, they are based on professional research in the field and, I think, get at exactly what the Government hope to achieve: a great step forward in public health.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman. What I have to add is that my Amendments 160, 161, 163, 164, 165 and 169 would bring a more climate change-related and environmental aspect to the asks of the Government. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman and Lady Bennett, said, we are really pleased that this is here; I very much feel that we can work together to build on it. Here, I note the work of Leeds University and the Yorkshire and Humber Climate Commission.
My first amendment is on energy. A 2023 European scoping review found that energy poverty and fuel poverty are significantly linked to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, excess winter mortality and poor mental health, with older people and children among the most vulnerable. A 2022 UCL Institute of Health Equity report found the same facts. It impacts population health at a structural level. In addition, I stress the low-carbon part of this amendment. Since the introduction of the ULEZ in London, gas boilers have somehow managed to become the largest source of nitrous oxide pollution. Air quality is listed in the Bill, but it is important to emphasise the interlinked nature: one impacts on the other.
My second amendment is on water pollution. Recent storms have highlighted—in fact, we were talking about this last night—the number of learning hours lost because of the fact that schools are flooded. We are extremely vulnerable to this, and we have very poor flood defences in our schools. I will not bore the Committee at length about the state of our waterways—every Peer in the place has already done this; I expect a Bill in the next Session—but, between 2010 and 2022, there was a 60% rise in hospital admissions for waterborne diseases in England. This is serious, as they are associated with gastrointestinal illnesses and reproductive and developmental issues.
On resilience, excess heat affects deprived communities more than wealthy ones due to the quality of buildings. A simple thing such as having leafy streets provides proper cooling.
I included my third amendment, on participation in democracy, because studies have shown that increased community involvement can have a really positive impact on health. Personally, I am very excited that, from this month, the National Lottery will devote either 20% or 25% of its entire funding to community engagement, such as community gardening and things like that. It makes a great statement about what really matters to people.
On food and diet, I very much support Amendment 168 on advertising. We know how bad food deserts are and how access to healthy food really affects poorer communities. Last week, I raised the issue of PFAS in a debate on the schools Bill. That is a Defra issue, of course, but it is relevant here because one of the prominent forms of exposure comes through our diet, particularly heating food in a plastic container in a microwave; that is, I am afraid, what lower-income families end up doing—so there is a double whammy.
Amendment 169 proposes a duty relating to allotments and nature-rich spaces. Again, this is something I have talked about a lot. I know that it is difficult for councils to create allotments because they are forever spaces, in a sense, but it is not difficult for councils to grant the right to grow in their communities and to issue meanwhile leases, which is what we did with capital growth in London; we created 2,500 spaces that are still going on now. These really make a big difference to communities. As I say, I am very pleased that the National Lottery is going in this direction on funding, because it will work with the Government and make a substantial difference to people’s real, lived experience.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 165A is in my name. It seeks to
“include wheelchair and community equipment provision in the list of ‘general health determinants’ that authorities need to have regard to as a cause of health inequality”.
My intention is to highlight to noble Lords that the provision of wheelchairs and community equipment for disabled people is, to put it bluntly, a disgrace. I urge the Government to look at the outcomes at the moment for those who depend on wheelchairs and disability equipment and, basically, to ensure that local authorities and the NHS play their part in putting things right.
As the Wheelchair Alliance has said, at the moment, there are no consistent national standards, there is no independent regulation and there are few clear paths for users seeking repairs, reporting faults or making complaints. As a result, many disabled people face long waiting times, delays in hospital discharge, loss of independence, social isolation and, tragically, avoidable deterioration in health and well-being. It is the same dismal picture with community equipment, embracing hoists, hospital beds, pressure-related mattresses, grab rails, bathing aids, harnesses and all of the other essential items that we need.
The All-Party Group for Access to Disability Equipment recently reported on the systemic crisis in this sector. Carers think that things are getting worse, and the system is inconsistent, underinvested, fragmented and lacking leadership. What is tragic is that this is easily sortable. I am convinced that, if we sorted this out, we would provide a better service at less cost, because the current system is just a complete and utter mess.
The reason why the Bill is suitable is because local authorities and integrated care boards share responsibility for community equipment. Wheelchair services and community equipment often reach the same individual; they should operate in tandem, but they are two distinct systems. In welcoming this very good clause, I would like an assurance that combined authorities, in collaboration with the NHS, will take their responsibilities in relation to wheelchair and community equipment services seriously.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, made an important point about the difficulties that local authorities sometimes have in working with the health service and in the release of budget. Here we have a situation where both types of authority spend money inefficiently. I am suggesting that we could provide a much better service. Either the quality will be much better or we will have consistent quality, at least; I do not think that it will cost a lot of extra money as well.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 166 would provide a clear mechanism for implementation and accountability of the proposed health duty, while maintaining local flexibility. It would require strategic authorities to produce a health inequality strategy and report on progress every five years.
In many ways, this follows the debate we had on earlier amendments. It is intended to provide a minimum standard and accountability for strategic authorities to adhere to, ensuring that they are meeting their new health duty. The requirement to report every five years was deliberately designed to be the same length of time as the proposed local growth plans will cover, to ensure that they better support one another in strengthening local economies and improving health. The amendment would also ensure that new strategic authorities will mirror existing practice in London, ensuring that health and well-being are embedded across all strategic functions.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 165A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and I thank him for tabling it. As a wheelchair user, I know from first-hand experience that if you cannot move around your own home or get out, to socialise with friends, go shopping or go to work, for example, that will inevitably have a negative impact on your health, both physical and mental.
Of course, each of these negative health impacts will also have an inevitable negative impact on the NHS, whether that is additional out-patient treatment or hospitalisation; on the retail sector, given that the purple pound—the spending power of households containing one or more disabled people—is estimated to be worth £274 billion; on the disability benefits bill, which, in October 2024, the OBR estimated to be £48 billion; and on the disability employment gap, which continues to hover at around 30%. Does the Minister therefore accept that access to wheelchair and community equipment services is, as his noble friend argued, a health inequality issue? Does he also accept that, while not purporting to be a panacea, the approach proposed by his noble friend’s amendment does at least seek to put this issue on the radar? I fear that it is not currently on the radar—if it is, it is only an obscure blip at the edge of a screen.
The neglect of wheelchair and community equipment services by successive Governments has consequences. I do not propose to repeat the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, but I add that, if weak regulation and limited transparency are not a recipe for success anywhere else, why should NHS wheelchair and community equipment services be the exception? This fragmented system makes it hard to challenge poor performance. Without national direction, inequality has become normalised.
To finish, fragmentation may make for better ICB balance sheets in the short term, but history shows that, in the medium term, it is a very costly false economy. In short, we are cutting our nose to spite our face. This amendment invites us to look at the bigger picture. I hope very much that the Minister will agree, and I look forward to his response.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 165A. One in three eligible disabled people are still waiting for approved community equipment; one in five wait more than two months and 74% of delayed hospital discharges are linked to equipment delays. This amendment would include wheelchair and community equipment provision in the list of general health determinants that authorities need to have regard to as a cause of health inequality. I hope that my noble friend can include this important equality provision for disabled people, which is both economically and socially relevant.
House of Lords
Retirement of a Member: Lord Mandelson
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I announced in the Chamber yesterday that the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, had given notice of his retirement. I now formally notify the House of his retirement, with effect from today, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014.
NHS: Corridor Care
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the provision of corridor care in the NHS; and what plans they have to mitigate any issues arising.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, we have introduced new data collection on corridor care, which will be published shortly for the first time. We are taking sustained action to reduce the use of corridor care, ensuring that there are safeguards for patients in the interim to still receive high-quality and safe care with dignity and privacy. We are investing £450 million to expand same-day and urgent care services, and to improve hospital flow, as well as introducing new clinical operational standards.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply, but I want to understand when a credible long-term delivery plan will be published—rather than “in the near future”—to restore year-round resilience, making whole-system patient flow a core performance priority. Unnecessary stays in hospital are linked to worse patient outcomes, and it should be possible to reduce the nearly 13,000 beds occupied on average each day in 2025 by people medically fit for discharge, in turn reducing the need for corridor care.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Let me say at the outset that corridor care should not be normalised; it is not what we want to see as routine. The reality is that we cannot eliminate it entirely—I think that is understood—but the current situation is not as we would want it to be. In addition to the Urgent and Emergency Care Plan 2025/26, which sets out clear actions to deliver improvements, the most challenged trusts are receiving targeted support. Looking to the future, as the noble Baroness asked about, the medium-term planning framework clearly sets out a trajectory to improve the situation. The introduction of clinical guidelines for the first 72 hours will also increase the proportion of people discharged within 72 hours. I very much recognise the situation the noble Baroness describes.
Baroness Kingsmill (Lab)
My Lords, as a former chair of an NHS community trust, I say that the situation often arises because of the shortage of social and community care. What are the Government doing to address those issues?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
On social care, we are making progress on building a national care service. Around £4.6 billion of additional funding has been made available for adult social care by 2028-29. Along with other matters, including funds to improve and provide adaptation so that people can return home when they would not have been able to otherwise, we are providing funding of over £1 billion for adult social care with local authorities. This can be used to expand capacity. Of course, we have an independent commission chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, in a recent survey 78% of physicians reported undertaking corridor care. It is becoming almost the norm all the year round. It affects patients’ dignity, health and safety, and patient outcomes, because there are greater infection rates. I welcome the Minister’s points on the action that the Government are taking, but it is rather long-sighted and there is a real urgency to do something now.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness. Corridor care is perhaps one of the most visible and distressing symptoms of an NHS that the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, described as broken. We have to fix a number of the processes. I welcome that we are expanding urgent care access, for example, in primary, community and mental health settings, which will reduce demand on services. However, without publicly available data and the clinical operational standards that we are setting, the change will not be made as quickly as we would all like. There are immediate actions, as well as medium and long-term actions.
Lord Rennard (LD)
I shall pass on your Lordships’ best wishes to her. Last year, she was taken ill and the ambulance took her to a Liverpool hospital in the early afternoon, but, after some tests, no bed could be found for her. She spent the rest of the day and all of the night on a trolley in a corridor. Every hour throughout the night she was moved along, deprived of sleep and the basic provisions, including food and drink, which she would have had on a ward. What are the Government now doing to tackle the problem of delayed transfer of care, which results in fewer beds being available? Does the Minister accept that this can be done only by properly resourcing adult social care?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with the need for more adult social care, but there is a whole range of factors that affect discharge delays, including the number of people who present. What the noble Lord outlined was not right and not the way in which his mother-in-law should have been dealt with. I know he would not expect me to comment further on individual circumstances, but if somebody is being considered for corridor care, that should be appropriately risk-assessed by clinical teams. The exact point he made is something that I have asked about. There should be a named nurse, and the provisions he talked about, such as food and drink, should have been there.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will have the Cross Benches and then we will come to the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
We know from evidence that you can avoid hospital admission by improving continuity of care by general practitioners. When will the Minister redress the imbalance whereby GPs are funded from only 8% of the NHS budget yet deliver 70% to 80% of its care?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We very much appreciate the role that GPs play. Corridor care is related to a whole range of factors, not only the position of GPs. I have heard what the noble Baroness has said and will gladly relate it to my ministerial colleague.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister referenced data collection in her previous responses. In November, hospitals carried out 10% fewer operations than in October, but the Government claim the waiting list went down. Is that because the Government are paying hospitals £3 million per month in a process known as “validation”, and so it appears that the health service is treating more patients than it actually is? Is that the real reason that corridor care numbers are up?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
No. I hope that the noble Lord would welcome a greater level of activity in this area. The waiting lists are going down. We have delivered, for example, 5.2 million extra appointments since we came into government, when we had promised just 2 million. Waiting lists are going down, and I am very happy to provide the data again to the noble Lord so that he can investigate that.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
It is definitely the turn of the Labour Benches. Can noble Lords make up their minds quickly?
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, my recent experience in care homes is that there are vacancies—unfilled beds—in private care homes. When are we going to do something about the mismatch of people in corridors, when beds are available? There needs to be some system introduced to get people into them.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The first thing that needs to happen is that people need to be cared for in the hospital. As I said in answer to an earlier question, everybody should be assessed according to their need. If there is a shortage of beds, it is for that hospital to manage. There will always be a difference of demand. However, where there are problems in hospitals that are not responding as they should, we are putting in improvement teams to ensure that change can be made. Of course, it is only when people are well enough, and it is suitable and safe to discharge them, that they will be discharged. It is important to match up availability of social care beds to needs.
Land Covenants: Supermarket Chains
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they are having with the Competition and Markets Authority about updating the rules relating to land covenants on supermarket chains.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in doing so, I declare my interest as a holder of a number of loyalty club cards with various supermarket chains and also my membership of the Co-op.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Lord Stockwood) (Lab)
My Lords, the Competition and Markets Authority is currently assessing whether additional retailers should be designated under the controlled land order and brought within its scope. We continue to engage with the CMA and will consider its findings carefully once it has concluded its assessment later this year.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I thank the Minister for that incomplete reply. The situation is absolutely unsatisfactory in that the seven main supermarket chains have been obliged to adhere to strict requirements on restrictive covenants in their area, preventing others from opening shops nearby, whereas newcomers such as Aldi and Lidl, which have now grown to an enormous size—a commensurate size—are not required to fulfil those obligations. That surely is wrong. If the Competition and Markets Authority has any role in life, surely it must be to have a level-playing field in retailing.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I am assuming from the noble Lord’s question that he does not have Aldi and Lidl advantage cards as well. Just to acknowledge, the CMA is currently doing its work, including on a consultation to get feedback on how Aldi and Lidl should be treated. We acknowledge that the argument for exemption does distort the market, but the independence of the CMA must be respected. I share the noble Lord’s views that it seems right on face value that Aldi and Lidl should be brought into that same regime.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as well as the issue of Aldi and Lidl, there is also the issue of almost complete non-compliance with the 2010 order system. The CMA has identified multiple repeated breaches across all of the seven majors, as mentioned by the noble Lord. So, in addition to having this system, it is entirely unenforceable because the CMA has no legal powers to fine on this issue. The whole thing is being brought into disrepute by the absence of any real enforcement. Can the Minister confirm that the digital markets Act gives powers that could be taken by the CMA to fine on this issue, and will that be one of the issues that the CMA will be reviewing?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
The CMA has a broad primary and competition regulatory framework. It is equipped with the powers to investigate and to act against anti-competitive conduct. On the specific question about the digital Bill, I will have to consult with colleagues and come back to the noble Lord; I am not familiar with it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, we all recognise the importance of competition, not just for economic growth but for the competitive pressure that keeps prices low for consumers. As the Minister has acknowledged, it is obviously not fair that some large retailers operate under different rules. At the same time, however, the fairness test fails when one considers this Government’s business rate policies. Does the Minister think it is fair that business rates will rise by 115% on hotels over three years but only 4% on supermarkets?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
Taking a broad perspective on the question, I came into government to support the pro-business agenda. What the Government are trying to enact is the ability to stabilise the economy based on fiscal rules, to create an investment environment that is investable from all parts of the market, and then, importantly, to look at regulation to enforce that fairness and sense of competitive tension. The Government are committed to reforming the business rates regime, and that work has already begun. At the Budget, the Chancellor announced a permanent 5p cut in the business rates multiplier for over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties, which is also funded by the higher tax rate for the most expensive 1% of properties. We continue to take feedback to try to create the right fiscal conditions for businesses to be able to thrive.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, like most regulators, this one is failing the general public. Do we not need to review all our regulators to make sure that they are doing the job that they are supposed to do? If the legislation needs strengthening, then strengthen it—but also hold the regulators to account for the work that they do.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I share some of the views that the noble Lord put over. As I have learned from my 20-plus years in business, the role of government is to set the regulatory conditions so that business can do the work in growing the economy. What we are seeing from the Government is a commitment to reduce the regulatory burden overall. Our Regulation Action Plan commits to reducing the £22 billion annual burden by 25%. There are reforms in place, and the unlocking business consultation means that we will take direct feedback from the market. It is beholden on us to ensure we set the conditions for businesses to thrive, while also ensuring that we have the right regulation in place so that we do not see the abuses of power that have been suggested by these particularly restrictive covenants.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the CMA also has a role to play in looking at the work of the Groceries Code Adjudicator? There is a great imbalance of power between the big supermarkets and the very small horticultural businesses and fruit growers in this country. Does he agree that it would be better if the Groceries Code Adjudicator could take an own-initiative inquiry off its own bat, rather than waiting for a producer to come forward with a complaint? That producer could so easily be identified and possibly lose their contract with the supermarket.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
In my relative newness to government, I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. Overall, it is correct that the CMA’s regulatory framework should have independence. I would love to pick up that discussion outside the Chamber; I do not know the detail of that, but it sounds like an important thing that we should follow up on.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I will pick up from my noble friend’s question comparing hospitality and retail on the high street. Recently, a pub closed on a high street that was paying £67,000 in business rates. It was taken over by a supermarket, which now pays £16,000 in business rates—and, of course, supermarkets sell alcohol at cost price. Can the Minister look into this and provide much-needed help for hospitality on our high streets? Without hospitality, our high streets will become deserts.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
Again, the noble Lord raises an important issue about our high streets. While it is not within the range of this Question, I am willing to follow it up. The Government announced a £150 million package for supporting our high streets, but I agree that we should go further on this.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, in considering the use of land by supermarkets, does the Minister agree with me that there is huge acreage sitting unused on top of supermarkets throughout the country? Given the housing shortage, would it not make sense to put pressure on supermarkets to use that space to provide housing, perhaps in a prefab state so that it is made easily, quickly and accessibly? After all, the shops are nearby.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
It is important to state that the reason for some of these restrictive covenants in business is that they are commercially negotiated and should be mutually agreed in the bounds of setting up a contract. This is quite a normal course of action, so I want to make sure that I am not stood here in any way demonising the large retailers entirely. However, particularly pertinent to the point of the homes target, the Government, through the Planning and Infrastructure Act, are looking at how we streamline all our planning for homes and critical infrastructure, and I suggest that land usage by the major retailers would come within that review as well.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Watts, does the Minister share my concern that, over recent months, there is increasing evidence that delays from the Competition and Markets Authority are having a serious effect on a number of key areas? The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned the digital markets regulation side, but there are also outstanding decisions on veterinary services, cloud computing and legal services. The Minister may be aware that the authority is now looking at what it calls the four Ps project—pace, predictability, proportionality and process. Is he happy with its progress?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
In preparation for this Question, I spent a bit more time than I should have done learning about the CMA’s role. I agree that, as we look to create a regulatory framework that is both agile and appropriate, it is only right that we ask the same questions of the CMA. There is a strong strategic steer from this Government about making sure that we have the right regulation and application for growth and pace. On price, product, place and promotion, I suggest that we have to reverse that and apply it to the CMA, so I will be asking that question and will come back to the noble Lord on that.
Think Tanks: Funding
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rennard
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the level of transparency required for the funding of think tanks, including in relation to funding from abroad.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, it is for each individual think tank to publicise and declare their sources of funding. Think tanks with charitable status must follow Charity Commission guidance, ensuring political activity remains subsidiary and exclusively furthers their charitable purposes. The Government are committed to responding to threats of foreign interference in our democracy. We eagerly await the findings of Philip Rycroft’s independent review into countering foreign financial influence, which will report by the end of March.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, for 25 years, political parties have had to declare their significant sources of income, but so-called think tanks that promote the causes of some political parties, and undertake research and produce reports helpful to them, do not have to declare any such funding. The right-wing think tanks based at Tufton Street refuse to declare their sources of funding but have been linked with the fossil fuel industry, property developers, tobacco companies and dark-money trusts in the US. Since 2012, anonymous foundations in the United States have poured over $14 million into these groups. Money to them is also filtered via charities. Will the Minister confirm that the elections Bill will tackle this anomaly and make such funding completely transparent?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his work in this space to make sure that we have faith and trust in the many democratic institutions that are part of the wider ecosystem. On the substance of his question, electoral law already covers think tanks that donate or spend during regulated election periods. Our reforms will ensure that those with a genuine UK connection can contribute to our democracy—for instance, by requiring recipients to undertake “know your donor” due diligence to guard against illegitimate foreign funding. The Government are committed to protecting our democracy from foreign actors. As I said, the Rycroft review will form a vital part of this work. I look forward to discussing this—over many hours, probably—in your Lordships House when the legislation is in front of us.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I am the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation—one of those institutions that occupies an address in Tufton Street. I can declare most absolutely that the foundation has never and will never take money from the fossil fuel industry. But if changes are afoot in this whole field—the Minister said clearly that if institutions are involved in the political field, they are already caught by regulations requiring reporting to the Electoral Commission—let us hope they apply as well to the left-wing charities that some would prefer, if they are to apply to right-wing charities that some do not like.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am not sure there was a question in there, but I will take the opportunity to reassure your Lordships that, just as CC9 guidance for the Charity Commission applies to every charity, regardless of their charitable objectives, and just as the electoral law applies to every third-party campaigner, the issue is making sure that people who actively participate in our elections are duly registered as third-party campaigners.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, on transparency, is the Minister aware of the Fundraising Regulator’s concerns about the registration of very small community interest companies at Companies House? They prefer that route of registration in order to avoid Charity Commission oversight and evade all accountability in terms of fundraising. I understand that the Government are in talks with the Fundraising Regulator and others to improve that situation. Can she tell the House when those talks might come to an end?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I am afraid I am not in a position to update her on the timescale or the development of those talks, but I will make sure that she gets an answer.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest: I used to work for the all-party think tank Chatham House, which always declares its donors, as all partisan or non-partisan think tanks should. The Minister may have noticed that, some days ago, the Free Speech Union took out an emergency injunction to prevent the publication of its donors. We are talking about a range of bodies which are partisan think tanks, lobbies trying to influence the political debate, and third parties, in effect, and we need to tighten the rules on those bodies. It is money coming in from the United States and the UAE, as well as from hostile states such as Russia and China in much smaller numbers. Some of the money coming in from the Gulf states to the Blair Foundation, I think, is very considerable. Should there not be tougher rules to make sure that transparency is insisted on in all cases?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware that last year, we published our anti-corruption strategy, which outlined the risks posed by corrupt actors who are seeking to influence UK institutions or launder their reputations by engaging in some organisations. As I have said before from this Dispatch Box, we have also recently launched the Counter Political Interference and Espionage Action Plan, which addresses how some state actors use different elements of the state. But the one thing that is incredibly important within the context of all these issues is that fundamentally, our country is run by the Government, and it is Ministers who make final decisions, supported by an impartial Civil Service. Those aspects are key and, while engagement with wider stakeholders is incredibly important and is covered by the Ministerial Code, it is about the integrity of our Ministers and making sure that we have a consistent, impartial Civil Service.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is not the only way to address this to require all think tanks to publish annual reports on where their sources of funding are coming from? It is clear that many have a political agenda, and it is important for our democracy that they are transparent.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, if a think tank is a charity, it is subject to regulation by the Charity Commission. If it is engaging in election activity, it is subject to the Electoral Commission for any spend over £10,000 and donations over £700. But the noble Lord raises an important point, which is why we asked Philip Rycroft to undertake his review, and I look forward to reading it at the end of March.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, think tanks plays an important role in advancing democratic engagement by developing ideas and policy. There is currently no legal requirement for them to disclose their funders, and imposing such a requirement on charities and research institutes would risk a disproportionate intrusion into civil society. The ability of organisations across the political spectrum to contribute freely to public debate is an important part of our civic strength. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the Government recognise the value of the current arrangements in enabling think tanks to carry out this work and that they have no plans to change that existing regime?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I hate to disappoint the noble Baroness, but I cannot and will not. To be very clear, while I appreciate and have worked directly with think tanks—as I think most Members of your Lordships’ House have—and sat on panels and engaged with them, the reality is that if a regulatory framework is required to make sure that people know who they are engaging with and whether there are any ulterior motives, we have to be clear on what those are. I have written for organisations such as the Policy Exchange, and I used to run HOPE not hate, a third-party campaign organisation. There are different structures that everybody has to engage with, but it is only right and proper that we know who is funding what, when and why.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, do the reforms the Government have coming down the line cover the structure and scale of think tanks? One might call itself the “worldwide progressive institute” and you would think, “Oh, they must be good”, but it is actually just a chap and his dog in his mum’s spare bedroom. So, will the reforms cast some light into the spare bedroom?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I was hoping we would go for the dog rather than the spare bedroom.
As I have said, Philip Rycroft is looking at some of these issues of foreign interference in the round. There is a genuine issue, and my noble friend raises a genuinely important point about knowing who we are engaging with and why. We have seen in recent days, not least when I was in front of your Lordships’ House discussing it, why we need the espionage strategy, and to make sure people know who they are talking to and why. This is the case for lobbying as much as for think tanks, and we need to make sure the right regulatory environment is in place.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one of the previous questions to the noble Baroness was about all political parties having to declare where their sources of income are from. Of course, that is not the case: Sinn Féin does not have to declare this because it is an all-Ireland party. Can she confirm whether Philip Rycroft will look at this issue as well? It is an important issue, because Sinn Féin is standing in elections to the other place.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I knew I was going to get that question. I would like to thank the noble Baroness for the question—I think. She is absolutely right, and I have had several meetings, including with the Election Commissioner for Northern Ireland, about some of the things operating in this space. I will talk to the noble Baroness outside your Lordships’ House, but I will also write to her with any specific details.
Baby Milk Powder: Cereulide
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have identified any systemic issues following the discovery of the toxin cereulide in baby milk powder sold in the UK; and if so, what steps they plan to take as a result.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, Nestlé and Danone launched product recalls of certain infant formula products because of the possible presence of cereulide toxin. This is a live incidence and it is too early to identify any systemic issues.
The Food Standards Agency is working across agencies and with the Department of Health and Social Care to manage the incident response. The FSA has published information on the product recalls on its website, including advice for consumers.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for her Answer, but I would posit that there is very clearly a well-identified systemic problem that non-mandatory ingredients such as arachidonic acid, which is the source of the current contamination in Nestlé and Danone products, place a burden on infant metabolism and create multiple potential points of microbial and other contamination in the manufacturing process by the four companies that supply the vast bulk of infant formula in this country through complex, for-profit global supply chains. Are the Government going to look into further action on this?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Obviously, we are very concerned about toxins and ensuring that there is no damage done to people: that is the reason for the product recall. The effect of this is that it creates bacteria, so it is like food poisoning in that respect.
With regard to what the noble Baroness has said about ARA oil, the concern of the FSA is very much about safety. What has happened here, as I understand, is that ARA oil is a very common ingredient, but this one appears to have had some contamination, which has affected certain batches, and it is those that are being recalled.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, what the Minister said is correct, but only partially. Arachidonic acid is the key component that may contain bacillus cereus, which is the product that produces the toxin cereulide, which causes problems for babies including vomiting and diarrhoea. It is the same as any bacteria or virus that causes the gut rot that we often experience. It is a supply chain problem and the current regulatory mechanism relies on self-regulation. That is what needs to be addressed. We had a similar problem in 2008 with another chemical called melamine, which was in milk products and caused kidney damage to babies. Does the Minister agree that it is the regulation of the supply chain and production that needs to be addressed?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As ever, the noble Lord has put things better than I did. I understand the point he is making. The FSA’s role, certainly in the incident response, includes chasing supply chains to identify any additional potential products and businesses. I certainly agree that it is very important to stem any difficulty. But, as it is a live incident, the only point I would make, as I said to the noble Baroness, is that the focus is very much on managing the situation. Therefore, there has not been the opportunity to look into the detail that I agree it needs. That will happen, as it always does, in an incident such as this.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that it took Nestlé four weeks from its first notification of contamination to the Dutch Government to initiate the first product recall on 5 January, following further tests? Does she agree that there should be independent testing, rather than relying on in-house testing by the formula producers? Does she agree that that independent testing should be triggered, at the very least, at the first whiff of any possible contamination?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
In my preparation for this Question, which is an important one, I asked a similar question to officials, particularly those from the FSA, and they assured me that testing shows we are meeting the right standards. They also made the point that this is all covered by the Food Safety Act. In their opinion, they have the tools to do the job. I am not aware that there has been something wrong in the management of this live incident, but I am aware that the FSA and the UK Health Security Agency are liaising very closely with the manufacturers to establish the root cause of the possible presence of this toxin. But I can also reassure your Lordships’ House that it is confined to certain batches. That is the information that is going out.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, providing the best nutrition for children of all ages is surely a “must have”. So, why do the Government allow ultra-processed foods to constitute between two-thirds and three-quarters of calories in UK school meals? They are high in fat, sugar and salt. That is not a good combination.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Earl has moved from food safety to what is in food. Food standards applicable to school meals are both monitored and in place. As he knows, the general advice from the NHS on processed foods is that we would all benefit from eating less of the foods that are high-fat, high-salt and high-sugar. But those foods are not presenting the immediate safety concerns. I make that distinction as we are looking here at toxins in products.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, of course the best food for babies comes from breastfeeding. May I advocate that we should not lose sight of the fact that many mothers do breastfeed? But I understand the anguish and fear that mothers who cannot breastfeed have had in relation to this incident, and the department needs to do more to make young new mothers aware of the issue, because, as the Minister and I know, there is a shortage of community midwives and health visitors.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That last point is something that will be looked at as part of workforce planning. I totally agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of the multidisciplinary team in supporting new mothers to find the right ways that are suitable for them and best for their baby—and I am glad the noble Baroness accepted that breastfeeding is not possible for everybody.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as the grandmother of a baby who was born pre-term, I was very interested in this incident. As far as I could make out, it seems to have been well publicised, and those who might be affected got to know of it very quickly. Is there any evidence that harm has been caused, or did the Food Standards Agency, which was set up to deal with these sorts of things, do a decent job on this occasion?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am certainly convinced that more than a decent job has been done on this occasion. I know that the FSA, along with the department and the UK Health Security Agency, have, as was said to me, been working non-stop since the incident was notified, and I am genuinely reassured by that. What I would say is that alternatives are available, there is no problem with the supply of alternatives and if anybody—grandmothers, mothers, parents, friends, or whoever—has concerns, they should check the NHS website and the FSA website and, if they remain concerned, they should seek guidance from a medical professional. There are people who are potentially affected, but, as I said, this is a live incident and it is being monitored.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I have in the past given notice to the Minister about this, with regard not to milk but to other issues: for example, where small humans, such as embryos or babies, come in contact with fluids or chemicals that might be dangerous. It is not only milk that may need better observation. Does she agree that we should look rather carefully at how we regulate the fluids used for culture of human tissues, in particular embryos, where there may be some risks of not getting better results, or possibly even of danger to the embryo?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Safety is paramount, whether we are talking about embryos, adults or children. I would be pleased to hear from my noble friend if there are particular areas on which he would like to be reassured, or at least responded to. But I hope that, in respect of food safety, in this situation, your Lordships’ House will see that all actions have been taken by the relevant authorities, with speed and in line with the laws available.
Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:28 - Division on the amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 62 / Noes: 295 - Amendment to the Motion disagreed.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 27 November 2025 be approved.
Relevant document: 45th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I will come on to the SI in detail in a moment, but I begin by reminding the House of a Labour manifesto commitment that is central to this area of work.
The Labour Government have planned to champion robust and world-leading animal welfare standards. On Tuesday 11 November, the Government published our animals in science strategy, a joint effort led by my noble friend Lord Vallance and supported by my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock and me. The policy statement was to phase out animal use in science, as announced by a Written Ministerial Statement. This policy has been welcomed by animal welfare groups, industry and academia. We have been clear that this can be done only at a pace that scientific advances allow, and that in some areas it will be essential to continue the use of animals in science for specific purposes.
It is therefore critical—this is where I return to the SI—that, although the Government’s direction of travel is to find alternatives to animals in science and phase out their use, we ensure at the same time that we get growth potential from this business in the world at large. The protection of those critical resources, while we try to reduce and eliminate their use where possible, is therefore essential. The purpose of the SI is to better protect facilities that are indeed essential for developing treatments for human and animal diseases. That is why, although the government manifesto’s direction of travel is clear and will, I hope, be met, the life sciences industry remains integral to this country. It is central to health resilience, to pandemic preparedness and to capabilities in this area. In my view, recent experience underscores why we must be prepared at all times to respond to such a crisis.
This Government want the UK to become a global beacon for scientific discovery. The life sciences sector employs over 350,000 people and generates £150 billion-worth of turnover annually. The sector is essential to the development of new treatments and crucial to the safety testing of new medicines and vaccines. No one knows that better than my noble friend Lord Vallance, who dealt with such issues during the response to the Covid-19 outbreak; its contribution in that instance cannot be overstated.
When it comes to the SI, recent protest activity has deliberately targeted the life science sector, threatening the UK’s sovereign capability to produce vaccines, medicines and therapies, and has disrupted supply chains that are, in my view, indispensable to research and national health protection. As a result of that disruption, work that is of significant benefit to society is, I am afraid, placed at risk. It is therefore incumbent on the Government of the day to act without delay.
That brings me directly to the subject of our debate today. The legislation before the House will address the issue that I have outlined by amending Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023 to add the life sciences sector to the list of key national infrastructure. This will make it a criminal offence to deliberately or recklessly disrupt life sciences infrastructure or interfere with its use or operation. Anyone convicted of this offence will, obviously, have been arrested by the police and potentially warned by them, and the CPS will have gone through those charges, but anyone who ultimately faces that conviction will face a penalty of up to 12 months’ imprisonment, a fine or both. In turn, this change will strengthen the police’s ability to, in my view, respond to disruptive protest activity that is undermining our national health resilience.
The legislation will cover infrastructure that primarily facilitates pharmaceutical research, or the development or manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, or which is used in connection with activities authorised legally by Parliament under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That will include pharmaceutical laboratories, medicine and vaccine manufacturing facilities, suppliers of animals for research and academic laboratories carry out research involving animals.
It is clear that when Parliament passed the Public Order Act 2023, it explicitly deemed it necessary to build in the ability for new elements to be added to Section 7. The original section covered vital infrastructure being targeted by overtly disruptive protest; the life science sector now faces precisely the same situation. Parliament deliberately framed the definitions in the Act widely and explicitly allowed Parliament to add to the list of key national infrastructure, should the need arise. Today, that need has arisen.
If I may, I will directly address the fatal amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. First, I disagree with the stance and content of the amendment, but I think I have a duty to explain why. Let us take the components in turn. The noble Baroness has argued that the regulations constitute “legislative overreach” and
“extend the definition of ‘critical national infrastructure’ beyond its appropriate meaning”.
I will listen to her comments, but it is important that we put this on the record now.
Disruption to the life science sector poses significant and imminent risk to this country’s ability to act in a medical crisis and, if not addressed, could seriously undermine the UK’s readiness for the next pandemic. This is entirely in keeping with the existing definition of key national infrastructure and, given the risk posed to the country, in my view it comfortably meets the Government’s high threshold for this protection. The key national infrastructure sections that we have already include road transport, rail infrastructure, air transport infrastructure, harbours, downstream oil infrastructure, gas infrastructure, onshore oil and gas, onshore electricity generation and newspaper printing infrastructure. I suggest that support for activity in a medical crisis meets that criterion.
Secondly, the noble Baroness argues in her amendment that the proposal from me and the Government today further restricts
“the democratic right to peaceful protest”.
Let me be clear to this House: the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental part of our democratic society. People should have the right to protest. If they wish to protest, they should have that right. I have undertaken protest myself. This measure is not to limit protests: it does not prohibit or restrict peaceful protests, but there is a balance to be struck, and the right to protest does not extend to causing serious disruption to or imperilling that key national infrastructure.
Finally, the noble Baroness’s amendment includes an assertion that
“sufficient steps to end animal testing have not been taken”.
I referred in my opening remarks—I put those at the top of my speech, because I am quite proud of this— to the fact that my noble friends Lord Vallance and Lady Hayman of Ullock have, with me, brought forward a manifesto commitment in the first year of this Labour Government to publish a strategy to replace animals in science. It sets out how we will create a revolutionary research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternative methods, the key caveat being “wherever possible”. That technology, which my noble friend is very much on top of, will develop. We hope to replace animals in science as we can and to phase them out, in line with our manifesto commitment.
Through the Office for Life Sciences, my noble friend Lord Vallance has allocated £75 million in funding alongside publication of the strategy to help ensure that we can develop those alternatives, which will support laboratories in moving away from animal testing and adopting safe, proven alternatives. Nobody in this country of animal lovers wants to see suffering or their unnecessary use. The Government’s plan will support that work to end animal testing, wherever possible, and roll out alternatives as soon as it is effective and safe to do so. In doing so, that will contribute to the export potential and the growth agenda for this country, and the serious scientific research that this country can utilise to make a difference in the world at large.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
As an amendment to the above motion, to leave out from “that” and to insert “this House declines to approve the draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 on the basis that they are legislative overreach; they extend the definition of “critical national infrastructure” beyond its appropriate meaning; the practical need for such an extension has not been adequately justified; they represent a further restriction on the democratic right to peaceful protest; and sufficient steps to end animal testing have not been taken.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for both outlining the statutory instrument and explaining my amendment to decline to approve it. I am going to structure my speech in an unconventional manner, starting with the points that I know the fewest people in this Chamber will agree with, moving backwards through the order in the amendment to the point that I believe that most people in this Chamber, particularly the Benches to my right, might be persuaded to agree with. I will finish not on points about animal testing or the right to protest, but on the basic constitutional understanding that statutory instruments are a way in which the law can be illegitimately extended well beyond the original intentions manifested when it was democratically debated, pored over and scrutinised, in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. This statutory instrument is a notable and dangerous piece of legislative overreach.
I start with animal testing, the phasing out of which, as the amendment says, is not going nearly quickly enough under the replacing animals in science strategy. Why do I argue that this is too slow? It is for morality and for efficacy. There is public revulsion, yes, which results in widespread peaceful protest about the treatment of more than 2.5 million animals a year used in medical research here. More than that, there is a recognition of the inadequacy of animal testing, the “valley of death” that sees drugs apparently showing promise in animals failing to work in humans. Animal Free Research UK reports that that is the case for over 92% of drugs, and that failure makes up 75% of the cost of drug development. As an entire edition of the journal Frontiers in Immunology published in 2024 points out, there are 90 million years of evolution between humans and rodents.
However, there are alternatives. Our Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance of Balham, said last November:
“Now, new advances in technology—particularly AI and genomics, but also organoid and 3D cell systems—finally allow us to see a path to changing our reliance on animals in science”.
But this SI will be an active discouragement to the commercial companies to push on in this direction, the direction in which the Government say they want to head and for which public pressure—democratic forces—is clearly important.
My second argument, to quote the amendment, is that the SI reflects
“a further restriction on the democratic right to peaceful protest”.
That was the key concern in the debate on the SI in the other place of many of the 26 Labour MPs who voted against it. The Mother of the House, Diane Abbott, was among the 110 “no” tally. Among the Labour opponents were Stella Creasy and Kerry McCarthy, former Shadow Minister of State for Defra and a former Minister for Climate. As was suggested after the debate by Neil Duncan-Jordan, the Labour MP for Poole:
“This proposal treats private, often American-owned companies the same as airports, motorways and utilities. It shields private profits from fair criticism and puts them above our right to protest. That is not right”.
Protest is part of our political system, and it is a crucial part of delivering democracy. The Minister suggested that recent developments in protest had demanded that this SI be brought in. I can go back to the 19th century, when the UK was a leader in protest movements, such as anti-vivisection, through the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876.
I have circulated two briefings to noble Lords. One of those represents some 21 signatories, among them Protect the Wild, Camp Beagle, Medicine Without Cruelty and the Network for Police Monitoring, known as Netpol. It says that some 30,000 emails have been sent to noble Lords; I apologise to the many who have written to me personally, but I do not have the capacity to respond individually. Together with the other briefing written by Naturewatch Foundation, and supported by 26 other signatories, including Cruelty Free International, Wildlife and Countryside Link, Lush cosmetics and the Animal Law Foundation, this indicates that the SI in question represents a significant and unprecedented expansion of public order powers—already some of the most far-reaching protest-related restrictions in recent UK law—and would extend them to a broad and very loosely defined sector. When it comes to animal testing, the Government have failed to demonstrate why existing laws covering harassment, obstruction, criminal damage and public order are not already sufficient.
I turn to what I believe is my point of broadest appeal, and an appeal of considerable constitutional significance. I thank Jennifer Scotney, our staff member, for going through all the debates on the original Bill. In the Commons Public Bill Committee, the right honourable Kit Malthouse stated:
“The offence will cover major roads, railways, airports, harbours, and downstream oil and gas infrastructure”.
The Explanatory Notes to the Bill list transport and energy, and add newspaper printing infrastructure, but Parliament did not scrutinise life sciences as key national infrastructure. Its later inclusion relies solely on delegated powers and was not the original legislative intent. KNI was identified as specific, identifiable physical systems whose operation underpins daily life. Life sciences, by contrast, is a broad sector, operating largely on private land, consisting of thousands of sites of varying importance. To quote the right honourable Kit Malthouse again:
“Minor infrastructure such as undesignated roads and small-scale power stations will be out of scope”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Order Bill Committee, 14/6/22; col. 134.]
If minor or diffused infrastructure was deliberately excluded, a whole commercial research sector cannot logically fit within the definition. The National Police Chiefs’ Council testified that it would have concern about an explicit duty being placed on policing to deal with an activity on private land.
Emergency services, health, and food services were explicitly rejected as not being suitable for inclusion in the Bill; Ministers said that they were not in scope. In Committee in the Commons, Sarah Jones MP proposed adding emergency services; this was rejected by the Minister. The response in the Commons to a proposal suggesting adding farms and food production was that this would
“significantly increase the scope of the Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/22; col. 606.]
In our own House, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the then Conservative Minister, said
“we do not believe it is necessary to add … into the list … at present”.—[Official Report, 16/11/22; col. 936.]
referring to other sectors. If ambulances, hospitals and food supply were excluded for being too expansive to be included in the Bill, life sciences represent a clear shift beyond Parliament’s stated limits for the Bill.
Ministers justified the secondary legislation power on the basis that new forms of infrastructure might emerge, or novel protest tactics might target previously unforeseen sites. Protests at animal testing and life science facilities, however, are long established—going back to the 19th century, as I said—well known and were explicitly referenced during the passage of the Bill. Martha Spurrier of Liberty, at the Commons Committee stage, said:
“If someone locks themselves to an animal testing centre … the police have to work out at what point that person’s right to”
protest
“becomes an infringement of other rights”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Order Bill Committee, 09/06/2022; col. 72.]
Parliament was already aware of protests at animal testing facilities and discussed them as part of the existing protest landscape, managed under existing regulations and human rights law, not as a justification for redefining infrastructure.
I come to the broader position in which we are debating the SI. The Public Law Project website says that
“for as long as delegated legislation has existed there have been concerns about the way it is used. Sometimes the Government leaves difficult and controversial matters of policy to Statutory Instruments so that the Government can avoid the difficulties of having to pass a law”.
I posit that this is happening here.
I have been in your Lordships’ House for more than six years, so I have heard many debates along the lines of a 2014 report from the Hansard Society titled: The Devil is in the Detail: Parliament and Delegated Legislation. That report says, and this is the key part of my argument, that:
“The House of Lords should make greater, albeit judicious, use of its power of veto”
when referring to SIs. I put it to the House, and particularly to the Conservative Benches, who I know in general are extremely reluctant to vote for fatal Motions, that this would be a judicious—indeed, a critically important—use of their vote on this occasion, a vote for something we often hear championed from those Benches for free speech.
I state only the obvious when I say that politics is now in a great state of flux and the future is highly uncertain. The principle of far extending the original intentions of a Bill—which could be stopped through a mechanism that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have in their hands but decline to use—could, in the future, be a far graver threat to the nation’s liberty than even what we have before us today. Does Parliament make the law, or have the Executive morphed into a monstrous Henry VIII hologram, saying that the law means whatever they say it means? In this age, particularly, that is a very dangerous precedent to set. I beg to move.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I did not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about Just Stop Oil blocking motorways and I do not agree with her now about animal testing, which must be carefully controlled but is still essential, but I come to the same conclusion as she does for the constitutional reason that she gave as the last of her indictments.
I strongly agree with the Government about the importance of the life sciences sector. I was chairman of Imperial College; I know a bit about it. The point where I disagree with the Government, and strongly agree with the noble Baroness, is on whether a research laboratory can properly be designated as key national infrastructure under the 2023 Act.
Section 7 of the Act makes it an offence to interfere with the
“use or operation of any key national infrastructure”.
It defines key national infrastructure rather precisely, as the Minister read out. There are eight categories; seven are to do with transport and the eighth, rather oddly, is about the production of newspapers—presumably the connection is communication. Section 7(7) of the Act permits the Secretary of State to add further infrastructure. Hence this SI.
In all our debates, no one ever mentioned laboratories. When we were passing this Act, animal welfare did not come up. We thought we were dealing with oil, gas, rail, road and air, because that is what Ministers and the Bill said. If we were thinking of what extra—
Lord Winston (Lab)
Does the noble Lord accept that proper animal research goes on well beyond laboratories, in fields and many other places? He underestimates the issue in considering laboratories; it is far wider than that.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I thank the noble Lord, but I think I will stick to my line of argument. I do not think we discussed laboratories. Hansard shows that we did not.
It is important to remember that the demonstrator outside the factory or laboratory is already covered by the Act because he is obstructing the road. He is probably already covered by the Public Order Act 1986, but he is certainly covered by the 2023 Act. Road transport infrastructure is right at the top of the list of “key national infrastructure”. This statutory instrument will add the laboratory or the factory itself, not access to it, and deem it national infrastructure that is key to the nation. That is quite a stretch. If the pharmaceutical industry is key national infrastructure, what about food production or distribution, the NHS or radio and television transmitters? All three cases seem more plausible than a life sciences factory or laboratory.
I agree with the noble Baroness that this statutory instrument would set a dangerous precedent. It is in the spirit of Igor Judge, whom we miss so much, that I register my unease. Unlike Igor, I cannot add an apposite reference to Thomas Cromwell, but he always warned that the temptation for the Executive is always to push the legislative boundaries. I have worked in the Executive; I know that he was right. This instrument pushes the boundaries too far, and we should push back.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as having been in this House a little longer than the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I have great respect for many of the things that she has said, and we have worked together on other Bills. Over 50 years, I have continued to do animal research and held a licence under the Home Office. My laboratory, where I still have some work going on, uses animals and will have to continue to do so for the research it is doing. We have to consider that.
It is important that animal research is seen as a respectable endeavour and is properly policed, which, on the whole, the Home Office does exceptionally well. I am grateful to the Minister, who has given a very good speech explaining how this has been done in this House and that the Government need to try to reduce the number of animals in research, as we are doing and with which I totally agree.
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I have some problem with his comment, because it would not protect me. I have had, in the years I have been doing research, until quite recently, repeated death threats. I have had Special Branch at my house, with my 94-year-old mother hiding in the kitchen because we thought there was a bomb on the doorstep. We have had a whole range of issues. My friends who worked in the same laboratories have had fires in their houses. We have to understand that this is a very real threat to research. Some people give up research because they get so concerned, not necessarily about the value of the research they are doing but about the reputational risk they run due to the understanding of the work they are doing. We need to make it much clearer why such work is necessary. I suggest to the noble Baroness, with respect, that she is not entirely correct in the reason she gives for it being given up.
There are numerous examples I might suggest to some noble Lords in the Chamber. I have counted that, in the House of Lords and the House of Commons, over my time, there must have been at least 100 families who have benefited from the technique of in vitro fertilisation. That was made possible only by experimenting on animals, to make sure that we were not producing embryos in the human that would be abnormal, distorted or deformed, or that would die after birth or later on. That is one example. Equally, in perinatology, there has been clear evidence that animal research was definitely necessary for understanding the breathing of an animal to learn how we can actually prevent damage to infants. Indeed, years ago, I did some of that research, in a very small way, with mice, along with a man called Jonathan Wigglesworth, who was a very famous scientist —much more famous and a much better scientist than I was. There are numerous examples.
The idea that we can use tissues or embryoids is far from the mark. One of the issues is that, in culture, in any kind of artificial situation which is not an intact animal, there are changes to the cells that we cannot control. That is a really important issue in science, and we have to understand that that is a critical question. It is true, too, in DNA technology—we still sometimes have to have the testing of that. Think of the number of people in this House who have had treatments for cancer that used animal research. Of course it needs to be reduced, but we must understand that the cells we are modifying and then putting back into a man or a woman still need extremal validation.
To some extent, the noble Baroness is, with respect, being a little inconsistent. Some three years ago, she and I worked on the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, which looked at the risks of modifying animals and modifying plants. There was a huge amount of misinformation around that, but eventually it did go through. I never saw then the noble Baroness make the points she now makes about animal research. The moral issues of animal research that she is talking about now certainly did not come up in that Bill. It was much more about making sure that, if we did produce animals in this way, we would not produce abnormal animals that would be poisonous or dangerous or deformed in some way. That is something that we have to consider. This is certainly an issue where she has been, in a sense, on the other side.
That Bill went to Third Reading and got Royal Assent without anybody really complaining about it. If the noble Baroness has complained about it, I certainly have not heard about it. Of course, at this very moment, the Government are considering, as they should, whether it should be implemented. If we do try to modify and improve animal farming and so on in the way that has been proposed, that would affect animal breeding. It is a Bill that I found difficult, but it certainly does not suggest we should not use animals carefully and with great moral care. Therefore, I have to say to the noble Baroness that her amendment is, in my view, unquestionably wrong, and I will certainly want to vote against it.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, there is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, expresses lots of practical and ethical opinions that we might agree with, but that does not change the fact that this statutory instrument is an outrageous abuse of secondary legislation powers. As the Minister knows, a fatal amendment in this House almost never succeeds—but if ever a statutory instrument deserved a fatal amendment, this is it. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on bringing it forward. If the Government had any conscience, they would, even at this stage, acknowledge the abuse and withdraw it.
When the Public Order Bill was debated and agreed in both Houses, the meaning of “major infrastructure” was debated, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said. My noble friend Lord Beith, who is in his place, spotted the danger at that time. At Second Reading of that Bill, he said:
“I question the provision of Clause 7(7) which allows the Secretary of State to add to the list of key national infrastructure by statutory instruments. This could create an enormously wide area of scope for the powers in the Bill”.—[Official Report, 1/11/22; col. 152.]
That is exactly what has happened. How right he was to be so concerned. Indeed, in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, raised the same concerns with her Amendment 38. But now, under a different Government, those fears have been exactly realised. Can the Minister say how wide the statutory instrument casts the net? He talked of some 350,000 employees, which suggests an awful lot of sites and facilities.
This statutory instrument, I maintain, is the clearest abuse of legislative powers that I can remember in my 27 years here. If Parliament passed legislation to quell or curtail protests on major roads and railways, that at least is within the legislation, but this Government are now planning to extend this so extensively that pretty much everything can become national infrastructure. This is another effort by Labour to quell, chill and kill protest.
The Minister will know well that the Crime and Policing Bill is in Committee in your Lordships’ House. That too contains clauses that widen the scope of the criminalisation of protest considerably. The noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, said that the provisions of that Bill will be reviewed by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, in a review that the Government commissioned. However, in Committee, my noble friend Lord Marks queried why, having put all that quelling of protest into statute, we would then have a review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. By that time, it will be too late to change it, because it will all be there, and so the review will not count for much. My noble friend Lord Marks fears as I do that, once these draconian laws are on the statute books, they will stay there. If the Government are serious about seeing what the report recommends, they would not rush through this statutory instrument in advance of the report.
When this statutory instrument was debated in Committee in the other place, the Minister’s colleagues were very sceptical about it. Kerry McCarthy, whom the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned, said:
“I do not accept, however, that what we are talking about today constitutes ‘key national infrastructure’. I do not think that the country will grind to a halt if MBR Acres is occasionally obstructed from supplying beagles to laboratories for testing”.
Kerry McCarthy has it right there.
Indeed, there were several Labour Members who were very doubtful about this. John McDonnell said:
“I reiterate the concerns that have been raised across the Committee: this warrants a debate on the Floor of the House. It is very rare that this number of Back Benchers turn up, so there is obviously interest across the House in having it properly debated”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 17/12/25; cols. 7-12.].
But it was not properly debated; that is what we in this House have to do, to make sure that we return it for further consideration.
Lord Willetts (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred in her powerful speech to what she called the “revulsion” against the use of animals in medical experiments. That is why there has been a long-term strategy, reinforced by this Government but also pursued by previous Governments, of the so-called “three Rs”: the reduction, replacement and refinement of the use of animals in medical experiments. That is the right thing to do and I am optimistic that new technologies will make it possible to make much more progress in that direction.
However, meanwhile, we have to engage with the world as it is, and some of the most important features of the world as it is—which have not yet been referred to by noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—are the international standards on pharmaceuticals and drugs, many of which require that, before a drug is tested on a human, it should first have been tested on a rodent and a non-rodent. That is the legal regulatory environment within which all life science companies currently operate. It means that the production, export and import of large amounts of medical treatments—pharmaceuticals—have to comply with that international agreement, to which most countries, including the UK, have subscribed. I did not hear the Green Party say that it thought we should withdraw from that international agreement.
Therefore, if animals, both rodents and non-rodents, are to be used before a drug is tested on a human, we need a supply of those rodents and non-rodents. As Science Minister, I saw the extraordinary range of activities by protesters going way beyond the normal human right to protest, which of course we must support, and designed to make it impossible for the UK life sciences industry to comply with the international regulation to which we were all committed. Compliance with that regulation is necessary for our wider access to drugs and capacity to innovate and produce new drugs.
There has been discussion of national infrastructure, as if somehow we are talking about provisions that would immediately be applied to every pharmacist or every life science lab. What is actually shocking, when you look at it close up, is how we are dependent on a very narrow range and extraordinarily small number of facilities to enable us to comply with those international requirements. If we were to lose those, it would not be a matter of protests outside every pharmacy: if we were to lose a very small number of key facilities, our capacity to respond to medical emergencies and deliver up-to-date medicines to people through the NHS would be much diminished.
I understand the noble Baroness’s challenge, but I am in no doubt that the facilities that enable us to comply with those key regulations applying to pharmaceuticals are absolutely part of key national infrastructure. Surely, the lesson of Covid is how important that capacity is. Of course it is right for us in this House to consider whether the proposal is within the terms of the provisions for national infrastructure. But, having observed at close hand what we depend on for drugs and services that we take for granted, I am in no doubt that it is.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I just want to throw in a bit of a spanner—which is to say that I am completely torn between the two sides. It might be helpful to explain my dilemma. First, I would like to give real credit to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for the work that he has done scientifically and the need to use animals in experiments, which he explained. I was partly moved to speak because I was a great admirer of, and friend of, neuroscientist Professor Colin Blakemore, who died a few years ago. I just wanted to note that he had to heroically stand his ground against intimidation, harassment, threats of violence and actual terror, which was deployed—not just against him—by animal rights activists.
He and other less well-known scientists, medical researchers, and staff in academia and in private companies were confronted by abuse and accused of conducting a holocaust—a completely inappropriate use of the term—on animals that was worse than the Nazis. I witnessed some of that.
This was long before organisations such as Just Stop Oil and Palestine Action arrived on the scene, which blur the line between the democratic right to protest and the anti-democratic bullying of the public and institutions to do as the activists demand. That presents us with a genuine dilemma. I support the right to protest, but I sometimes worry that that right is used to justify people who are not interested in protesting but are interested in effecting the stoppage of a particular activity physically and through bullying people.
Having said all of that, I want to ask the Minister why this sector has come into scope only now and not before. I genuinely do not understand. Why has it been introduced as a statutory instrument, with no possibility of opposition, apart from via a fatal amendment? I was one of those people who was very worried about the Public Order Act and the powers handed over to the Secretary of State, precisely because I was worried that the Secretary of State could redefine what national infrastructure projects were—and here we have it. That has been very well explained.
I also feel rather squeamish about our emphasis on life sciences as an industry and national infrastructure without it being defended as scientific research for its own sake. I wish I had heard so much defence of the importance of animal research by politicians on all sides when those scientists were being attacked. I think of animal research in terms of epilepsy drugs, Parkinson’s disease, anti-cancer drugs and therapies such as Herceptin and tamoxifen. I find it disappointing that we stand up to defend it only when it is an industry that makes money. There is more to scientific research and animal research than that, surely.
However, I was also disappointed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and, particularly, by the briefings —goodness knows I received many of those emails. On the one hand, I agree with the right to protest and the concerns about constitutional overreach; I actually thought the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made some really excellent points—it is not often we agree—as to why this is slightly nerve-wracking. On the other hand, in all the emails I received—in fact, this was reproduced here by the noble Baroness—I have been lectured on the dangers of animal research, and I end up feeling that what I am being asked to vote on is whether I think animal research is important for medical science. I understand the three Rs, including replacement, and that it is not where we are going, but it is so important to emphasise that this animal research is going to carry on for some time—we cannot be dishonest about that. Therefore, if I am being asked to vote on this fatal amendment—and if it has been turned into a way of demonising researchers who work with animals—then I will either not vote for it or abstain.
I ask the Minister: why now? Why did he, or anybody else, not raise this before? I say to the noble Baroness: can I risk siding with people who are going to lecture us and make hectoring demonisations of the perfectly legitimate—and, in my view, heroic—scientists who do animal research? It is necessary for humanity, whatever its relationships with the economy.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare, a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and, more pertinent to this debate, a former named veterinarian—more than 30 years ago, I stress—to a university animal unit.
I realise that this issue is contentious and emotive, and I understand people’s concerns. However, with respect, I note that this is not the place to debate the provision and use of animals in research; it is about balancing free speech and the right to protest with the lawful pursuit of highly regulated legal activities of great benefit to humans and animals. Therefore, I speak in support of these regulations and to oppose the fatal amendment.
The fatal amendment speaks of “legislative overreach” and suggests that it extends “critical national infra- structure” beyond its meaning. I will challenge that. The Public Order Act allows the Secretary of State to make different provision for different purposes—that was agreed by Parliament in the passing of that Act. Our biosecurity is more vulnerable than ever. We are threatened by potential epidemic or pandemic outbreaks of infectious disease in either humans or animals; I point out that foot and mouth disease, for example, is on the National Risk Register. Whether a disease outbreak occurs spontaneously or by bioterrorism—let us not forget that risk—it presents a huge threat to our food security, our animal health, our human health and the economy. I am satisfied, and indeed heartened, to see that life science establishments—which help us detect, manage or prevent those very serious events that I have mentioned—are regarded as critical national infrastructure.
The fatal amendment asserts that there is a lack of justification for the regulations and that they will facilitate
“a further restriction on the … right to peaceful protest”.
However, this SI does not change or extend any sanctions or restrictions already included in the Public Order Act 2023; it simply adds another type of infrastructure. I also note that the police believe that the current powers under the Public Order Act 1986 and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 are insufficient in this case.
I cannot see that peaceful protest is in any way prevented but I am aware that protest actions in several sites have included things like spike devices being hurled into facilities to damage vehicles and puncture tyres, spray painting the homes of animal care staff, other harassments, and personal threats and criminal damage, often by masked individuals, which go way beyond peaceful protest and are clearly designed to close down facilities. As someone who has known first-hand the exemplary skill and care with which animal technicians treat the animals they look after in research establishments, I am appalled that staff are treated by some demonstrators so nastily that they are frightened to go to work. In the UK, labs that might use animals, whether for life science, medical or veterinary research, and the facilities that support those labs, are highly regulated and carry out legal activities of incredible value to human and animal health and welfare.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
Perhaps I may clarify, as a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, that this matter was raised and the chairman, Sir Bernard Jenkin, told us that it was not for us to discuss whether the statutory instrument was correct. The job of that committee is to discuss whether the instrument is defective or duplicative, but not its general purpose. I take that to be the case.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Trees. I support the regulations. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for having tabled this amendment because it enables the House to consider matters we do not often have the chance to hear about or discuss, and they are important. It raises difficult and sensitive issues because, as the House knows only too well, it refers in great part to the use of animals in research.
I doubt whether there is a single Member in this House who positively wants to see animal testing and research if it can be avoided, and the Government are rightly committed to ending it. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, commend the Government for their current commitment to phase out this research and I, in turn, commend the noble Lord for being on the same trajectory when he was in government and for the support he has given. Reference has been made to the document published last year, the three Rs and so on.
For the time being animal research remains an essential component of scientific and biomedical research, and it helps ensure that potential new drugs, vaccines and medicines are safe and effective. My noble friend Lord Winston referred to some of the benefits of this research. As I understand it, certain anaesthetics have been made possible only because of animal research, and who among us has not benefited from anaesthetics? The research is fundamental to advancing our understanding of complex biological systems and disease mechanisms and it plays an important role in safeguarding human, animal and environmental health. As has been said by several noble Lords, it is critical to responding to health emergencies, including a future pandemic, which none of us wants to see but which remains one of the most significant threats to our national security. Scientific advances are being made by the life sciences community, but we must recognise that alternatives are not yet mature enough in complexity and application to replace whole-animal models. The UK must support a balanced research ecosystem that enables both high-quality animal studies and the responsible development of animal methods.
This brings me to the amendment. I do not have time to talk about some of the constitutional points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I have some sympathy when I hear references to Henry VIII clauses and so on, but I do not think this is the subject of today’s debate. The problem, as I see it, is that certain parts of the life sciences sector are facing unacceptable and unsustainable pressure from the non-peaceful actions of campaigners, however understandable, that threaten the integrity of the sector. I have visited some of these research establishments and spoken to scientific researchers who have been assaulted and suffered intimidation, so I understand the point made by my noble friend and others. The systematic targeting of key strategic points in secondary and tertiary supply chains is having a serious effect, and the knock-on effects of disrupted research, hostile working environments and escalating security costs are already raising concerns in the life sciences sector about the future viability of research and development in the UK.
If this research were to leave the UK, so would investment, talent and our research infrastructure, which would permanently damage the UK’s sovereign capability to develop medicines and to respond to future health emergencies. It is against this background that I put it to your Lordships that there is a case for designating life sciences establishments as part of critical national infrastructure. Incidentally, in the context of the changing geopolitical world in which we now live, this House heard references not that long ago to the vital importance of undersea cables and space infrastructure. As has been pointed out, this research is also economically important to the UK: over 300,000 people are employed in the life sciences sector.
The right to peaceful protest should be protected. In my view, it is essential in a democracy. It is the non-peaceful systematic disrupting of supply chains by campaigners that could lead to an erosion of our national research, and the damage would be permanent. It would undermine the Government’s plans for growth in the life sciences sector, lead to adverse health outcomes for UK civilians, and leave the UK reliant on foreign assistance in future pandemic scenarios.
Finally, is this proposed legislation at odds with the Government’s alternative strategy? I do not think it is. It is important to realise that it is the same scientific community who use animal models who are the most heavily invested in driving alternatives forward. If the UK infrastructure supporting animal research collapses, that will collapse the same infrastructure that supports the development of alternatives. Not only does this pose a significant threat to public health outcomes, but it could damage the UK’s ambitions to be a leader in non-animal alternatives. For these reasons, I hope the House will think carefully about voting for this fatal amendment, however well-intentioned it may appear to some noble Lords to be.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I had planned to make a number of points in this debate, but I am pleased to see that they have all been made for me in far more elegant style than I could have attained myself. I will emphasise one point that has not had quite enough attention yet, and that is that this country is a world leader in animal welfare in the life sciences and in the development of products from the life sciences.
If protesters succeed in their aims, they will not stop animal research; they will export it overseas. The countries to which they will export it may indeed be able to match our research excellence, but they could not, I suspect, match our commitment to animal welfare. For this reason particularly, but for a great many other reasons noble Lords have raised, I oppose the amendment.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, my contribution will be very brief. It is the job of His Majesty’s Government to introduce regulations and laws. The Minister is today presenting to us draft regulations which were laid before the House on 27 November 2025, some months ago, for approval.
The point for me is that this is the 45th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It has scrutinised and gone through it all. What has it decided in the end? That it is expedient. It has no negative comment about it. Either we trust our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, or we do not. As a House, we make that committee. That is the battle.
In the end, I have to support the approval of these regulations because I trust our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Where it has not found an SI expedient—I remember my history of your Lordships’ House from 2005—it has sent it back, but it has not done this now. We should follow our processes and procedures and go ahead and approve it.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble and right reverend friend. I will be brief. It has been very clear to me in this debate that we need the life sciences in this country, and we probably conduct them in a better manner than many other parts of the world do, and that is a good reason for maintaining them here.
I am really grateful for what the Minister said in opening: that we are hoping to phase out animal testing as quickly as we can, but that is not practicable yet. Many of the horrendous examples referred to, such as the death threats received by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and the throwing of spikes, are criminal offences already. We do not need to add them to the schedule to make them criminal offences. We need to be clear that this is about adding actions that are not crimes at the moment to what is criminal.
As the conversation has gone on, I have become concerned about legislative overreach. I am concerned not just about this instance; this House and this country work on precedent, and if we allow secondary legislation to make such a change today, what will inhibit future Governments in making even more egregious changes through secondary legislation—or Henry VIII clauses if we want to call them that?
Although I cannot vote in favour of the fatal amendment today, having heard your Lordships’ debate, I would appreciate some reassurances from the Minister. What are the limits? How wide could this go? Does today not set a precedent that will enable future Ministers to place very wide statutory instruments before us that go beyond what was discussed when the original Bill was considered?
I would have preferred that this be dealt with separately through a small Bill, but we are where we are.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. I have a number of concerns. This SI is part of a trend towards silencing dissent to protect corporate interests. It is hard to think of any legislation in recent years which has enhanced people’s right to dissent or protest, even though almost all emancipatory change has been the outcome of protests.
We seem to have a kind of social evolution in reverse here. There does not appear to have been much public consultation on this SI, either. The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the SI states that the consultation
“has taken place informally via engagement with key stakeholders, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the National Police Coordination Centre, and local police forces who regularly police protest activity targeting the Life Sciences sector”.
No mention is made of any discussion with civil society organisations or any public invitation to comment on the SI. So it appears that “informally” just means discussing it with some highly privileged parties, which seems to exclude the public in general.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I have listened to a fascinating debate—some of it moral, some of it technical and latterly some of it even economic. But the amendment to the Motion asks us to make a simple decision: is it a case of overreach to define animal testing as national infrastructure? If it is overreach, we should support the amendment; if it is not, we should resist it. We each need to come to our own conclusion. I hope that we will have an opportunity to do so relatively soon.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, every noble Lord has said that they will be brief but then quite a lot are not. I will do my best to be brief.
First, I agree with every word that my noble friend Lady Bennett said. She summed up the problems we in this Chamber face.
Secondly, I have said many times in this Chamber, on many Bills, that this Government are putting in more and more repressive legislation. They are getting worse than the previous Government and are just adding to their oppressive agenda. The Labour Party is failing the nation when it keeps adding crime after crime into anti-protest legislation.
I am sure the Minister knows that the six Palestine Action activists who were imprisoned and went to court came away without having any charges against them corroborated. They are free. It seems that this legislation will make things even more complicated for the police. Again and again, the police say that all the legislation relating to protest is too complicated at the moment, needs streamlining and needs to make more sense. Like it or not, this Government are losing the public. If a jury cannot find against six people who broke into a factory and smashed things up, they are losing the public. The public are saying to them, “We just don’t believe you any more. You are pushing things to far”. If the Government could not even get that case through the courts, they have wasted police time and court time, and have made the lives of those six people unpleasant and nasty for some time. This is overreach; the Government know it is, and they should not do it.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, these Benches will support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, if she decides to test the opinion of the House. I thank all Peers across the House for their powerful contributions on transparency, proportionality and the right to dissent.
The UK’s life sciences sector is something that we should cherish. It is a jewel in our economic crown, generating tens of billions of pounds in annual turnover and employing hundreds of thousands of people across the country. However, the protection of this essential industry, while necessary, should never come at the expense of our fundamental democratic freedoms. Sadly, this statutory instrument is on the wrong side of that argument. Time and again, as my noble friend Lord Beith set out, the previous Conservative Government undermined the right to peaceful protest by passing sweeping unnecessary powers that went far beyond what was needed to maintain public safety. I argue that even at that time, the law covered non-peaceful protest, as has been described by some Members in this debate and set out in the very powerful arguments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester.
We on these Benches consistently opposed the Public Order Act 2023, viewing it as a troubling example of the criminalisation of peaceful dissent and an unwarranted expansion of policing powers. It is therefore heartbreaking to see the new Government choosing to follow this same path rather than reversing some of those damaging restrictions. The regulations seek to rebrand ordinary research and manufacturing sites, including those licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, as key national infrastructure. This designation risks turning legitimate peaceful protest into a criminal offence, carrying a penalty of up to 12 months’ imprisonment. To place a pharmaceutical laboratory or a beagle breeding facility on the same legal footing as our energy networks, transport hubs or the M25 is, I believe, overreach.
Peaceful campaigners, including those raising ethical concerns about animal testing or pharmaceutical oversight, should not be treated as threats to national security. The Government justify this expansion by citing pandemic resilience, but the facilities being protected often have, at best, an unclear or indirect link. Despite the Government’s focus on vaccine production, we still have no clear public evidence that facilities such as MBR Acres have played a direct role in Covid-19 vaccine development. Yet they are folded into these protections in the name of pandemic resilience.
The police already possessed strong powers to deal with dangerous or obstructive behaviour, such as has been described in the Chamber today. Long before these new laws were imposed, powers under the Public Order Act 1986 and other legislation already provided a robust framework to address criminal damage, harassment and trespass. The Government have yet to provide compelling evidence that those existing powers are inadequate rather than simply less convenient.
We must also consider the lack of transparency and the absence of a rights-based impact assessment for these measures. Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 restricts public information about these sites. Ironically, individuals may therefore find themselves criminalised for protesting near a facility that they did not even know was now designated, under this new system, as “protected infrastructure”. This is not just legal overreach but an outrageous expansion of state power that avoids meaningful public consultation and accountability, as was set out so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.
This proposal also sits in stark contrast with the Government’s own replacing animals in science strategy, as set out so ably by the Minister. To publish a road map for phasing out animal testing while simultaneously shielding those same facilities from public scrutiny and peaceful protest sends, at the very least, an inconsistent message. Throughout this debate, noble Lords have reminded us that the right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy, not a privilege to be granted or withdrawn at the convenience of those who rule. Those who stand outside those sites are people who care deeply about animal welfare, scientific integrity and the kind of country we want to be. We should not treat people holding placards outside laboratories as if they are saboteurs of the national grid. I believe I have already covered anyone who has been violent and not been peaceful.
As ever, both the Conservative and Labour Benches are squeamish when it comes to fatal Motions. My suggestion to both those parties would be: in that case, do not use sweeping powers that diminish citizens’ rights through unamendable legislation. While Labour have been consistent on this, many years ago their own noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, produced a report suggesting that fatal Motions should sometimes be used. Even our new Lord Speaker has been known to support a fatal Motion or two from the Conservative Benches. More recently, we had a report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, whose conclusion was stark:
“The abuse of delegated powers is in effect an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of democracy”.
The regulations we are debating today are an appalling example of just that, as was so ably explained by my noble friend Lady Miller.
For all these reasons—the lack of necessity, the absence of transparency, the inconsistency with stated policy on animal testing, and the chilling effect on peaceful protest—I urge noble Lords to support the amendment to decline the regulations and to uphold our tradition of lawful, peaceful dissent.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has been a passionate debate, which we on these Benches welcome. Dealing with the statutory instrument before us gives us the opportunity to recognise the importance of our life sciences sector to public health, national resilience and the wider economy. It is therefore right that they should work and operate without sustained disruption, intimidation or obstruction.
The regulations, as outlined in the debate, extend the definition of “key national infrastructure” to include the life sciences sector. In doing so, they ensure that the police have access to a clear and consistent set of powers where protest activity moves beyond lawful expression and into serious interference with the use or operation of critical facilities.
It is important to be clear about what this instrument does and does not do. It does not prohibit peaceful protest, nor does it seek to suppress legitimate debate, including on matters that attract strong and sincerely held views. The right to protest remains a fundamental one. What these regulations address is conduct that is deliberately disruptive, sustained or targeted in a way that prevents lawful activity from taking place and places staff, researchers and patients at risk. Life sciences facilities have in the past been subject to precisely that kind of activity. Existing public order powers can be complex, reactive and fragmented. By bringing the life sciences sector within the framework established by the 2023 Act, the regulations provide greater legal clarity, earlier intervention where appropriate and a more proportionate and effective response to serious disruption.
We also note that the instrument is tightly focused. It does not create new categories of protest offence but applies an existing regime to a sector whose importance to the national interest is clear. The offences remain subject to established thresholds, safeguards and oversight, and their application must continue to respect the principles of necessity and proportionality.
For those reasons, we on these Benches are satisfied that the case for this instrument has been made. It strikes an appropriate balance between protecting critical national infrastructure and safeguarding the right to peaceful protest. We therefore support the regulations and believe that the House should approve them.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, responds on her amendment, it is important that I respond on behalf of the Government to some of the points that have been raised. I do not intend to repeat the discussion points in my opening speech, but some of them may be referred to because they have generated debate. This debate has generated a lot of interesting and important points of principle, and I am grateful for the contributions. I shall respond to four broad points: the right to protest, the SI provision use, the use of animals in science and—the big question—why now? I will address those in turn.
The right to protest was raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my noble friend Lord Sikka and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, speaking just now from the Front Bench. I want to be clear right now in front of this House: as I said in my opening statement, this is not about the rightful, peaceful protest which is a fundamental part of our democratic society. This measure does not prohibit or restrict peaceful protest. However, peaceful expression does not extend to causing serious disruption to the hard-working majority in the businesses in question.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and everyone who has taken part in this careful, informed and widely acknowledged to be important debate. I express my great sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and all his colleagues who have been subjected to utterly unacceptable and illegal pressure as a result of their work. All the things that have been alluded to are illegal, remain illegal and I am sure will always be illegal. That is not what this instrument is talking about.
On the point of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act, the noble Lord indeed was very helpful and we had a great deal of useful interaction when it was a Bill. I always opposed that Bill and I look to an article I wrote for Left Foot Forward on 25 January 2023, saying that this Bill should not go forward. That was, remained and still remains my position.
I will pick up on a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who said that international standards demand animal tests. Besides the UK there are, of course, many other countries looking to move at pace to get away from animal tests. I point in particular to leading action in India, the Netherlands and even the United States. As in the UK, all those actions are informed, and to some degree driven, by protests. That is part of the political process that is pushing in that direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, also unintentionally provided an argument against the Minister’s claim that this SI has be approved now, otherwise we will halt the approval of biocides and medicines, et cetera. The noble Lord referred to his time as Minister for Science. I looked up the dates: it was from 2010 to 2014. He said that even then unacceptable protests were happening. There is no evidence of anything new happening that justifies this SI.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who said that peaceful protest was not in any way stopped. I will pick up also on points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This was published without a full rights-based assessment. Ministerial responses to parliamentary questions have failed to rule out online activity or information sharing as not falling within scope. That puts NGOs and campaign groups at risk of criminalisation for lawful and utterly reasonable advocacy of boycotts, for public awareness campaigns and for education programmes. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, made the point that people are not allowed to know where these facilities are but could be criminalised for protesting near them, which really does identify the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, pointed out that there has been only one direction of travel over many years: the rights of people are going backwards while the rights of corporations are being advanced. That is what is happening and, as my noble friend Lady Jones said, we are seeing juries saying, “Enough is enough, this is not acceptable”. That is a true expression of public will.
I also thank the Minister—and I will round up on this point—for pointing out that this SI is rejectable, this House has the power to do this and this is within the constitution. The reasons why the SI should be rejected were laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who said that this is the clearest abuse of legislative power she can remember in 27 years. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I ask the noble Baroness to bring her remarks to a close.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
This is my last sentence. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, conjured up for many of us very fond memories of the noble Lord, Lord Judge. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that this pushes the boundaries too far. Your Lordships’ House has a choice. This is so constitutionally important that I must ask to test the opinion of the House.
China and Japan
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to ask questions on a Statement by our well-travelled Prime Minister. Actually, we on this side do not criticise the Prime Minister for travelling abroad: it is part of his job. What we do criticise is the devastating impact his policies are having on businesses and jobs here at home. The Prime Minister is also right to say that we cannot ignore China, but in our submission the Government are being weak in the face of the threat China poses to the UK and more widely to the West. Of course, we must engage, but this is not how it should be done. Too many key cards were given away before the visit for almost nothing in return.
Yes, a cut in whisky tariffs and visa-free access—something which many other countries already enjoy—are welcome, but are they the hard-fought victories that come from serious negotiation? I do not think so; though I think the leader of the Liberal Democrats may actually join me when I reflect that I am encouraged to think that at least some in the Chinese leadership might be eased by the civilising impact of the best whisky in the world. The problem is that, before he got on the plane, China had already gained the prize of a mega-embassy here, right in the heart of our capital. It also continues to fund Putin’s war machine. Can the noble Baroness say—and I know the Prime Minister raised this point—whether he feels that we made any progress in reducing China’s support for Russia’s illegal war?
Of course, China continues its oppression of the Uyghur people, who have suffered so much for too long. Did we get any guarantees that any increase in Chinese exports will not be produced by modern slave labour?
The Prime Minister claimed in the Statement that the previous Government were isolationist. I ask: who was first on the front line with Ukraine before and while Putin invaded? If we are talking of Asia and the Pacific, who took Britain into CPTPP? That is the very Indo-Pacific theatre that the Prime Minister rightly visited. We on this side believe strongly that we should look to Asia and the Pacific.
The Government tell us that we need a thawing in our relations with China. Of course, we wish for good relations with all nations, but fine words butter no parsnips. We must not forget that this is a country that spies on us, steals intellectual property and frequently launches cyber attacks.
We welcome that the Prime Minister raised words of protest about the totally unacceptable incarceration of Jimmy Lai. When will we know what comes of that? Did the Prime Minister, who is forthright on the importance of law and justice, condemn China’s flagrant and continuing breaching of treaties on Hong Kong and its oppression of people there?
We are told that China agreed no longer to sanction the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. Stopping doing one wrong thing is fine and dandy, but when will China answer the cries of those noble Lords and of so many in this House for an end to the terrible wrong of the appalling treatment of the Uyghur people?
Can the Lord Privy Seal assure us that the Prime Minister raised Chinese intellectual property theft with President Xi during their meeting? This is a grave and continuing problem. What assurances may we have secured on the cyber attacks launched by Chinese state actors? When will they end, and who will be punished?
I turn to Chinese espionage. We all know for a fact that agents of the Chinese state seek and have sought to spy on our Parliament. Did the Prime Minister raise China’s espionage in Parliament with President Xi, and did he receive any assurances on that subject?
In the light of the Government’s statement that they are inviting police to review Lord Mandelson’s alleged sharing of government information with foreign agents and foreign actors, can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that any inquiry will review all possible leaks, not just in the United States but to China and other nations?
I have a specific question that I accept the Lord Privy Seal may not be able to answer specifically now —but I ask her to write to me. Did the Prime Minister meet Jingye, the owner of British Steel? Will she say what was discussed about the future of British Steel? If not, why not, given that the Government are injecting working capital at an annualised rate of roughly £500 million? When can we expect the steel strategy, promised in 2025, by the way?
While the Prime Minister was on his visit, more concerns about the Government’s Chagos deal were being raised here at home and in Washington. Beijing’s ambassador to Mauritius has previously welcomed the treaty as a “massive achievement” and said that China “fully supports” the agreement. Did President Xi or any Chinese officials express their support for the Prime Minister’s Chagos treaty to him during his visit? Can the noble Baroness confirm that 6,000 Mauritian officials, some of whom would take control of Chagos under this deal, have been trained by China? Was there any discussion of that? In addition to such growing Chinese influence in Mauritius, there is the threat of Chinese spy boats breaching the marine protected area around the Diego Garcia base. All these are serious matters on which Chinese-British relations are engaged. Can she shed any light on discussions on Chagos in China?
On a more positive note, we wholeheartedly welcome the Prime Minister’s visit to Japan. As I say, such visits are part of a Prime Minister’s job. We share the Government’s wish to see deeper ties and growing collaboration with our Japanese partners, with whom we have such a strong and mutually beneficial relationship as trading partners through CPTPP and in defence through the Global Combat Air Programme. Can the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal assure us the UK remains fully committed to the GCAP? The Prime Minister is right to strengthen our relationship with Japan and, in developing that critical alliance, he will always have our support.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, these Benches believe the Government should engage internationally, and the Prime Minister likewise, to operate with allies and competitors alike. But when it comes to competitors who have been proven to also be adversaries and security risks, that engagement, if transactional, must actively de-risk.
On the Chinese risk to our economy and Parliament, and of industrial espionage, the relationship did not start when this Government took office. Indeed, part of the task should now be to try to remove some of China’s enhanced ability to operate that was in place under the previous Government. If the Government are playing a hand of cards badly now, the entire pack had been given previously to Beijing. We had the biggest trade deficit with China of any country in the history of our trade, peaking under Liz Truss at a trade deficit of over £50 billion. That meant our trading relationship was so out of balance that our ability to lever in any transactions was greatly reduced. I understand if the Government are seeking to reset the relationship, perhaps without going back to the “golden era” that George Osborne heralded in 2015, but a realistic one should ensure that we de-risk our relationship with China. Part of that would be ensuring that those who live in this country are not threatened by another country and do not have bounties placed on them. Did the Prime Minister state to President Xi that putting a bounty on anyone in this country is both utterly unacceptable and should be criminalised? Did we get an assurance that they will be lifted and never put in place again? Diplomacy is good; however, actions on this are necessary.
As we heard, we have been warned by MI5 of commercial espionage by China on an industrial scale. One of the key areas is our education sector, so can the Leader of the House be clear that we are confident of our intellectual property rights in any new relationship with China going forward? I read with a degree of concern that we are starting the process of a service trade agreement feasibility study. I asked the Minister for Development about this, highlighting that the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats were as one before the last general election in seeking human rights clauses in trading agreements. Can the Leader of the House confirm that, if we are to have any service trade agreement with China, there will be human rights clauses within it and clear intellectual property protections?
On the embassy, there have been reports that the Prime Minister’s visit was not confirmed unless and until the embassy was approved. Ministers have said that only material planning issues were considered. Can the Leader of the House be clear and deny that there was any diplomatic communication with Beijing about the embassy?
If there is one element we have seen recently in Beijing’s purge of the military, it is the more belligerent tone on the regional areas of concern. It was a great pleasure this afternoon to meet with one of our Taiwanese sister party’s MPs to discuss the enhanced concern in Taiwan about that belligerent tone. The Prime Minister said in the House of Commons that he had raised the issue of Taiwan. Can the Leader of the House outline a little more what we raised? This is an opportunity to enhance our trading relationship not only with Beijing but with Taiwan, as being a friend of Taiwan does not mean being an enemy of China. When it comes to the key sectors of semi-conductors, technology and educational research, Taiwan is a trusted partner with strong institutions, the rule of law and human rights—and it is a democracy. Therefore, our relationship should be enhanced, but not at the cost of the relationship with China. Did President Xi seek to put pressure on the UK to diminish our relationship with Taiwan? That would be a very retrograde step.
On Japan, the situation is very positive. Our relationship is strong and can be enhanced, and I welcome the Government’s moves to do so. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Global Combat Air Programme; more information on timing and costs would be most helpful. Will the defence investment plan reflect the Tempest programme and the practical arrangements?
Finally, on whisky, for which both the noble Lord and I have a fondness, I agree that the situation is positive. Any deal that enhances the Scotch whisky industry is a good one. I remind noble Lords that, while it is beneficial that Beijing tariffs will be reduced, our most profitable and valuable malt whisky market in the world is Taiwan, and that should be a lesson for us.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. Those from the noble Lord, Lord True, clearly underline the fundamental difference between the party opposite and us. Let us just start from where we are. The fundamental difference is that the party opposite went from a golden age of engagement to an ice age of engagement. Noble Lords referred to resetting the relationship with China. I do not think it is a reset; it is establishing a relationship that has been absent for the last eight years. I have to say to the noble Lord opposite that if the only countries he wants the Prime Minister to engage with are those with which we are in 100% agreement on every issue, it does this country a great disservice. Only through engagement with countries with which we have differences will we make progress, for the benefit of this country, on the kinds of issues the noble Lords have spoken about.
It is a choice we make. For eight years, the party opposite made the choice not to engage or have prime ministerial visits. We have made a different choice, in the national interest. That does not in any sense mean that we are not going to raise, and did not raise, important issues of concern regarding security, human rights and individuals. The only way you resolve those issues is by dialogue. You are not going to make all the progress needed or resolve all the issues the first time you establish dialogue, but if you do not make that start, nothing is going to happen. I do not much see evidence of the last eight years of disengagement working for the benefit of this country. If we look at other countries, this country has stood back in the last eight years. President Macron visited China three times, and the German leader visited four times, and the USA and Canada have plans in place. Engagement is possible and provides a new opportunity to develop a new, different kind of relationship, as the noble Lord alluded to.
Both noble Lords raised the issue of the embassy. I do not think I need to remind this House that decisions on planning issues are quasi-judicial and taken in that context. It is not a matter for the Prime Minister; it is a matter for the Secretary of State.
The decision must be taken on planning grounds, but issues of national security can be taken into account. It might assist the House if I read a short comment from a longer letter from GCHQ and the security services. I remind noble Lords that there have been Chinese embassies in this country since, I believe, 1788. Those embassies are currently across seven different sites across the UK. In terms of the benefits we get, the letter I have to the Secretaries of State from the security services and from GCHQ says that the consolidation should bring “clear security advantages”. That is important to note.
Also, when the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament looked at that, where issues of process were raised, it concluded that
“the national security concerns that arise can be satisfactorily mitigated”.
That shows how seriously the Government take this issue. That does not mean we are not alive to other security issues, but the advice from GCHQ and MI5, and from the Intelligence and Security Committee, is something we should take note of.
The noble Lord, Lord True, raised the issue of sanctions and the righting of a terrible wrong. Yes, he is right and it is important that China has done so. It is absolutely appalling that any sanctions should remain on parliamentarians at all. There are still further discussions on how much further we can take that but, in terms of making progress, it is an important first step to have made.
The noble Lords asked about a range of issues. As I was not in the room, I cannot give a complete readout of who said what and what the response was. What I think is the most important thing, however, is how these issues were raised. The issue of the Uyghurs and the issue in Hong Kong and of Hong Kong residents in this country are issues we cannot accept in any way at all. It is a terrible situation. It is something the Prime Minister felt very strongly about and, along with the imprisonment of Jimmy Lai, it was on the Prime Minister’s agenda and was raised and discussed.
On Jimmy Lai, it is worth saying that what his family must be going through and what he must be going through is completely and totally unacceptable. He is a British citizen, he is in poor health and he should be at home with his family. We will continue to raise this. It is sad that lack of engagement, saying, “We do not agree with you”, has not made any progress. The only way we can make progress is by having that engagement. But there can be no doubt at all about the strength of feeling from the Prime Minister and others on this issue.
I am running out of time, so I will quickly try to address the many other questions in a couple of minutes. Yes, we remain fully committed to GCAP; yes, the issues of British Steel are at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s mind; and yes, of course, it is important for the whisky industry. Perhaps I can just make a plea for Northern Ireland whiskey as well; I am not a whiskey drinker, but I understand that Bushmills would be my favourite if I were. My Northern Ireland colleagues may not be here, but I see there is a Bushmills drinker here.
Taking this forward, security is very important. We have been unequivocal in our support for Taiwan. On Ukraine, the Prime Minister spoke to President Zelensky before he went to China—before he raised Ukraine with President Xi. He spoke to President Zelensky afterwards as well. We are being very clear about our support for Ukraine. We do not in any way condone, support or even accept China’s support for Russia on this. It is quite clear the Prime Minister made that point.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent initiative. Is not the constant criticism by some of China, in the mistaken belief that isolation and shouting abuse are somehow going to positively influence events, both reckless and counter- productive? It will be ignored by China, of course. Is not the way forward to dilute conflict by promoting harmony and co-operation in every area of human endeavour: sport, finance, culture, educational exchange and human rights? And, most important, should we not be getting in close to deal with problems arising from dollar devaluation and the inevitable emphasis China will now place on exports to Europe?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a number of issues, but the bottom line is that he asks whether engagement is better than stepping away and shouting. That is the fundamental difference between us and the party opposite. The kinds of issues he raises about investment, business and trade are important, but it is also important that we challenge. So, co-operation and engagement are key, as are cultural exchanges, which were quite a big part of the delegation. Sixty businesses and organisations travelled with the Prime Minister, many of them representing cultural organisations. That is really important and helps the understanding between peoples, not just between Governments. But we also have to challenge where we have differences, and that will continue alongside engagement.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, given the profound uncertainty surrounding the UK’s treaty with Mauritius in respect of the Chagos Islands, can the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal confirm that further consideration of this Bill will not resume until the necessary amendments to the 1966 treaty—UN treaty 8737—between the UK and the United States have been made?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I must say to the noble Lord that I am responsible for many things, but the timing of our debates is a matter not for me but for the Chief Whip, who might not appreciate me saying what the timing could be. I will say to the noble Earl that we are in discussion with the Americans, as we have been throughout on this, but I have never, in all my time in this House, known a party table a Motion at ping-pong to delay ping-pong. That I think is unprecedented. On the substance of his point, yes, we are engaged with the Americans and we look forward to bringing the Motion forward in due course.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, as chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group, I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s visit to Japan, following his visit to China and emphasise how important it is that we visit, link up with, negotiate with and do deals with our best friends, as well as those who are more challenging. In particular, can I ask whether the Prime Minister, during his visit to Japan, discussed with the Prime Minister of Japan the refreshing of the Hiroshima Accord that was established by Prime Minister Sunak and which has forged a new partnership between this country and Japan that is leading to significant investment, very good co-operation on science and technology and strengthening defence globally?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his interest and his role in this. Japan has been a valued partner and it has been a very deep relationship, for instance with £33 billion in annual trade and 150,000 jobs created. Japan is our closest security partner in Asia. On the noble Lord’s particular point about the Hiroshima Accord, I will look into that and come back to him. On a number of issues where we are in agreement, I would highlight the support Japan has given to Ukraine. Japan has been the fifth-largest provider of non-military assistance and it has been a key member of the coalition of the willing. I think that shows the strength. I would also say that most of us regard the Japanese ambassador, Ambassador Suzuki, with a great deal of affection. He has really taken the UK to his heart and the UK has taken him to our hearts.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, following the issue of sanctions, in my case it is one down and three to go. I welcome the intervention that the Prime Minister made on behalf of those parliamentarians who have been sanctioned—not by China but by the Chinese Communist Party. Many of us are careful to make that distinction. Jo Smith Finley, the Uyghur scholar based at Newcastle University, is still sanctioned; Sir Geoffrey Nice, KC, one of our most celebrated human rights lawyers, who chaired the Uyghur Tribunal, is still sanctioned. Tim Loughton, former Member of the House of Commons, is still sanctioned. We have had nothing in writing about the sanctions on our own families, as well. I do hope that we can expedite that as soon as possible.
I want to drill down deeper on the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Purvis, on dependence and resilience. With a trade deficit of more than £40 billion, should we not do all we possibly can to remove our dependency on the People’s Republic of China? That is not to say that we should disengage, but making ourselves dependent in crucial sectors surely cannot be right. Following what I heard yesterday at a round table I chaired here in Parliament for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs, what have we done to ensure that goods that have been made by slave labour in Xinjiang are removed from our supply chains, not least solar panels and many of the things we buy into the National Health Service?
I will also ask about transnational repression; the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised this point. Many of us have met Chloe Cheung, a brave young woman, just in her 20s, who has a bounty of 1 million Hong Kong dollars on her head. Carmen Lau, who was a Hong Kong district councillor, has a similar bounty on her head, and a further 10 residents in the UK have those kinds of bounties. That cannot be right. Did we raise that question with President Xi? What progress can we make on that?
On 26 February, this House will debate the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights on transnational repression. Will we be able to answer the question about the foreign influence registration scheme and our failure to put the People’s Republic of China into it, even though we have put Russia and Iran into it?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is absolutely right: in every circumstance, sanctions are wrong. I am myself sanctioned —not by the Chinese Communist Party but by Russia—as are a number of Members of this House.
The noble Lord raised Hong Kong as well. The Prime Minister was candid and robust in raising these issues. We will get clarity for the noble Lord—discussions are ongoing—but the principle has been established, and we want to take that on as we can.
The noble Lord asked about supply chains, and about dependence and resilience. We do not rely on one country. The trade deals that this country has done are significant; look at the work we are doing with the EU, and our trade deals with India and the USA. All those play a part, and the noble Lord is right to raise that issue. I hope that we can get back to him fairly soon with further clarity, but he is absolutely right. All those issues were raised, and we are not prepared to accept sanctions on British citizens.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House assure us that the candid robustness of the Prime Minister on Hong Kong included giving the very firm message to Beijing that no return visit by President Xi could be considered while Jimmy Lai is still imprisoned in Hong Kong and—heaven forfend—if he were to die in prison?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the Government will do everything in their power to ensure that Jimmy Lai does not die in prison. No one wants to see that, and I am surprised that the noble Baroness raised it in those terms. We want to secure Jimmy Lai’s release. She asked about a visit. The only visit that I am aware of where the Chinese President could come to the UK is the G20 visit. We do not say, “Unless you do this”; it is not conditional. We are trying everything we can to ensure Jimmy Lai’s release.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for addressing this important Statement. I draw you Lordships’ House’s attention to my entries in the register of interests, particularly my role as vice-chair of the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Ministers routinely refuse to answer questions in Parliament about nuclear weapons, often citing the phrase “for obvious reasons”. On Monday in the Commons, my honourable friend John Grady MP asked whether the Prime Minister had had discussions with President Xi about nuclear weapons. In response, the Prime Minister informed the other place that he had discussed with President Xi how to
“derisk the risk in relation to nuclear weapons”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/2/26; col. 36.]
In 2022, the United Kingdom, under a Conservative Government, together with the other P5 members, affirmed its intention
“to maintain and further strengthen our national measures to prevent unauthorised or unintended use of nuclear weapons”.
The same Government reaffirmed that in 2024 with no qualifications. Can my noble friend build on this hugely welcome precedent of transparency and persuade the Government to make time for a debate on this issue in Parliament? Given my impending retirement, this request is wholly altruistic, as I will not be able to participate, but I believe that it would be a welcome step forward for parliamentary accountability.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend— I use that word in every sense, since he and I were Ministers together in Northern Ireland—asked me for a debate. When he announced his retirement from this House, I think he heard the response from many noble Lords, which illustrated how much he will be missed here; I will certainly miss him on a personal level too. The Prime Minister also paid tribute to my noble friend when he answered that question in the House of Commons, which does not happen for many of us.
The Prime Minister did indeed answer that question, but I think I can go a bit further on the substance of the point. It is quite clear that the Government will increase their efforts to work with China on halting nuclear proliferation, maintaining strategic stability, and advancing progress on conflict prevention, resolution and peacekeeping, in line with the UN charter and the responsibilities for permanent members. Given my noble friend’s work with the Nuclear Threat Initiative, this House would be poorer in having a debate without him present. I will not try to take on the Chief Whip’s role in suggesting a debate; it is something that the House debates from time to time, but I will pass on my noble friend’s comments. I end by saying that he will be greatly missed by this House.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one British citizen is being held by the Chinese in solitary confinement, as other noble Lords have mentioned. There is something I genuinely cannot understand: as the visit was being arranged, and as we were giving permission for a huge Chinese embassy, why was this one British citizen not made an absolutely key issue before the Prime Minister was even prepared to go to China?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is a key issue. It is important that the Prime Minister, for the first time since Jimmy Lai has been in prison, was able to raise this issue face to face with the Chinese—that has not happened before. I do not think that any of us will be satisfied until Jimmy Lai is released; that is the only point at which we will be satisfied with all the engagement that is taking place. I give the noble Baroness a categorical assurance that this issue is being raised at every opportunity and that we will continue to raise it until he is released.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and the Prime Minister’s visit to Japan and China. As the Leader of the Opposition said, such visits are a vital part of the work of every Prime Minister. The Statement on China refers to a dedicated dialogue on cyber security. Can my noble friend tell the House any more about what that might involve?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I cannot give details, but discussions are taking place. I think we all understand the threats of cyber security, and why we have to minimise them and not accept them from any part of the world against anyone in the UK or any UK institution. Those discussions are ongoing, and it is important that we have them. The present situation is not what we wish to see. That is why it was so important that, when the embassy got planning permission, we included the security implications in the decision-making process. My noble friend is more of an expert on cyber issues than I am, but I assure him that discussions are ongoing and will continue.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, the whole House respects both the Leader of the House and her noble friend the Foreign Office Minister, who is sitting alongside her. As I said the other day to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, the problem that we face in this House —those of us who are not Foreign Office Ministers—is that when Ministers in this House use expressions such as “challenge” or “robustly raise”, it sadly does not mean very much. They are delightful generalisations, and they breed a form of suspicion that all that is happening is that a formula is being adhered to.
Is the Leader of the House able to be a little more forthcoming? The noble Baroness the Minister of State at the Foreign Office was not in the room when the Chinese ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office, so she was unable to tell me what exchanges took place, albeit she may later have had some form of readout. We need a little more detail. Nobody is suggesting that the Government are not being candid with us but perhaps they can be a little more open in the secrecy of this Chamber and let us know precisely what “challenge” and “raising robustly” mean. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord True said, there are grounds for concern that “robust” and “challenge” have a different meaning in the Government from on the street?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Given that we have had an aircraft carrier in the area, I think that is fairly robust. I will get the precise details for the noble and learned Lord. He has been a Minister himself, and he is being a little cheeky. On the secrecy of the House of Lords, there are thousands watching our proceedings. Hansard is published.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord says millions. He may be more optimistic than I am, but we are hardly meeting in secret. The art of diplomacy is an ongoing process, not a moment. The House understands that. The noble and learned Lord has to accept that when the Prime Minister raises issues that have not been raised for a long time, he will do so to ensure that his voice and that of this country are heard. I do not recognise the noble and learned Lord’s characterisation. Most of us can understand the diplomatic language, perhaps, of “raising” and being “robust” on issues. No one can say that we have not been robust on Ukraine, the Uyghurs and Taiwan. The Prime Minister has not changed his view in any way. He has been quite clear on that. I am unable to give the noble and learned Lord the minutes of the meeting but I can give him the assurance that the Prime Minister raises issues in the way in which the House would expect him to.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
There has been a report of a warm relationship between Mauritius and China. Was there any discussion with the Chinese about the Chagos treaty during the Prime Minister’s visit?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not aware of any discussion specifically on the treaty. On the issue of wider security in the region, certainly in China and Japan, that was an important part of the Prime Minister’s visit because the security of that region is important to us. But I could not say absolutely that Chagos was part of the discussions.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, can I press the Leader of House on an issue that my noble friend Lord Purvis raised around human rights in particular, regarding any future potential trade arrangements and ensuring that human rights chapters are included in them? I am concerned that if we do not do so, we will be on a slippery slope every time we negotiate with any nation.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Yes, it is an important part of trade deals that we have the highest standards possible, and human rights are often part of discussions that take place. If one looks at the trade deals that have been done already, one can see that those discussions have taken place and, in many cases, borne fruit.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness said earlier that steel was at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s mind. We understand that the steel strategy, which is long awaited, is with No. 10 and the Prime Minister at the moment. Can she enlighten us a little more as to when we can expect to see that published? If she cannot do so, will she at least ask the question and come back to us?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord will understand the commitment this Government have to the steel industry in this country. I remember just under a year ago being away on holiday, receiving numerous phone calls and coming back straight to this House on a Saturday to save the steel industry in this country. He may need to be a little bit more patient with the steel strategy but he I think will welcome it in the interests of British Steel when it arrives.
Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill
Wednesday 4th February 2026
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 21 January 2026 - (21 Jan 2026)
Baroness Merron
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh legislative consent sought.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, it is essential that the changes we hope to make in this Bill resolve some of the existing workforce issues within our NHS. I say at the outset that the Bill will not be a silver bullet, and I do not wish to present it as such, but the changes it introduces for foundation and specialty training will lead to a more sustainable medical workforce that can better meet the health needs of our population.
I am most grateful to all those who have engaged with us, including the devolved Governments, to recognise the shared challenges that we face across the United Kingdom. My thanks are also due to noble Lords from across the House for their constructive contributions, time and interest in meeting me and officials. I am also most grateful for the cross-party support that has been demonstrated, both in the other place and in my discussions with the Front Benches in this House. A number of organisations have also expressed their support, including: the BMA, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the Royal College of Physicians, and the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.
The NHS is beginning to show signs of recovery, following a period of unprecedented strain. Nothing in the NHS functions without its workforce and I am grateful for the dedication and professionalism of our workforce. Supporting, valuing and planning for that workforce is fundamental and, I know, something that your Lordships’ House takes a great interest in—and rightly so. Because the NHS depends on its workforce, we are developing a long-term approach to workforce planning, aligned with the ambitions set out in the 10-year health plan published in July, which set out the intent of this Bill.
That work will culminate in the publication of a 10-year workforce plan in the spring, setting out how we intend to ensure that the NHS has the right people in the right places with the right skills. Staff have been clear for some time that they want change, not only in absolute numbers but in how they are trained, supported and treated at work. We have heard from many who have been exceptionally frustrated by the current application process. There are challenges within medical training that cannot be addressed without legislative change, and that is why we are taking action with this Bill. I am absolutely delighted that my noble friends Lord Duvall and Lord Roe have chosen to make their maiden speeches in this important debate. I, like all noble Lords, very much look forward to hearing from them.
One of the most pressing of those challenges is the severe bottleneck in postgraduate medical training. For several years now, the number of applicants for foundation and specialty training places has grown far more rapidly than the number of available posts. In 2019, there were around 12,000 applicants for 9,000 specialty training places. In 2020, visa restrictions were lifted, and we find this year that this has soared to nearly 40,000 applicants for 10,000 places, with significantly more overseas-trained applicants than UK-trained ones.
This has created intense competition, uncertainty and frustration for many at the start of their careers. At the same time our NHS has become increasingly reliant on international recruitment. This Government deeply value the contribution made by doctors from all around the world, many of whom have played and continue to play a vital role in patient care, and nothing in in this Bill diminishes that contribution. However, it is neither sustainable nor ethically comfortable for the UK to depend so heavily on recruiting doctors from countries that themselves face serious workforce challenges while a growing number of UK-trained doctors struggle to access training posts. Competition for medical staff has never been fiercer. The World Health Organization estimates a shortfall of 11 million health workers by 2030. Shoring up our own workforce will limit our exposure to such global pressures without depriving other countries of their homegrown talent, and this Bill seeks to address that imbalance.
Let me turn to the Bill itself. The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill gives effect to the Government’s commitment to place UK-trained doctors and other defined priority groups at the front of the queue for medical training posts. It does so while continuing to allow internationally trained doctors to apply for and contribute to the NHS. Let me emphasise that the Bill is about prioritisation. It is not about excluding people, but it is unashamedly about prioritisation. For the UK foundation programme, the Bill requires that places are allocated to UK medical graduates and those in priority groups before being offered to other eligible applicants. For specialty training, it introduces prioritisation initially at the offer stage for 2026 and from 2027 at both the short-listing and offer stages. That will significantly reduce the level of competition being faced by UK-trained applicants, and it will provide greater certainty at a critical point in their career.
Internationally trained doctors with significant NHS experience will continue to be prioritised for specialty training, recognising the service that they have given. This year, immigration status will be used as a practical proxy for NHS experience in order to allow prioritisation to begin swiftly. For following years, we have taken powers in regulations to enable us to refine this approach in consultation with key partners. I have been asked by noble Lords what this means for those with refugee status. This status is not a stand-alone priority group, although refugees will be prioritised for specialty training in 2026 if they fall within another priority category, such as holding indefinite leave to remain or having completed the foundation programme. Refugees who do not fall within a prioritised group may still apply for specialty training posts and the Bill will not change their eligibility to apply for locally employed doctors’ roles.
I am seeking to address up front some of the concerns that will quite rightly be raised in the course of the debate. One of those is a concern I have heard about why British citizens who have graduated from medical schools outside the UK will not be in the priority group, including some doctors who would be eligible only for provisional GMC registration. I understand the reasons why this is being raised, and I have heard how some would prefer all British citizens, in a blanket sense, to be prioritised. The problem with that is that it would undermine the very intent of the legislation, which is to enable effective workforce planning and the development of our future medical workforce.
The principle is to create a sustainable domestic workforce. It is not about where a student is born; it is about where they are trained, and the fact is that UK-trained doctors are more likely to work in the NHS for longer. In addition, the Government set UK medical school places based on future health system needs. Student intakes and graduate outputs of overseas medical schools are not included in our domestic workforce planning. If we prioritised British citizens in a blanket sense for foundation training places regardless of where they studied, that would undermine our key aim to build UK-trained capacity while ensuring that we do not provide more foundation programme places than we need. I reiterate that this Bill is about prioritisation and not exclusion. All eligible applicants will still be able to apply and will be offered places if vacancies remain after prioritised applicants have received offers, which we expect to be the case on the basis of our long experience.
I have also listened to colleagues expressing concerns around the treatment of applicants graduating in Malta. The UK’s long-standing partnership with Malta on healthcare is valued and will continue. Doctors training in Malta will still be able to come to the UK to gain NHS experience to support their training, for example through fellowship schemes. These arrangements are not affected by the Bill. However, as I stated earlier, for recruitment to specialty training places in the UK, the Government assess that it is important to prioritise to ensure a sustainable workforce that meets health needs.
I turn to the matter of public health specialists, who are particularly identified in the Bill. Public health is a unique medical specialty that draws applicants from medicine and other professional backgrounds who all undergo the same rigorous training. All public health specialists, regardless of professional background, complete the same rigorous medical specialty training programme and are subject to the same high professional standards. The Bill excludes from prioritisation any specialty programmes wholly in the field of public health, as it would undermine the multidisciplinary public health specialist workforce. The Government will monitor the impact on the public health specialist training programme, which currently accepts very small numbers of international medical graduates.
I am aware that there are concerns relating to terms and conditions and mobility for some specialists. We have set out the actions we will take to make the NHS a better and great employer. However, a focus on the NHS alone will not support the whole health workforce, as many public health specialists work outside the NHS with differing employment arrangements. But we are committed to working with the BMA, employers and professional bodies to make public health careers more attractive.
On timing, the Bill includes provisions to allow prioritisation to apply to the current application cycle, with posts commencing this August. That requires Royal Assent by 5 March. It is therefore important to seek timely passage for this Bill to avoid disruption for trainees who need sufficient time to find somewhere to live, sort out childcare and arrange any other aspects of their lives before their posts start, and for NHS trusts that are planning the front-line services. I hear the concerns of some noble Lords about the impact on those applying in the current application cycle, particularly where applicants report that they did not know how prioritisation might affect them. As I said earlier, these concerns are understandable, and they have been carefully considered. However, delaying action would only prolong the current problem by further entrenching the existing imbalance in training competition and it would weaken our ability to plan a sustainable workforce.
The commencement provisions provide necessary flexibility, ensuring that implementation can be carried out in an orderly and workable way, taking account of operational realities. On that point, there is a material consideration, which I am sure will be raised and understandably so, about whether it is possible to proceed if strike action is ongoing. The disruption strikes cause, and the pressure they put on resources, would undoubtedly make it a lot harder operationally to deliver the important measures in this Bill. It is our intention to commence as soon as we can, subject to the Bill’s passage through Parliament, but it is vital to have a safeguard to ensure that the systems planning and operational capacity required for successful implementation are firmly in place.
I conclude by saying that the Bill will not solve every workforce challenge, but it is a very important step towards a more coherent, ethical and sustainable approach to medical training and workforce planning: something that has been called for for many years.
It is estimated that four resident doctors will be competing for every specialty training post in 2026. With the delivery of this Bill, this number can reduce to two resident doctors per place. British taxpayers spend £4 billion training medics every single year. It will be by better aligning public investment, training capacity and long-term service needs that the Bill will give UK-trained doctors a fair chance to serve in the health service they train to support, and to do so in a way that benefits us, the public, across the country. I beg to move.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Physicians. It is a pleasure to open the first of our discussions on the Bill, and I should like to express my thanks to the Minister for her clear explanation of its provisions and its policy background.
I also thank her for the informative letter that she circulated earlier this week, and for the helpful private discussions she has facilitated. Like the noble Baroness, I look forward to the two maiden speeches we are to hear later from the noble Lords, Lord Roe and Lord Duvall, whom I welcome very warmly to the House.
This Bill may be small in length, but it is far from insignificant, not least because it is being introduced to Parliament on an emergency timetable. More pertinently perhaps, its significance can be measured in its potential effect on the lives and careers of many thousands of doctors. That fact alone makes this a measure deserving of the closest scrutiny, and I am therefore appreciative of the fact that the Government and the usual channels have enabled a greater interval between each stage of the Bill’s passage through the House than was the case last week in the other place.
I should say to the noble Baroness at the outset that His Majesty’s Opposition have no quarrel with the principle underpinning the Bill. However, as she would expect, we have identified and been made aware of very considerable concerns over a number of its key provisions, and I know she will understand that we need to explore these thoroughly during the course of our proceedings.
Doctors trained in this country and funded by the taxpayer should have a fair, clear and consistent pathway to progression within our NHS. Britain trains some of the finest doctors in the world, yet too many are being lost because they cannot access the training places they require. That represents a waste of talent, it undermines morale and it ultimately has consequences for patient care. It also represents a loss of taxpayer investment made through the public support of medical education and training when doctors are forced to take their skills abroad because they cannot progress within the system at home. It is, therefore, a problem that we on these Benches agree must be addressed.
However, the manner in which these challenges are addressed matters greatly. There has to be a test of reasonableness and fairness if the Government’s response can be judged acceptable not only in the eyes of UK-based doctors but to doctors who have studied overseas. The solution to the problem must also offer sustainable, long-term change and not just a short-term sticking plaster. I say that because, as we all know, the danger inherent in emergency legislation of any kind is that it can result in unintended and unwanted effects.
To my eyes, one of the first ways in which the Bill falls short, along with the Government’s narrative, is its failure to address the wider question of how its provisions dovetail with any changes in the availability of training places. To solve the problem of recruitment bottlenecks, the Government are using the Bill to refashion the order in which eligible applicants are considered. However, the other way of approaching the issue is to expand the number of training places. Elsewhere, the Government have promised to deliver 4,000 new specialist training places, including 1,000 places that are needed in reasonably short order.
Where do these plans now sit and how are they likely to affect the career prospects of the doctors of the future and those already in the system, particularly those doctors trained overseas? How quickly can capacity be expanded? These were questions that the previous Government tried to address head-on in the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan, published in 2023, which was well received across the medical community.
I mentioned just now the risks and dangers inherent in introducing emergency legislation on a curtailed timetable and, in that vein, another area of concern is the seeming contradiction in the Government’s characterisation of this legislation as an emergency measure. As we understand it, the Government are proposing that the Bill should come into force not on Royal Assent but at a time of the Secretary of State’s choosing. Why is that? If the Bill before us were genuinely urgent, addressing, as it purports to, the 2026 recruitment round, it is difficult to understand why it would not be commenced immediately following its approval by Parliament and the sovereign.
The disconnect between the Government’s rhetoric and reality is troubling, not least because it serves to highlight a number of provisions in the Bill that pose real worries. One such worry concerns the Bill’s impact on doctors who are trained overseas through established UK higher education institutions. These are doctors who are undertaking identical GMC-approved MBBS courses, sitting the same assessments and receiving the same GMC-approved degrees as their counterparts trained in the United Kingdom.
Under the Bill, these doctors will find themselves suddenly classified in the non-priority category of applicants, both for foundation programmes and for specialty training. We are aware that at least one of these programmes operates under a long-standing international arrangement, with wider diplomatic and institutional implications. The noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, will be addressing the issue in greater detail. At this stage, however, I wish to highlight one programme run by Queen Mary University of London in Malta, which is sustained by a long-standing UK-Malta agreement, first established in 2009 and reviewed as recently as 2024. That agreement sits within a broader context of deep and enduring ties between the two countries’ health systems and approaches to medical education.
Undermining it risks significant and long-lasting repercussions for the UK-Malta relationship. I understand that the Government of Malta have written to the Secretary of State to raise these concerns—so far, I understand, without a response. The Minister very helpfully referred to the Maltese concern in her recent round robin letter, as she did today. But I believe it is an issue we shall want to pursue in Committee in greater depth. The concern is multifaceted because, in the scheme of things, what the Bill does to Maltese doctors looks completely unnecessary. The numbers involved are tiny. The Maltese example demonstrates that the Bill as drafted risks causing disproportionate harm to well-established international partnerships, seemingly not as a matter of policy intent but as a consequence of legislation being rushed through Parliament.
There is a further issue that has been brought repeatedly to our attention by doctors and medical academics in this country and abroad: the position of applicants who are already part way through the current foundation programme recruitment round. The noble Baroness mentioned this in her speech. We have heard compelling evidence of a real risk of creating what has been described as a “stranded cohort”: that is, the cohort of doctors who entered a live national recruitment process in good faith, under published rules and fixed deadlines, only to face the risk of materially different outcomes because prioritisation is applied mid-cycle in a radically different way from before.
We need to be clear on the point that applicants at this stage have already committed significant time and cost to the process and are making concrete plans around registration, visas, relocation and employment. For foundation programme applicants in particular, there is often no straightforward alternative NHS route if an outcome is delayed or left indeterminate, given the constraints around provisional registration.
From a system perspective, uncertainty of this kind also risks avoidable disruption to workforce planning, late withdrawals and rota instability. None of these comments are intended to challenge the core principles of the Bill, but they surely call into question the justification for the process and whether it is fair and reasonable for Parliament to permit what amounts to retrospective disruption to an already defined recruitment cohort. Are the Government willing to make use of the commencement and transitional powers in the Bill to ensure that the changes introduced operate only prospectively, so as to give clarity and fairness for those already in the pipeline?
Beyond the issues I have already referred to, there are a number of further concerns about the way the Bill is framed and how it will operate in practice. As drafted, the prioritisation process that the Bill envisages rests chiefly on one decisive qualifying factor—where a doctor was trained. While that may work as an idea in general terms, we are concerned that it risks excluding from the priority group individuals who are British citizens but who have undertaken part of their training overseas, which can arise for entirely normal and legitimate reasons. Again, I listened to what the noble Baroness had to say on this subject, but one clear example is doctors who have completed elements of their medical training while serving with the UK’s Armed Forces abroad. Those individuals have trained within UK systems, often in demanding circumstances and in the service of this country. It would be perverse if their contribution were overlooked simply because aspects of their training took place outside the British Isles. Any credible definition of a UK medical graduate ought to be capable of recognising that reality.
We must also consider the wider implications of this legislation for medical schools. Changes to prioritisation will inevitably influence the number of international students choosing to study medicine in the UK, with potential adverse financial consequences for institutions that are already under significant pressure. Parliament should not be asked to legislate in the dark on such effects, which is why we believe that there is a strong case for the Government reporting regularly on the impact of these provisions on student numbers and on the financial sustainability of medical schools—centres of excellence that sustain a world-class teaching environment that is a genuine credit to this country.
The Bill was prompted by a problem that we all recognise—too many talented British doctors are finding their progression blocked, and the NHS and, ultimately, patients are paying the price. We support the principle that UK training, public investment and commitment to the NHS should be properly recognised, but principle alone is never enough. If this legislation is to succeed, and succeed fairly, it must be both precise and proportionate. Of course, it must address the core of the problem in a sufficiently far-reaching way. However, it must also recognise the realities of life for aspiring doctors who have submitted applications to enter UK training programmes, relied in good faith on explicit written assurances from the relevant authorities and committed what are often large sums of their own money on the back of those assurances, and who now find the rug pulled from under them.
Legislation designed to remedy the current problem must also take full account of those elements of UK and foreign-based training systems that are in practical terms identical. It must be robust enough to protect UK training pathways stemming from long-standing international partnerships that are already established firmly in our medical education system. Our relations with allies and Commonwealth members such as Malta really matter.
We approach the next stages of the Bill in a constructive spirit. Our aim is not to frustrate its passage but to improve its drafting to ensure that it does what it is intended to do without unintended consequences. We want it to command confidence across the House as well as outside it so that the future of medical training, and indeed the future of the NHS, is genuinely safeguarded and strengthened.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her introduction. I look forward to hearing from our two maiden speakers and add to the noble Earl’s welcome to the House to them. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, and I agree with a great deal of what he said.
Let me say from the outset that we on these Benches support the underlying principles of the Bill. The Government’s impact statement makes the case that UK graduates are significantly more likely to remain in the NHS long term than their international counterparts. It is entirely reasonable that where the British taxpayer invests some £4 billion annually in medical education, there should be a secure pipeline for those graduates into our health service.
However, while the intent is sound, the execution is marred by serious flaws. Fairness requires that those who have relied on a long-standing government position are not disadvantaged by abrupt alterations. Six months’ notice is wholly inadequate for a decision with such a long lead-in time, and few could reasonably have expected such a significant change to be implemented with so little warning.
I want to highlight two specific areas where the Bill creates profound inequity—the treatment of UK university campuses overseas, specifically Queen Mary University of London in Malta, and the flawed criteria used to assess significant NHS experience for our international colleagues.
First, on the anomaly regarding Queen Mary University of London and its campus in Malta, until mid-last year, I was chair of Queen Mary University of London’s governing council. It is vital to understand that Queen Mary University in Malta is not a foreign institution or a private commercial venture; it is an integrated campus of a UK public university. Its students study a curriculum identical to that of their peers in London. They sit the same assessments, including the UK medical licensing assessment, and they are awarded the exact same GMC-approved primary medical qualification.
In her letter to noble Lords this week, and I welcome her correspondence, the Minister argued that these graduates should not be prioritised because they may lack familiarity with local epidemiology and NHS systems. With respect, that does not hold water. These students follow the exact same NHS-aligned curriculum as Queen Mary students in Whitechapel.
Contrast that with Clause 4, in which the Government rightly prioritise graduates from Ireland, but also prioritise graduates from Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. A graduate from Liechtenstein has no UK medical degree, has not sat the UK medical licensing assessment and has no training in UK epidemiology. Yet, under the Bill, they will be prioritised over a Queen Mary in Malta student who holds a UK degree and has been specifically prepared for the NHS. This is a manifest absurdity.
The Minister’s letter also suggests that including those students would undermine workforce planning because numbers are uncontrolled. That is incorrect. Queen Mary in Malta’s student numbers are capped by the Maltese Government at just 50 to 70 graduates a year—statistically negligible in a system of 11,000 places. To penalise them on such grounds is neither proportionate nor fair.
Furthermore, the Government’s own impact assessment justifies the Bill on the need to protect taxpayer investment, yet Queen Mary in Malta students are self-funded. This is not merely a matter of academic equivalence; these graduates provide the NHS with doctors trained to UK standards at no cost to the British taxpayer, representing a rare example of value without expenditure —precisely the kind of pipeline a fair system ought to support rather than disadvantage. By excluding them, the Government are working against their own value-for-money logic.
We also risk breaking a solemn international commitment. The Minister’s letter implies that our agreement with Malta is limited to ad hoc training. That downplays the reality. Since 2009, the UK and Malta have operated under a unique mutual recognition agreement regarding the foundation programme itself, explicitly renewed by the Department of Health and Social Care as recently as 2024. Malta is the only country in the world with this status. By unilaterally demoting these graduates, we are, in effect, tearing up a long-standing agreement with a Commonwealth partner—one that Malta’s own Minister for Health describes as having served both countries for over two centuries. Other universities, such as Newcastle University, which operates a similar campus in Malaysia, face similar predicaments. Its vice-chancellor has noted that its graduates too receive identical accreditation and transition seamlessly into the UK workforce.
Then there is the second critical flaw in the Bill: how it attempts to identify significant NHS experience for the upcoming 2026 recruitment round. Under Clause 2, the Government propose using immigration status, specifically indefinite leave to remain—ILR—as a crude proxy for NHS experience. This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of medical training timelines. ILR typically, at the moment, requires five years of residence, yet UK graduates enter specialty training after just two years of the foundation programme. That creates a perverse experience gap. International doctors who have served on our front lines for three or four years, passed royal college exams, built a career portfolio and worked the same rotas as their UK colleagues will be treated as if they have no experience at all, simply because they have not yet clocked up the five years required for ILR. This, effectively, tells dedicated doctors that their three years of service counts for nothing.
In her earlier letter, the Minister defends this blunt proxy, as she did today, by claiming it was not operationally feasible to assess all applications for actual NHS experience in time for the 2026 cycle. We have received compelling evidence to the contrary. Doctors currently using the recruitment platform Oriel inform us that the system already captures data on months of NHS experience. The data exists, the mechanism to do this fairly exists, and to persist with the ILR requirement is to prioritise administrative convenience over the reality of clinical contribution. We should define significant experience not by visa status but by time served. A benchmark of two years of NHS experience would be equitable, and mirror the two years of core training required of UK graduates.
Furthermore, we have all received distressing correspondence regarding doctors on spousal visas. These are permanent residents, married to British citizens, with an unrestricted right to work, yet under the Bill they are placed in the lowest priority tier. We risk driving away not just those doctors but their British spouses who work in our public sector as families are forced to emigrate to find work.
There is a deep anxiety, in particular, regarding the mid-cycle implementation of these rules. We have received correspondence from doctors who have spent years building career portfolios and investing substantial resources based on published criteria, only to find the rules changing while the recruitment process is active. This creates procedural unfairness and huge instability for their families. If our guiding principle is, as it must be, fairness, then it cannot be right to introduce such consequential changes mid-cycle when candidates have already ordered their lives and careers around criteria that have stood in place for many years.
To cap it all, there is a glaring incoherence at the heart of the Government’s approach. Just days ago, the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, announced a new strategy to grow our education exports to £40 billion a year by 2030. She explicitly encouraged our universities to expand transnational education and open campuses overseas. Yet in the Bill, the Department of Health and Social Care is actively undermining that very strategy. We cannot have the Department for Education urging universities to go global to boost the economy while the Department of Health and Social Care simultaneously pulls up the drawbridge against the very students who enrol. That is a fundamental contradiction.
For Queen Mary in Malta, the solution is simple: a minor amendment to Clause 4 to recognise its UK degree, or the inclusion of Malta in the priority list, honouring our 2009 agreement. For the broader issues affecting international medical graduates, we must abandon the blunt instrument of ILR and use the data we already have to recognise two years of service as the true mark of commitment. Let us not mar a necessary piece of legislation by failing to correct these obvious injustices.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my recent observer role with the Medical Schools Council, and as a pro-chancellor at Cardiff University, which, of course, has a medical school. The Bill aims to address a problem that has been brewing for years—but some medical graduates will unintentionally suffer, and we must consider them.
Specific groups have already been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but they warrant reiterating. First, there are medical graduates from established overseas branch campuses of UK universities. That is not only Malta; Newcastle has already been spoken of, and there are others. There are also UK citizens studying medicine in the EU in good faith, always intending to work in the NHS, and international graduates unable to receive specialist training in their own country, who come here before returning to develop key specialist services in their home country. There are also those who relied on the published recruitment framework in good faith for years, and made irreversible decisions—relocating families, investing time and money, filling rota gaps and sustaining NHS services through Covid—never expecting specialty training to be rewritten while applications were already in progress. Would a separate tier, after the current priorities but ahead of those with no UK connection, provide a solution?
As has been said, a few UK medical schools deliver their degrees from established branch campuses abroad, by fully accredited programmes regulated by the General Medical Council. They follow the UK curriculum, and are taught and assessed in English to identical academic and clinical standards. These students graduate with a UK medical degree and will have passed the UK medical licensing assessment. They often apply to work in the NHS and transition smoothly into clinical practice, benefiting the NHS. These graduates have applied for UK training posts under one set of rules, but face different rules with limited options. Should these UK medical graduates not be prioritised over graduates from non-UK universities across the world?
There is a wider significance, as has already been alluded to. The Government’s international education strategy states the importance of universities seeking global opportunities, such as developing branch campuses. To avoid opening the floodgates, do the Government envisage capping UK healthcare degrees delivered offshore? This year, there were over 25,500 UK applicants for just over 10,000 UK medical school places. Selection at 18 years old is difficult. Each year, having invested in years of their schooling, we reject highly capable home applicants who would be excellent doctors. Many of them choose to study abroad, determined to return to work in the NHS. Should they be required to pass the UK medical licensing assessment, so that UK citizens studying in the EU after school are not left stranded?
For postgraduate trainees who applied through the previous recruitment framework and are currently working in the NHS, with several years’ experience, would recognising service from Covid onwards be considered in the eligibility in the current round? Where is the expansion of specialty training posts and academic posts for some of these graduates?
Lastly, all UK health expertise benefits international development. Many countries lack their own training expertise, and historically the UK has trained specialists to go back to develop services in their home countries. This altruism improves global health and creates opportunities for the NHS, universities and pharmaceutical and tech companies to gain international contracts. Without routes for overseas doctors to train here, our international partners will look elsewhere.
The Bill apparently aims to secure a reliable supply of doctors for the future, ensuring that those with a UK medical link are more likely to progress to current consultant roles and continue their careers in the NHS. Will international medical student places here be further limited? Otherwise, the Bill could mean that UK students forced to train overseas through limited home student places will not be prioritised, whereas international medical students at UK medical schools will. In passing the Bill with speed, we must avoid penalising our own graduates, jeopardising international partnerships, or appearing hostile to international excellence or unreliable by suddenly changing the rules. Will the Minister consider widening the priority group or adding other tiers to recognise the importance of medical graduates?
Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is the greatest honour to speak in your Lordships’ House for the first time. I thank my fellow noble Lords from right across the House for the warmth of their welcome, extended not just to me but to my family on my introduction. Equally, I thank all the staff, from Black Rod and the Clerk of the Parliaments to the doorkeepers, police and security staff—and, perhaps most importantly, as I have spent the past two weeks eating, to the caterers. I can say with some certainty that your Lordships’ House has some of the best work canteens I have ever encountered, and I have been in some over the years. Without wanting to labour this—pardon the pun—the ham, egg and chips in the Millbank basement is of particular note to a connoisseur of such matters. The professionalism and patient good humour of every single noble Lord towards a new Member of this House is a credit to the extraordinary place that they both protect and sustain.
I thank my sponsors, my noble friends Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lady Twycross, who, alongside my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, have offered encouragement and support as they have guided me in the process of joining your Lordships’ House. In particular —and I am looking at her now—I need to thank my noble friend Lady Twycross, who was my deputy mayor when I was first appointed as London Fire Commissioner. She deserves particular thanks, as my noble friend is probably asking herself once again why she is having to keep me on the straight and narrow in a new job. It is also a particular pleasure to see in his place my old friend, my noble friend Lord Duvall, who also served London for so many years and was such a great supporter of the London Fire Brigade—my chosen profession—and to speak on the same evening as him. That gives me great pleasure.
I am very much a son of south London, and my journey here has been shaped by that, along with a lifetime in uniformed service, first in the British Army, coming from a long line of soldiers on my father’s side, and then in the London Fire Brigade, where I served at every rank from firefighter to commissioner.
I believe that I am the first firefighter in history ever to sit in your Lordships’ House. Serving for half my life in, and eventually commanding, the brigade, one of the world’s largest and busiest emergency services, and one of this country’s last great remaining working-class institutions, was the most enormous privilege. It gave me an education in life and membership of a club that you cannot pay to be part of. I hope that I can therefore give firefighters and their families some voice in my contributions here.
I would also like to speak to the role boxing has had in my life, first as a competitive fighter for many years, then as a coach, still now as a club chair and—unbelievably to me, as that young kid walking into a boxing club in south London all those years ago—sitting on the national board that supports our great British Olympic team. The support and the safe space that boxing clubs provide young people, particularly in some of the poorest places in this country, must not be underestimated. Boxing gave me confidence, fitness, discipline, purpose and a structure.
At a time when the politics of division seem to be painting a picture of Britain, characterising Englishness in particular in a way that, as a proud Englishman, I simply do not recognise, boxing clubs are still very much beacons of openness, tolerance and unity. I have fought and trained in clubs and halls the length and breadth of these islands, and I can say that without exception my experience is that in boxing your faith, race, background and nationality are irrelevant, as what is shared in a boxing club is a common respect for anyone who has had the courage to take that first step into the squared circle and face their own fears. In that sense, the sport and its spaces both epitomise and set the standard for true British values.
In respect of today’s debate, addressing the quality and accessibility of the training we give our doctors, I believe that my experiences bear some relevance. Having responded alongside so many medical colleagues over the years, I know that, like being a firefighter or a soldier, a career in medicine is profoundly rewarding and has the greatest benefit to both the individual and their community. It seems clear to me that, by ensuring that our graduates are given priority access to the best available training, we will help to sustain and protect our health service while also providing important opportunities to young British people of all backgrounds to make a difference.
Lastly, and perhaps most personally to me, in my working life, both as a soldier and as a firefighter, I have been repeatedly and directly involved in the tragedies that befall ordinary people when politics, institutions and systems simply fail to protect them, often with catastrophic loss of life. I have been a witness in those moments, standing on streets from Portadown to inner London—witness to the unbelievable heroism of my fellow soldiers and firefighters in their actions in responding to those failures. Some of them made the ultimate sacrifice, whether then or in later years. They are never very far from my mind, and I must pay tribute to them today.
Equally, I recognise the resilience, courage and decency of survivors and families, particularly those I saw suffer so much following the Grenfell Tower fire. In their continued drive for justice and a safer built environment for everyone, they provide me with a lesson in dignity, resolve and clear purpose every time I meet them. I hope I might give them a voice in your Lordships’ House too.
It is in that context that I understand my privilege and responsibility in the House, as what gets said and done here and in the other place can, for better or worse, have the most profound consequences for our fellow citizens. With that in mind, I hope I can contribute with some value, give voice to those I met on the way and avoid adding, in the powerful words of Bishop James Jones following the horror of the Hillsborough disaster, to
“‘the patronising disposition of unaccountable power”.
I thank noble Lords again so much for their warm welcome and this incredible opportunity.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Roe of West Wickham, and to congratulate him not only on his excellent maiden speech but on the wealth of experience and expertise that he brings to our House. I look forward to a lot more—but I will not be meeting him in a boxing ring.
If you read a quick resumé of my noble friend Lord Roe’s career—university. Sandhurst, distinguished military service, Commissioner of the London Fire Brigade—you might be astonished, as I was, to realise how much he has achieved in so little time; he is really quite young. Although he is too modest to have gone into the detail, we can all guess what two tours in Northern Ireland, where he was wounded, must have involved. We should also note, as he said, that he rose through all the ranks in the London Fire Brigade, including being incident commander for the Grenfell Tower fire, before being appointed London Fire Commissioner.
I am sure I speak for the whole House in joining my noble friend Lord Roe in paying tribute to the heroism of his fellow soldiers and firefighters. I welcome his determination to give voice to those he met during his uniformed service. We are delighted to welcome our first ex-firefighter to the Lords; I am sure I also speak for all in saying that we look forward to hearing his future contributions, and indeed those of my noble friend Lord Duvall, when he comes to speak.
Turning to the Bill before us, it is good to have confirmed that its aim is to address issues created by the current approach to allocating places on the foundation programme and medical specialty training in the UK. However, while the Bill deals with process, it does not deal with the content of courses. While I get the importance of having medical staff trained within the NHS, should the 10-year health plan of which it is part not also have an engagement with the curriculum content?
To give an example of what I mean, I ask my noble friend Lady Merron: how do His Majesty’s Government intend to implement the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ recent recommendation on equal rights for intersex persons? I declare an interest as a person born with hypospadias, which is an intersex condition. Implementing this recommendation could require significant changes in the academic training of our doctors and surgeons, which surely need to be monitored. For example, it includes: prohibiting non-consensual medical interventions on intersex children, ensuring such procedures are postponed until the individual can provide informed consent; strengthening anti-discrimination measures and ensuring access to justice, including protection from hate speech and crime; addressing inequalities in healthcare, education, employment and sports, including the need for inclusive policies and safe environments for children; ensuring that family laws, including those relating to legal recognition and parentage, are accessible to intersex people without discrimination; and calling on member states to take concrete legal and non-legal measures to uphold the dignity and rights of intersex people.
Some of these recommendations have already been legislated for in the UK, most notably the law against female genital mutilation. But the recommendation is seen by many people as a landmark, as it shifts the focus from medicalising what are often seen as disorders towards protecting fundamental human rights and ensuring equal participation of intersex people in society. It seems important that these things are fed into the medical curriculum, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that.
I appreciate that this is a complex issue and that this Bill may not be the most appropriate place to introduce such changes but, when she comes to respond, I hope my noble friend will recognise that my underlying point is about how the content of the courses provided within the foundation programme and medical specialty training in the UK can take account of policy initiatives of this type. I would of course be happy to meet with her to discuss how best to take the issue forward.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, when there is such a short Bill, there is a temptation to repeat what has already been said in great detail, because it has not been said by me. I will not succumb to that temptation but will briefly point out the areas where I agree with what has been said, particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
In the many letters and emails—hundreds of them—that I have received, two things stood out. One was the grievance felt by people who were already in the process of applying for the jobs; they now feel as if they have been thrown to the wolves. The other lot were the people who are British citizens who trained overseas and cannot now access training in our programmes. There is one other minority group: those who felt that they have had some experience in the NHS, but it is not as yet defined how much of their experience, starting in 2027, will be counted. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to the immigration requirements which may or may not be counted, but that produces another. These are the groups that feel disadvantaged. What I felt on receiving these letters was that we are making people who have serviced our NHS for decades feel they are no longer required and are to be abandoned. I hope we do not give that impression.
Having said that, I recognise that, in principle, the idea that UK medical graduates should be prioritised for jobs in our NHS is correct, because it is not right that they cannot get the jobs they apply for, particularly in foundation and specialist training. On the foundation programme in Clause 1, I am concerned that British citizens who may have trained in GMC-approved institutions with the same kind of curriculum described by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, cannot be considered for that. I have already made the point about specialist training programmes and those who have gone through the process of applying in good faith. We do not as yet know what experience will be counted from 2027 onwards, so I hope the Minister can comment on that.
Clause 4 refers to a “UK medical graduate”, and says:
“‘UK medical graduate’ means a person who holds a primary United Kingdom qualification”.
It does not say a “UK citizen” who is qualified. Does that mean that an overseas student attending medical courses in our universities, who is therefore a graduate of our universities, qualifies or not? I might be wrong in my interpretation. The clause continues:
“but does not include a person”
with
“a majority of their … training for that qualification outside the British Islands”.
Some of our universities run joint courses. I am a professor emeritus of the University of Dundee, which, for instance, runs one course for Malaysian students. They do part of their training in Malaysia and finish their clinical training in the UK, at Dundee. The Bill refers to a majority of their training but, in a five-year course, if the overseas student does three years in a UK university, does that count as a majority of their training in the United Kingdom?
I am glad that the Minister alluded to refugee status and was pleased to hear what she said. That was to be one of my points, because I have had representation from Ukrainian refugees who are already working in the NHS, and whose status would otherwise have been removed.
Clause 4(5) says:
“‘primary medical qualification’ means a qualification that is treated by the General Medical Council as equivalent to a primary United Kingdom qualification within the meaning of the Medical Act”.
There are lots of institutions which the GMC recognises as equivalent, but we do not regard their graduates as UK graduates, although they do the same curriculum. Universities such as Newcastle have already been mentioned several times. They have been encouraged by the education department to open campuses, as other universities have been, and to provide the same curriculum. There are then graduates of Queen Mary University, Newcastle University or Dundee University. Their status is not quite clear.
I am concerned about these issues and hope that we will be able to have greater clarification. But I accept that, in principle, prioritising postgraduate medical training for UK graduates is correct.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of General Practitioners, and as chair of the council of King’s College London, which is Europe’s largest educator of health professionals. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Roe, on his excellent maiden speech. Given the deteriorating physical fabric of the Palace of Westminster, it is reassuring to know that we have a firefighter in our midst.
I start by endorsing the thrust of the policy set out in the Bill. It clearly makes sense for the NHS and for British taxpayers to properly connect undergraduate medical education with access to specialist training, and then the flow-through of doctors able to contribute over the balance of their careers to the work of the NHS. All that makes total sense. Nevertheless, I echo three of the concerns we have heard already in the brilliant contributions to this debate.
The first is about the difficulties and concerns around the transition year, 2026, that the Bill proposes. For 2027 and beyond, rightly, there is the suggestion in the Bill that applications will be prioritised from doctors with NHS experience, who have made a contribution to the NHS. But because of not being able to get the computer system right, that is excluded for the 2026 transitional period.
As we heard from, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, there is a range of views that suggest that that is not a correct assessment. I think the impact assessment says it is £100,000 to sort out the Oriel computer system—against a £4.3 billion taxpayer expenditure in this area. This is an area where the Minister and the Minister in the Commons, Karin Smyth, might want to give officialdom a little tap and just double-check that what they are being told is right, not least because there is a degree of oddity about this in that the Government declared their intention to introduce this new prioritisation for UK graduates seven months ago. It was in the 10-year NHS plan published on 3 July. It is not completely clear why there has been a seven-month lapse before we get this emergency Bill that has to be passed within four weeks.
There is the transitional 2026 concern and then, relatedly, there is the question of whether, by just changing the prioritisation, the Government actually have a game plan to deal with the more fundamental, underlying problem of the bottlenecks. This piece of legislation by itself does not widen the bottlenecks, it just changes who will occupy them. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I think, asked, it would be very useful to know, of the 1,000 additional specialty training places over three years promised in the 10-year plan, or the 4,000 put on the table in December as part of the Government’s negotiation with the BMA—of which 1,000 extra were to be in place for the coming year—what is their current assumption about the expansion in specialty training that will go alongside this reprioritisation for 2026 and 2027?
Today, we have seen the publication of the cancer plan, which, quite rightly, says that the Government
“will work with the Royal Colleges to encourage resident doctors and internal medicine trainees to specialise in clinical and medical oncology”—
where there are significant shortages—and will prioritise
“training places in trusts … where vacancy rates are higher and performance is lower”.
Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will give effect to that commitment in the cancer plan with the 2026 and 2027 increases in specialty training places, which are clearly required?
To circle back to a point that the Minister made—and, indeed, the Health and Social Care Secretary made at Second Reading in the Commons on 27 January—the Government’s estimate appears to be that even with this tighter, or reshaped, prioritisation, there will still be a ratio of two applicants to every place for specialty training. Just stand back a moment—that means we will be turning away half the doctors who would be able to fill those places. Are the Government sure that they are going pedal to the metal on the expansion in specialty training to reduce that oversubscription rate?
How does that connect with the upcoming rebadged, or refreshed, long-term workforce plan, given that the undergraduate doctors who start their training this year will be, in practice, coming out to deliver clinical care as consultants from 2040 and training their successors up to 2070? We really do need a long-term plan here, rather than the constant chopping and changing that, sadly, we have seen.
Finally, I completely endorse the comments about Malta. Three collective institutions have been awarded the George Cross—Malta and the NHS are two of them. We should sustain those relationships. The idea that we have less in common with the Maltese than with the good people of Liechtenstein—I have just had a quick look and Liechtenstein has one 35-bed hospital and a per capita GDP more than three times that of the UK—misses the point. We have to see the wood for the trees; the Department of Health and Social Care needs to raise its gaze and value these historic relationships that are so important for us.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Roe, to the House. I am sure that his experience will be informative in many ways, including now as chair of the building safety regulator. I am sure his insight will be very valuable to the R&R committee in a variety of ways. At some point I would love to have a conversation with him about his experience, including not having retained firefighters in London and what more we could do to try to get every firefighter across this country to potentially become a first responder; again, making sure that the blue-light services work together.
Turning to the Bill, I think there are a number of issues in it. By and large, I support the principle, but in terms of prioritisation, my sense is that it does not really prioritise, certainly not by making sure that UK students get priority ahead of other people in the different priority groups. Discussion has been had about Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland; I assume there is some historic international treaty. It is clear in the way that the Government have brought this legislation forward that there is no such agreement or treaty when it comes to Malta, but I am more sympathetic to the Government on this issue than perhaps some other people on these Benches are.
This may seem unimportant, but this was rushed through in a day in the Commons by the right honourable Wes Streeting. Normally this sort of legislation is genuinely for emergencies, very specific situations, so it beggars belief that the Government seem to be using this as leverage with the BMA on strikes. Indeed, the Secretary of State mentioned this. When he was asked whether this was so urgent—and it will please students who are members of the BMA—he stated:
“It is important that the Bill is workable. A number of factors may well interrupt our ability … One of those factors is the ongoing risk of industrial action”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/26; col. 805.]
I am not sure that that is a valid reason for the Bill not to be commenced immediately, and it would certainly reduce the uncertainty for some of the other situations, including the 2026 application.
I just wanted to check my understanding on something. I am not suggesting that the department is cooking the books in any way, but the impact statement provides analysis that does not help us to get into the core detail. I would be grateful if the Minister would consider releasing more raw data. I ask that because we lump all our international medical graduates into one category in this analysis, and the Bill is asking us to have more categories of IMGs.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, was accurate in his understanding. I think there has been quite a lot of debate in the Commons, given that the UK Government have paid a lot of money—I think we heard it was about £4 billion a year on the clinical elements. I assume that is a combination of the NHS tuition fee bursary and other elements provided to medical schools. International students do not get that bursary. At the moment, it seems that by paying the £40,000 to £50,000 a year for being trained in a UK degree at a UK medical school, international students could well get priority. Within UK medical graduates, or indeed persons in the priority group which we just referred to, there is no actual prioritisation for UK students—by that, I mean UK nationals.
I think it is fair about the relationship with the Republic of Ireland; that is a historic relationship, and I do not object to that. But in the specialty training programmes, Clause 2(2)(e) covers, basically, people from the European Union and I am trying to understand why that is necessary. We just keep coming back to the fact that none of this is really prioritising UK students in UK medical schools. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Government intend to prioritise all the different categories. Is it the intention that the prioritisation will start with (a), then (b), then (c) and then (d)? It would be useful to understand that.
At the moment, the Bill would allow people under paragraph (d)—to be set out in regulations—to get priority ahead of UK medical graduates. It is unclear, therefore, how this might work.
I appreciate that what happened with visas has been cited as part of the problem. There is another way, however, in that the Government could adjust the skilled worker visa to address some of these issues. Have they considered that? I would be grateful if the Minister would write to me and the House. Generally speaking, though, I intend to support this Bill.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Roe, on an excellent maiden speech.
I welcome the Minister’s explanation of the Bill’s priorities, which I broadly support, but I have some concerns about the possible unintended impact on the UK’s medical training reputation, especially given recent investments in international recruitment. While some predict that artificial intelligence may reduce demand for doctors, I believe that medicine remains fundamentally human, and current shortages make such predictions rather unconvincing. The NHS continues to face consultant-level vacancies and low morale among doctors. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the need for a significant increase in training placements.
Competition for medical jobs is long-standing. Certainly when I qualified—a long time ago now—there was no guarantee of specialty training at all. There was an assumption that the majority of graduates would proceed into general practice. But a shortage of specialty training placements now prevents both domestic and international graduates from progressing. This situation is made worse by poor workforce planning over many years, despite well-forecast numbers of medical students. It is this systemic issue that needs urgent attention. There are some key questions, such as whether this Bill is the best solution, whose investment in training is at risk, and how affected students and doctors will be notified and understand the impact for themselves. Many correspondents have shared their anxiety about the Bill’s career impact for them.
I will not repeat the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, regarding the Queen Mary’s students in Malta. Similar arguments apply to students at City St George’s Cyprus campus, who follow the UK curriculum, meet GMC standards and are awarded UK-recognised qualifications yet will be deprioritised simply for studying overseas. They have taken identical exams and have committed significant time and money based on assurances that they could compete for UK foundation programme posts. Changing eligibility rules just as they graduate is unfair; it undermines confidence in our system and risks leaving qualified graduates without posts, damaging both the NHS and, of course, the reputation of City St George’s.
As an emeritus professor at City St George’s, University of London, I asked the dean for more information about the contracts that City St George’s has with students in Cyprus. Paragraph 3.4 of its contract says:
“On successful completion of the Programme, SGUL shall grant to the Student an award certificate to which he or she is entitled under the provisions of SGUL Policies and Regulations and will provide the Student’s name to the GMC in accordance with GMC requirements to enable students to be registered with the GMC as having a Primary Medical Qualification”.
This means that graduates were able to apply for the foundation programme and be considered equally alongside students who had studied in the UK. The issue of any visas required by graduates, of course, is outside the contract, as work permits for the UK sit under UK Immigration Rules. The question is whether there will be any legal risks. If a legal challenge was successful, presumably it would be financial, and presumably it would be the Government who would be accountable. I am not sure that the university could be held accountable for a breach of contract if the breach is the result of a change in law.
I also urge that consideration be given to whether those studying in overseas campuses might be included in the priority group, or at least to phasing in the changes prospectively for the sake of those already in training. Excluding such students devalues these important collaborations. I would be interested in the Minister’s response on whether there could be some valid legal challenges.
Fair workforce planning seems to be essential. Without adjustments, the Bill threatens morale and may drive talented doctors away. I have been thinking about proposing an amendment to ensure that graduates with UK medical degrees are prioritised for foundation programme entry, regardless of study location, which would seem to be fairer. One final point is that, for these overseas campuses, the numbers are actually quite small.
Lord Duvall (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Roe, it is an honour and a privilege to make my maiden speech today. Just over three weeks have passed since my introduction to this House. I have a sense of awe and pride at the history of this House but also the knowledge of how I have encountered Members from all sides of the House.
I would like to extend my thanks to the doorkeepers, the housekeepers and the catering staff, along with Garter, Black Rod and the Clerk of the Parliaments. I would like also to thank my introducers, my noble friend Lord Harris and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, who are former colleagues and valued friends with whom I have worked over many years. My thanks go to the Leader of the House, of course, and to the Chief Whip for the support and wise advice that they have given me.
I am also thankful for the way that I have been welcomed and received by noble Lords, again from all sides of the House. I have worked with many noble Lords in my time in local and regional politics, and it is a pleasure to be working with so many of you again for the benefit not just of London but of the country.
I want to take a moment to thank my partner, Jackie Smith. I am not referring to Jacqui Smith, my noble friend Lady Smith—I do not want to set any hares running. My Jackie Smith hails from Bermondsey, south London; perhaps I should not have mentioned, but a number of us have south London connections. I owe a lot to my Jackie. She has her own political career and her own achievements. She has been a councillor in her own right, and she has achieved many great things locally for the council and for the people that she serves. She supported me unfailingly over many years, and when I underwent a double bypass, she and the NHS carried me through it. There were difficulties, and, quite honestly, I would not be here today without her. In every sense, I am a better man because of her.
My journey—and it is a journey that I have been on before coming to this House—would not have been possible without the opportunities created for me by others: in education; in employment; and in the Labour Party and my trade union NUPE, now Unison. It also rests on the enduring influence of my mum and dad, who are not here to share this moment today.
I was made in Woolwich. The place has always been my home. Woolwich is full of history at every level, from its deep military traditions to its social legacy of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society and the polytechnics that opened the way for part-time learning and women returners into education. I am proud of my Anglo-Indian roots, proud of my mixed heritage and proud to be part of our nation of countries and nations. I am in Woolwich partly because of the Royal Artillery; I share that with my noble friend Lord Roe. My dad and both my grandfathers were gunners, and their service greatly impacted on my life. I am, by choice, the Mayor of London’s Armed Forces champion, and I will continue to advocate for our service men and women, veterans and their families in this Chamber if I can.
What most people do not know about my life is that I had ill health as a child. I spent 10 years in a special school. I left school at 16 and went straight into the world of work. My first role was working in a youth centre with young people. I was young myself; it takes me a while to think about that. I then became a trainee, what we would call an apprenticeship trainee, in local government, which gave me a solid grounding in public services.
I was also active in the trade union movement, representing and advocating for colleagues. I served as a shop steward and later I became a branch secretary. More importantly, I took advantage of the training opportunities that the trade union movement, and my employer, offered me. I remain grateful for that to this day.
I am also proud that I have had some opportunities to do international work. I have been involved, through the Commonwealth Local Government Forum and with colleagues in the Council of Europe, in promoting best practice within local government in regional chambers.
Closer to home, I am proud that I led Greenwich council and that I have spent the past 25 years at the London Assembly, taking on both scrutiny and many executive responsibilities. It is a real privilege to be in public life and serve people, and it is a privilege I never take lightly. I have spent my political life responding to and promoting change. You have to pre-empt, prepare and shape change, not be carried by it. It is interesting in the context of the debate that we are having tonight. Our country faces that change now, and the work which this Government are undertaking, the policies we scrutinise in this House and the way we do it define how the country embraces that change.
The Bill before us is about changing how medical training posts are allocated in the UK, ensuring that those trained here are first in line for NHS training programmes. It says something about the economic challenges our young people face today that those graduating from medical schools after five years of university study are often struggling and waiting to secure their first roles in medical training posts.
The Bill will help us develop the next generation of healthcare professionals. Internationally trained doctors will continue to make a huge contribution to our NHS. Nobody will be excluded from applying. There are some issues around the detail, which the Minister will want to respond to, but it will help us ensure that young people who have spent their early lives working incredibly hard in our schools and universities can fulfil their dreams. It will give them certainty as to where their hospital posting will be, and it will help maintain an NHS workforce that can continue to provide world-leading, life-saving care. I see this as giving an opportunity, in the same way that others have created opportunities for me throughout my life. Thank you.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is wonderful to follow the great maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Duvall—Len, to the rest of us—and I am proud to welcome another Labour and Co-op member to your Lordships’ House.
Len and I were trying to remember how long we had known each other. It is certainly since the mid-1980s, when I was the political secretary of that venerable institution, the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, based in Woolwich, and young Len, as he said, was born and grew up in Woolwich with close connections to the Royal Arsenal; his father and grandfather served as gunners in the Royal Artillery, and he was a local member.
It was clear to me that this young activist was clearly going places, and indeed he did. He was elected to Greenwich council in 1990 and became its leader in 1992, standing down when he became a London Assembly member. Remarkably, my noble friend—although he did not say this—has held his seat of Greenwich and Lewisham for the last seven GLA elections and is the only member of the GLA to serve since it was founded in 2000. During that time, he has held many positions, including chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority.
But the measure of a person is not just the positions they hold; it is what they do and achieve. I think we can safely say that my noble friend has served his Greenwich community and London magnificently over the years, with the regeneration of the Thames Gateway, the Greenwich waterfront, campaigning and getting investment in local communities, and much more. I understand that my noble friend has been and will continue to be chair of the Labour group in the GLA and, close to my heart, he also has an unmatched record of support for equality and human rights.
Finally, I think it is likely that my noble friend and I are the only Members of your Lordships’ House who have both been chairs of the Greater London Labour Party. I became chair in 1986 and served for several years, and my noble friend became chair in 2002. I think it is safe to say that we both bear the honour and the scars of that position. I welcome my noble friend to our Benches and I know we have much to look forward to in his contributions.
I thank the Minister for her introduction to the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Roe, for his wonderful maiden speech. In the debate, I had a sense of déjà vu because, as I look around the Chamber, I see that many of us have been here before. I was in a different position at that time, but it gave me a great deal of pleasure to look round and listen, even to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, opposite whom I have been for about 20 years in various forms, discussing health.
It does not seem so long ago that, during the course of what became the Health and Care Act 2022 which established ICBs, many of us across the House were begging the then Secretary of State to include a commitment in the Act to have a workforce strategy, to no avail. However, as the noble Earl said, the work- force strategy then appeared in 2023.
It seems to me that a key moment in 2026 will be the publication of the new long-term workforce plan for the NHS. The plan, due this spring, will be the first for our Labour Government and is expected to set out how the workforce will be developed to underpin the 10-year health plan. It has of course been built on earlier workforce strategy work and will set out how staffing needs can be matched to the future model of care.
As the Minister said in her opening remarks, delivering that plan depends on our staffing. Therefore, improving NHS staff recruitment and retention will be central to delivering this plan. This small and important Bill should be seen in that wider context. It addresses an immediate problem and offers an immediate solution with its main functions, which have been outlined to us: for medical foundation training, the prioritisation of graduates of UK medical schools; for medical specialty training posts starting in 2026, prioritisation at offer stage of graduates of UK and Republic of Ireland medical schools; and for medical specialty training posts starting in 2027 onwards, prioritisation at interview and offer stage of graduates of UK medical schools.
I am aware that many of us have received letters about this from students who feel sometimes aggrieved and, certainly, concerned—particularly students from Malta, and I know the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, will be addressing this, as others have. There are three things that have been identified, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and other noble Lords.
We will need to address, and solve, in the Bill whether or not we are ensuring fairness as the Bill progresses. I have two nephews who have qualified in recent years—one in Liverpool, one in London—and I recall from both of them the uncertainty they faced about where they might end up. It seems to me that, if we are increasing the number of places available, we must ensure that it is done in a way that addresses regional issues and regional needs. I ask the Minister to confirm that that is one of the things that will be taken account of as this progresses.
This Bill is welcome, and I welcome the rapidity with which we have responded to this issue. We can be sure that the House will resolve the issues facing us—fairness, our overseas graduates and all the others that have been outlined—because there is good will to take the Bill through the House. I think that means that it will fare well.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Roe and Lord Duvall, on entering this House. As a newbie myself—I have been here only about six weeks—I know that it is an enormous privilege, as well as incredibly hard work.
The principle at the heart of this Bill is the right one: UK-trained medical graduates should be properly prioritised for the foundation programme and subsequent specialist training. No one can dispute that it is wrong that UK graduates, educated at a cost of billions to the taxpayer, are forced to compete with overseas students, pushing many doctors abroad and depleting the talent pool that should be powering the NHS. I am grateful to the Minister for engaging with me over the last few days both personally and in meetings.
However, I have some serious concerns. The first, as has been alluded to, relates to Malta. As the only Member of this House to have Maltese heritage— I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, for reminding me that I have two George Crosses, one from having Maltese nationality and the other from working in the NHS—this is especially important to me. Like many noble Lords, I have received letters and concerns, but I have also received representation from all quarters in the UK and in Malta about the impact of the Bill on Malta, including from its Minister for Health and Active Ageing. He wrote a letter to our government health team where he said:
“Whilst acknowledging the supreme interest of ‘home-grown’ graduates, this development raises serious concerns for this Ministry and the people of Malta. Aside from risking to undermine two centuries of proud tradition and the dissolution of a strong bilateral relationship in healthcare, this strategy puts the training and specialisation of Maltese graduates in jeopardy”.
This matters because Malta has a long, deep and historic relationship with the United Kingdom, and not just in medicine, although I will stick to that. For nearly 200 years, since the first Maltese doctor received their licence to practise from the Royal College of Surgeons, British and Maltese medicine have grown side by side: the same language, the same exams and, for many years, the same training programme. This is why it has been possible for doctors such as my father, who came to this country in 1963, to dedicate their professional lives to the service of the NHS. This is a small group of doctors but they have had an enormous impact—tonight I should have been at a conference celebrating the power and impact that Maltese doctors have had—from revolutionary surgery treatment for Parkinson’s to revolutionary, innovative treatments for cancer.
Nowadays, each year around 50 doctors complete their specialty training in the NHS, under a special arrangement in which the Maltese Government cover 70% of their salary, with a contractual agreement that these doctors return to Malta. It is a so-called finishing school; they come here to do parts of the training that they cannot get in Malta, such as for sickle cell in haematology. It is a win-win. The NHS gets talented, skilled doctors, often working in hard-to-fill non-training grade posts, at very little cost to it.
This Maltese-UK relationship has been strengthened in recent years, as we have heard, with the establishment in Malta of a UK-based medical school, Queen Mary University of London. This is a multi-million pound initiative of QMUL and the Maltese Government. Since 2009, QMUL has delivered an integrated training programme, awarding an MBBS degree that is academically and regulatorily identical to the UK London programme. These are not rich kids buying a medical degree; they are hard-working students, among the top performers across the MBBS exam. The diversity of the campus in Malta mirrors that of the UK: 80% are from Black and minority-ethnic groups, 20% are disabled and 65% are women. Their training is aligned to NHS principles and practice. Nearly 80% of them do part of their training in a UK NHS hospital. Of course they understand the NHS—nearly 70% of these students are British nationals or have indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Deprioritising these doctors risks abandoning a small, committed cohort without a fallback, simply because they choose to fund their own training. This seems unfair.
I will briefly move to another area where I have serious concerns. This legislation will disadvantage many international graduates already in training who have spent thousands of pounds in good faith and were encouraged to come to this country to train. I have received representation from the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin, which is seriously concerned about this. These international medical graduates have been disadvantaged since the start of the NHS; they have been subject to racism, bullying, disproportionate complaints and punishment, and failure to progress in their career. They now risk losing employment, their visa status and everything they have worked for. This seems unfair, especially given the assurance by the UK Foundation Programme that the same preference informed allocation method used in 2024 and 2025 would be used for 2026. Should there not be transitional arrangements for these doctors, who have relied on public assurances?
As is often said, if one intervenes in a complex system, there is no guarantee that outcomes will be achieved but there is a guarantee of unintended consequences. I look forward to engaging with the Minister further and hope we can redress some of these issues.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords across the Chamber for their contributions, and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Roe and Lord Duvall, for their fantastic maiden speeches. I look forward to working alongside both noble Lords in taking forward this and other Bills. I was particularly interested to hear about the journey that the noble Lord, Lord Duvall, took here; I also worked with young people in a youth centre, and I have military history on both my mum’s side and my dad’s side of the family, spanning the First World War and the Second World War—although I confess that my mum’s uncle was not really sure where he was when he came to Europe to fight in the First World War.
I start by acknowledging, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones did, that I support the broad objectives of this legislation. As we have heard from other noble Lords, it is entirely reasonable for the United Kingdom to seek to ensure that our investment in medical education strengthens the NHS workforce and benefits patients here at home. Prioritising those who have trained and worked within our NHS is a legitimate aim. However, the way that principle is delivered matters greatly.
My first concern relates to the breadth of ministerial discretion in the Bill. It has not been covered by others, but it is really important. As drafted, the Bill will allow future changes on prioritisation to be made with limited parliamentary oversight. Decisions about who is prioritised for medical training places are not just technical adjustments; they shape careers, determine workforce supply and directly affect patients. Such decisions should therefore be subject to proper scrutiny and democratic accountability. This House has a principal responsibility to ensure that powers of this significance are exercised transparently and proportionately.
Many noble Lords have raised concerns about the timing of the Bill. As it makes its way through the legislative process, final-year students have seen their foundation training allocations paused. Thousands of graduates now face waiting until the last minute to discover where they will be working later this summer, potentially having to move across the country, as we have heard, with little notice. That uncertainty is deeply unsettling for graduates at the very start of their careers.
As we have heard from many noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, the intention to introduce new prioritisation rules part way through the 2026 specialty training cycle also risks causing real harm. More broadly, we must be clear-eyed about the workforce challenges and what this Bill can and cannot deliver. On its own, it will not resolve the problem, which is the critical shortage of training places, as we heard earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, talked about it as the bottleneck. Without a significant expansion in this, there is a real risk of this being only a partial fix. Indeed, in many respects, this feels like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
In recent years, the number of domestic undergraduate medical school places has expanded, while at the same time the GMC has registered a large number of overseas graduates. Staff-grade jobs that were difficult to fill even five years ago are now inundated with applications, and the appetite among NHS employers to actively recruit candidates overseas has already disappeared. All of this sits against the background of a highly restrictive government cap on the number of medical and dental students that UK universities are permitted to train—caps to which international partners are not subject. Because of these constraints, medical schools have developed partnerships with overseas institutions and Governments to help cover the increasing cost of teaching UK students. Therefore, I ask the Government to reflect carefully on any unintended reputational damage the Bill may cause to UK’s medical education sector and to those international relationships, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and others.
Malta has been mentioned, but I will not mention it further. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, both made that point forcefully.
I want to mention the emails that we have had from Newcastle, but there are also other universities out there that have partnership arrangements with Malaysia in particular, and I just want to talk about Nottingham and Southampton. I know that, in the past, the university that I attended, the University of Sheffield, also had that working relationship where the first two years of the medical degree were done in Malaysia and then the students came across here.
I am also concerned about the wider workforce consequences and shortages not confined to one area of medicine. Radiology has been mentioned, but mental health services and other specialties are already under intense strain, with evidence that professional bodies are linking workforce gaps directly to potential patient safety concerns, particularly in the cancer care area. Any reforms of training prioritisation must therefore be accompanied by a clear and ongoing assessment of their impact across specialties.
At the same time, the Government are hastily implementing the Leng review without adequate consultation, which risks placing additional long-term pressures on resident doctors during their postgraduate training through an unanticipated reduction in the number of medical associate professionals supporting doctors in their clinical workloads.
Finally, I wish to raise a fundamental question about the Government’s chosen mechanism for prioritisation. The Bill places significant weight on immigration status, as we have heard from other noble Lords, particularly indefinite leave to remain. I struggle to understand why this is the most appropriate or effective measure. The NHS, as we have heard, already has a robust system in place through the Oriel recruitment platform, which records where doctors have trained, how long they have worked in the NHS and their progression through the system. That data speaks directly to commitment, experience and contribution to our health service.
Prioritising doctors on the basis of time worked in the NHS, clinical excellence and demonstrable service to patients would seem far more closely aligned to the Bill’s stated purpose than relying on immigration status, which, as we heard, with the recent changes potentially coming through as well, is shaped by factors beyond an individual’s control. Therefore, I urge the Government to explain why they have chosen this route and whether they have fully considered the unintended consequences for recruitment, retention and morale within the medical workforce.
The Bill seeks to address real challenges and its objectives are worthy. I just want to pick up on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, raised about the grouping of applicants from around the world in just one group. It is only right and proper that, if we are scrutinising the Bill, we see data that I am sure the NHS holds about the origin of some of those students. To succeed, the Bill has to be fair and transparent and firmly rooted in the realities of the NHS workforce. Above all, it must sit alongside a serious commitment to expand training and capacity. I hope that the Government will reflect carefully on the issues that we have raised in your Lordships’ Chamber tonight as the Bill progresses through the House.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have made such valuable contributions to this debate. I greatly enjoyed hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham. He mentioned ham, egg and chips, and I can assure him that he will enjoy himself very much in your Lordships’ House, but it is the staff in this House who are amazing. I know they are going to look after him as well. They do an incredible job, and they are part of the package; they will do everything they can to make his experience an enjoyable one. He mentioned that he had served over half his life in the fire brigade, which is an incredible achievement, as well as his Army service. I think when he referenced boxing, it was incredibly appropriate, because fitness, discipline and mutual respect will greatly assist him in making a real difference in your Lordships’ House, and we are really looking forward to hearing his future contributions.
I must say the same for the noble Lord, Lord Duvall. It was most interesting to hear his background. The noble Lord is obviously an expert in local and regional politics. He was made in Woolwich. He then went on to lead Greenwich council, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was entirely correct when she said, back in the 1980s, that Len was going places. I think it is a huge testament to the NHS that the noble Lord, Lord Duvall, has had a double bypass and he is standing before us, fighting fit. He is going to enjoy constructively challenging His Majesty’s Government —and, I am sure, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition—and we are very much looking forward to hearing his contributions as well.
As many noble Lords have put it so well, there is a great deal to think about in this Bill, and there are a number of areas where His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and other noble Lords will wish to press the Government further. The Bill is intended to address a situation that is universally recognised as both serious and unsustainable, and precisely because there is such broad agreement on the problem, it is all the more important that your Lordships’ House scrutinises the Bill with a laser focus to ensure that the final proposals will be hallmarked as best market practice.
The interventions thus far have already highlighted the value of that scrutiny, with noble Lords identifying a number of areas that would benefit from further consideration. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—who is, of course, widely respected in this area of legislation—the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, all spoke about unintended consequences. In attempting to solve the problem, there may always be unintended consequences. Our desire is to stress-test the potential outcomes to resolve that the end result is indeed beneficial for those who need the help and does not formulate a situation where more harm is done than good.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referenced the fact that this is a pressing issue and time sensitive, but that is no excuse for poorly drafted legislation, which may have serious ramifications for both questions of fairness and trusted relationships with our international allies.
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support the core principle and intended purpose of the Bill but are clear that there are areas that would benefit from constructive challenge and a moulded consensus as we progress. We have had the opportunity today to discuss some of the practical effects that the Bill will create. Certain groups will, for a variety of reasons, fall outside the mainstream. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that the situation Malta was a “manifest absurdity”. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, rightly recognised that routes for overseas doctors to train here have multiple ancillary benefits. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, likened this situation to being “thrown to the wolves”. So those studying on accredited programmes as part of agreements with third countries, and British citizens who have done the majority of their training abroad for legitimate reasons such as military service, are two examples where we need further scrutiny.
In light of the potential unintended consequences of the Bill, where Parliament has had a limited opportunity for detailed analysis both in your Lordships’ House and particularly in the other place, it is vital that it contains robust mechanisms for review and accountability. Clear duties to review and report on the operational and “lived experiences” impact of this legislation will provide a pivotal safeguard, ensuring that Parliament retains a meaningful and proactive role in holding the Government to account as this framework is implemented. This would seem an entirely proportionate and sensible approach, allowing the Bill to work effectively while minimising potential unforced errors. We are confident that noble Lords will be keen to embed such provisions in the Bill.
Workplace confidence and consistency were mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that the execution is “flawed”, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said that there is a great risk of undermining confidence. So we must address the question of confidence among individuals for whom this legislation contains far-reaching consequences and whom it directly affects. Doctors make long-term, often irreversible, decisions about their training, specialisation and careers. Those decisions are shaped not only by pay or conditions but by their confidence that the system is fair, predictable and stable. They need to know what the rules of engagement are and that their career paths will be, within reason, clear, coherent and consistently applied.
No one likes uncertainty and, whether for government, business or relationships, everyone needs stability. Doctors are no different. Knowing that the goalposts will not shift unexpectedly part way through training is a must-have. Where legislation is rushed or where its effects are uncertain, that very confidence can be undermined. Even reforms that are well intentioned can have negative knock-on consequences if doctors feel that eligibility criteria are opaque, that established pathways may suddenly be reclassified or that decisions affecting their future are taken without sufficient forethought or scrutiny.
That matters because confidence and morale are central to retention in every aspect of life. If talented doctors harbour doubts that the system they are held to may not treat them fairly, or doubts about whether their own significant investment in training, as mentioned by many noble Lords, will be recognised, they may choose to take their skill set elsewhere—not because they lack commitment to our National Health Service but because they lack confidence in the framework governing their progression. A lack of confidence in any system will lead to pitfalls.
This is precisely why the detail of the Bill matters so much. Getting it right is not simply a technical or procedural exercise; it goes right to the heart of whether doctors feel valued, supported and willing to commit their careers to the National Health Service. An open and transparent workflow of prioritisation will only strengthen confidence. A rushed or overly rigid one risks doing the opposite.
Many former Members of the other place would suggest that helping health and social care in some small way is critical because it provides a unique opportunity to do the right thing through debate and constructive challenge, which should result and positive outcomes for everyone living in the United Kingdom. Our National Health Service, while not perfect—indeed, nothing is—remains based on the founding principle of providing universal care that is free at the point of use, and our doctors are at the heart of that premise.
This Bill aims to make provision about the prioritisation of graduates from medical schools in the United Kingdom, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition look forward to working constructively with the Government and all noble Lords in facilitating that desired outcome.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this debate for the support given, including just now by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, to working with us, because I think there is general recognition that we have a problem that needs to be dealt with. I am very glad, as I said at the outset, to have been the Minister at the Dispatch Box when my noble friends Lord Duvall and Lord Roe made their moving maiden speeches. They both have many years of distinction in public service, and I know that that will continue as they bring their own unique experiences and views on the world to your Lordships’ House, which will be much enriched by their presence.
A strong and consistent theme has come through today’s debate: a shared concern for the well-being of NHS staff, recognition of the importance of workforce planning and the need for a sustainable health service. I am grateful for the thoughtful questions, and I will endeavour to answer as many as possible—I have already referred to some in my opening remarks. I will of course review the debate, as always, and I will be pleased to write to noble Lords on those matters I was not able to get to.
This legislation is about giving future generations of doctors trained in the UK a clearer and more secure pathway into NHS careers. It is about sustainable workforce planning and, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to, about fairness—to those who train here, to taxpayers who fund that training and to patients. As many noble Lords acknowledged, significant public investment goes into medical education every year, so it is right that we ask ourselves how that investment can be best aligned to what we need.
I have listened closely to the concerns raised today, particularly about the Bill’s impact on those who will not be prioritised. To reiterate, the way I look at this is that the Bill is about prioritisation, not exclusion. I assure your Lordships’ House that all eligible applicants will still be able to apply, and they will be offered places if vacancies remain after prioritised applicants have received theirs. We absolutely expect that to be the case; that is our experience. To be more specific, there are likely to be opportunities in specialties such as general practice, core psychiatry and internal medicine, which historically attract fewer applicants than the groups we are prioritising for 2026. We still need those people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked about possible unintended consequences for the UK’s international reputation. I believe our proud history of welcoming colleagues from across the world will continue and, as I have just said, international colleagues can, of course, continue to apply after prioritisation has taken place and there are vacancies.
On new specialty training posts, we have committed to creating 1,000 of these new posts over the next three years, focusing on specialties where there is greatest need. This is on top of creating 250 additional GP training places each year. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised questions about the availability of training places. Expansion will be matched with training capacity. We have not yet confirmed which specialties will receive the new posts, but we will ensure that expansion is targeted where patient demand and workforce pressures are the most acute.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made reference to the cancer plan. It was a bright spot in today’s news—I am sure all noble Lords will understand —and has not had the airtime it ought to have had, so I am most grateful to him. What I can tell the noble Lord about the creation of new specialty training posts is that there will be a focus on those with greatest need. We will set out steps in due course and I look forward to keeping the noble Lord informed. Non-prioritised graduates will also continue to have routes into NHS careers through locally employed doctor roles, gaining experience that can support future progression and prioritisation.
Let me turn to some of the specific points that were raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked about British citizens who have graduated from medical schools outside the UK and will not be in the priority group. I understand why these concerns are being raised but, going back to the core of the Bill, to prioritise them would undermine our aim to build UK-trained capacity while ensuring we do not provide any more foundation programme places than we need. To reiterate, UK-trained doctors are more likely to work in the NHS for longer, and retention is an issue that is much discussed in your Lordships’ House. They will be better equipped to deliver tailored healthcare that suits the UK’s population because of what they understand. Reference was made to the provision extending also to the Republic of Ireland graduates. Their inclusion ensures consistency in workforce planning across both jurisdictions, which reflects the long-standing protocol rights for movement and employment. That was something in which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was particularly interested.
On specialty training places starting in 2026, British citizens will be prioritised, because that is one of the prioritised immigration statuses being used as a proxy to indicate someone who is likely to have significant experience of the NHS. Why? Because applications for posts starting in 2026 have already been made. Prioritisation is only at offer stage because shortlisting is under way, so it is a timing matter about implementation. From 2027, immigration status will no longer automatically determine priority, but we have the ability to set out in regulations the persons who will be prioritised based on criteria which indicate they are likely to have significant NHS experience, or based on their immigration status. As I said earlier, we will be engaging with our partners to work out how best to define that.
On the point made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevens, about graduates of overseas campuses, including Malta, which I will turn to presently, having heard the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, the UK foundation programme applications for 2026 show that there are almost 300 applicants from these overseas campuses, of whom 152 are UK nationals. This is a substantial number and, if we were to do what is being asked—to prioritise graduates of UK overseas campuses—our estimation is that this could encourage universities to establish further international partnerships which would simply increase pressure still further. It also risks creating a loophole that would encourage new overseas partnerships to seek preferential access to the foundation programme across the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, picked out Liechtenstein in particular, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to, we are talking about the EFTA countries, which include Liechtenstein, and they are prioritised simply because of existing international agreements that we are obliged to honour. However, in practice, not all these countries are going to have eligible applicants.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I hope the Minister does not mind. Does the Minister think that the agreement with Malta should be honoured as well?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am coming on to this, but the agreement in respect of Malta that I would refer to is a reciprocal health agreement. It does not apply in this area. It is about the reciprocal provision of healthcare. I will turn to Malta, however, after saying a brief word about overseas campuses generally.
Just to re-emphasise, overseas campus students are not part of the numbers that the Government are setting. We do not have that control. If we prioritised those graduates as well, that would eat away at the very core of the Bill and the things people actually want us to do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wanted an indication of how this would all align with the international education strategy. The Bill does not conflict with this, because the international education strategy supports universities expanding internationally. It does not prevent UK universities delivering medical degrees overseas. That strategy stays in place.
I turn to Malta for the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada—
Baroness Hollins (CB)
Can I just a question? The Minister has suggested that these students could come and work in non-training posts. But the problem, as I understand it—do correct me if I am wrong—is that, for example, St George’s students must complete their foundation year in the UK to be eligible to apply for full registration. Therefore, it means that they cannot complete their medical education without being eligible to apply for the foundation training. While a different contract could potentially be negotiated for future students at an overseas campus, the current students who have this contract and expectation in place need to have that honoured. I do not feel that the Minister has responded to the concerns that have been raised eloquently around the House.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As I said at the outset, I will endeavour to answer all questions, but where I do not have an answer, particularly where I want to look at them in closer detail, I will be very pleased to write, of course, as always.
Still turning to Malta—which is a pleasure—let me say straight away that we do have a long-standing partnership with Malta on healthcare. It is valued and it will continue. Doctors who are training in Malta will still come to the UK, as they do now, to gain NHS experience to support their training, for example through fellowship schemes. This is not affected by the Bill.
As I discussed with the noble Baroness just yesterday, senior officials in my department have met with the High Commissioner of Malta to the United Kingdom in order to assure him of this. But it is important to prioritise in order to ensure a sustainable workforce that meets its health needs. Again, that is at the core of the Bill. Malta has its own foundation school. This is not part of the UK foundation programme: it is affiliated with the UK foundation programme office which administers the UK programme. That means—this point has been made to me—the Malta Foundation School delivers the same curriculum and offers the same education and training as the UK foundation programme. The Bill will not impact this affiliation or the other ways in which work carries on closely with the Government of Malta when it comes to health.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, also made the point that he believed small numbers of students were impacted. I have referred to the 300 applicants from overseas campuses. I hope it is understood that that is why there is a significance there.
If there are other matters that I have not addressed to the satisfaction of the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, I will be very pleased to review this, because I suspect there were some more points to address. I will be very pleased to write to her to give her comfort in this regard.
I move on now to the impact on doctors who were part way through the application process—a point spoken to by noble Lords, Lord Patel, Lord Mohammed, Lord Clement-Jones, and other noble Lords. As I stated earlier, delaying implementation of the Bill until next year, which would be required if we were to respond as requested, would mean another full year where we are not tackling the issue of bottlenecks in medical training. It seemed to me that the feeling in the House was that we did need to do that.
I understand the discomfort of noble Lords around this. It is important that I recognise that, but it is also important to recognise when introducing legislation that sometimes it will not work perfectly for everybody. This is about prioritisation, not about exclusion.
Following that point, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, asked about emergency legislation. They asked: why now? As the Health Secretary set out in the other place, he has listened to resident doctors and their concerns about a system that does not work for them. He agreed to bring forward that emergency legislation as quickly as possible, rather than wait—this is key for a number of the points raised—another year to do so.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about the Bill’s commencement and why it will not commence at Royal Assent—that is a very fair question. We are introducing reforms for a large-scale recruitment process. I know that noble Lords will understand what a major undertaking this is. We do not want to create errors or more uncertainty. To make sure that it is effective in commencement, we must have clear processes for delivery across the health system, and I am sure that all noble Lords appreciate that these elements cannot be switched on overnight. As the Secretary of State said in the other place, there is a material consideration about whether it is even possible to proceed if the strikes are ongoing. He is concerned—I share this concern, as I am sure all noble Lords do—about the disruption that strikes cause and the pressure they put on resources, which would make it so much harder operationally to deliver the measures in the Bill.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I will press the point I made earlier about uncertainty. Not having a commencement date creates a lot of uncertainty for the current batch of students, who are really worried about whether they will they gain a place and, more importantly, where. I want to impress this issue on the Minister; it was raised by the Russell group medical school admissions head with me personally.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I completely understand the point about uncertainty. Uncertainty exists in the current system, and uncertainty may transfer for different reasons. We are keen to get on with this. I am just indicating some of the circumstances—strike action—that would cause difficulty for us in terms of commencement. I hope we can proceed. I think the noble Lord will understand exactly what I am saying.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about the release of more granular detail. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that NHS England already publishes a wide range of recruitment data, including data on country of qualification and nationality groups. It will publish further granular data when possible and monitor the implementation of the Bill, should it pass—that, for me, is the most important point. If the noble Baroness is referring to other information, she is very welcome to raise that with me.
I am of course very happy to meet with my noble friend Lord Stevenson. In general, the 10-year health plan commits to working with professional regulators and educational institutions over the next three years to overhaul education and training curricula.
To answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on prioritisation, if I can put it in my language: you either are or are not prioritised. There are no tiers of priorities within priorities; it is as it is written in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, asked about the impact of prioritisation on harder-to-fill specialties. This approach will not negatively impact recruitment. In fact, it will ensure that priority groups are considered first, while keeping the door open for when we need people. I think it will help get people into the areas in which we need them, because it will direct people to where we do not have sufficient applicants.
At its heart, the Bill is about the UK-trained medical graduates on whom the NHS heavily relies. We are grateful for their skill, commitment and professionalism. It is our responsibility to ensure they are trained, supported and treated well at work. This is a more sustainable and considered approach to the allocation of medical training places. A number of noble Lords said that this is a problem that has been around for years. We are grasping the proverbial nettle. The Bill is a measured step towards the goals of clarity, fairness and opportunity. It will not, on its own, resolve everything—I am fully aware of that—but it will help us with a pressing problem. With that, I beg to move.
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this Second Reading debate on the Bill. It legislates for reforms announced in the Budget in November. That was a Budget to build a stronger, more secure economy that had at its heart three deliberate pro-growth choices. First, by choosing to maintain economic stability, getting inflation and interest rates down, we helped to give businesses the confidence to invest and our economy the room to grow. Secondly, by choosing to reject austerity, we protected £120 billion of additional investment in growth-driving infrastructure. Thirdly, by choosing to back the fast-growing companies of the future, we supported the investment, innovation and economic dynamism that will increase growth in the next decade and beyond.
But these are choices that need to be paid for. That is why the Budget contained a series of reforms to the tax system to ensure that it keeps pace with a fast-changing economy. Those reforms include changes to pension salary sacrifice, contained in the Bill we are debating today. The Government spend over £500 billion each year on various reliefs within the tax system. That is more than double the entire annual NHS budget and nearly five times the annual budget for education. The size of this spend means the Government must always keep the effectiveness and value for money of tax reliefs under review. This Bill addresses just one of these reliefs: pension salary sacrifice, the cost of which was set to treble to £8 billion a year by the end of this decade.
That increase has been driven most by higher earners, with additional-rate taxpayers tripling their salary sacrifice contributions since 2017. This includes individuals sacrificing their bonuses without paying any income tax and national insurance contributions on them. But while those on the highest salaries are most likely to take part in salary sacrifice, others are completely excluded. For example, the majority of employers do not offer salary sacrifice, including many small businesses. Groups who are most likely to be undersaving for retirement, such as those on the national minimum wage and the UK’s 4.4 million self-employed workers, are also completely excluded from using salary sacrifice.
The status quo is neither fair nor fiscally sustainable. We cannot afford to allow the cost of pension salary sacrifice to balloon, benefiting predominantly higher earners. In this, we agree with the approach taken by the previous Government. In their 2015 Summer Budget, the then Government said:
“Salary sacrifice arrangements … are becoming increasingly popular and the cost to the taxpayer is rising”.
Two years later, the previous Government introduced reforms to salary sacrifice. The Finance Act 2017 removed the tax advantages of salary sacrifice for the majority of benefits in kind—for example, living accommodation or private medical insurance. The noble Lord, Lord Hammond of Runnymede, told the other place:
“The majority of employees pay tax on a cash salary, but some are able to sacrifice salary … and pay much lower tax … That is unfair”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/11/16; col. 907.]
The previous Government commissioned research in 2023, which included a proposal to cap pensions salary sacrifice at £2,000. This Government are now taking forward that reform to ensure that the tax system is kept on a sustainable footing.
Although some tax experts have called for pension salary sacrifice to be abolished entirely, the Government are taking a more measured and pragmatic approach. The Bill contains two main elements. First, it introduces a cap of £2,000 under which no employer and employee national insurance contributions will be charged on any pension contributions. The cap protects ordinary workers using salary sacrifice and limits the impact on employers while ensuring that the system remains fiscally sustainable. The majority of those currently using salary sacrifice will be unaffected. Indeed, 95% of those earning £30,000 or less who currently make pension contributions through salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected. It is forecast that 87% of salary sacrifice contributions above the cap will be made by higher rate and additional rate taxpayers. Individuals can also continue to save as much as they wish into their pensions, either through salary sacrifice or outside of it, both of which will be fully relievable of income tax.
Secondly, we are introducing this change with a long implementation period so that it will come into effect in 2029-30. This gives employers and employees over three years to prepare and to adjust. I am pleased that business and industry bodies have already welcomed this lengthy implementation period. HMRC is also engaging with industry stakeholders to ensure this change operates in the most effective way. That will continue as we approach implementation.
Saving into a pension, including via salary sacrifice, will remain hugely tax advantageous under these changes. The Government currently provide over £70 billion of income tax and national insurance contributions relief on pension contributions each year. That spend will be entirely unaffected by these changes. Employees’ pension contributions, including those made via salary sacrifice, will continue to be fully relievable from income tax at the employee’s marginal rate. For example, if a basic rate taxpayer were to put £100 into their pension, it would cost them just £80 of their take-home pay, with the Government providing the remaining £20 in tax relief. For a higher rate taxpayer, that same £100 pension contribution can cost them as little as £60 because they also receive relief at their marginal rate of tax.
For employers, all pension contributions they make for their employees outside of salary sacrifice will remain exempt from both income tax and national insurance contributions. This makes pensions one of the most tax-efficient ways to invest in their workforce. For example, if an employer contributes £1,000 to an employee’s pension, this is worth £150 in forgone employer national insurance contributions.
Since the Budget in November, it has been suggested by some that these changes will negatively impact the overall level of pension saving. We do not believe this to be the case. Salary sacrifice existed in the 2000s and early 2010s, yet there were significant falls in private sector pension saving during this period. In 2012, only one in three private sector workers saved into a pension.
The key factor that has led to an increase in saving in recent years is not the complicated national insurance reliefs available to some employees, but rather automatic enrolment, introduced in 2012, which has reversed the collapse in workplace pension saving. As a result of automatic enrolment, over 22 million workers across the UK are now saving each month.
Evidence also shows that pension contributions have risen in line with regulatory requirements, not with the growth of salary sacrifice. The majority of employers reducing their tax bill by offering pension salary sacrifice did not use the savings to increase pension contributions. Overall, the Office for Budget Responsibility has made it clear in its economic and fiscal outlook that it does not expect a material impact on savings behaviour as a result of the tax changes made in the Budget.
These are fair and balanced reforms. They protect lower and middle earners, give employers many years to prepare, preserve the incentives that underpin workplace pension saving, and ensure that the tax system is kept on a sustainable footing. The Bill builds on reforms by the previous Government to the salary sacrifice system and legislates for proposals first put forward in 2023. It also forms part of a wider package of reforms to ensure that the tax system keeps pace with our fast-changing economy. As a result of these and other reforms, the Government were able to take a series of pro-growth choices at the Budget last year to maintain economic stability, to reject austerity, to protect investment and to back the fast-growing companies of the future. These are the right and responsible choices to strengthen our economy for the long term. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this Bill is deceptively small. It runs to just four pages of text and could be easily mistaken for something minor. But its consequences for working people and for long-term pension saving in particular are serious and far-reaching. We are talking about pensions, not other benefits, which the previous Government reformed.
There is a risk that the Bill’s impact will be misunderstood or dismissed as marginal, but it is neither. In simple terms, it introduces a £2,000 annual cap on the amount of pension saving that can be made through salary sacrifice without attracting national insurance. Above that cap, pension contributions are treated as earnings for national insurance purposes. Because of the way NICs work, employees earning below £50,270 will pay national insurance at 80% on the excess; those earning above that threshold will pay 2% on the excess. That is the policy, and the question for this House is who it really affects and what behaviour it is likely to change. I thank all noble Lords for staying late and look forward to their contributions.
The Government have repeatedly argued that this measure is targeted at those they describe as high earners. Page 2 of the Explanatory Notes makes it clear that this is the Government’s intention, and the fashionable Minister, Torsten Bell, has said that the Bill “protects ordinary workers”. He implicitly recognises that, for those on low incomes, salary sacrifice is the only way to build up a significant defined contribution pension fund.
But what is immediately obvious to the pension providers, employers and experts that we have spoken to is that this is not, in practice, a measure aimed at the highest earners. It hits people squarely in the middle of the income distribution, and in some cases below it. Those saving responsibly through salary sacrifice are most affected. They include younger professionals in high-cost cities and mid-career workers trying to make up pension shortfalls, typically earning between £30,000 and £60,000 a year. Given that the average UK salary is £37,430, it is difficult to see how people earning within this distribution can be credibly described as high earners. They are ordinary working people doing exactly what successive Governments have spent decades encouraging them to do: saving responsibly for retirement.
I will give the House a concrete example. Imagine a young professional who has just graduated and taken up a job in a city—London, Bristol or Manchester—earning £45,000 a year. They decide to do the responsible thing and save seriously for retirement, contributing £5,000 a year through salary sacrifice. Under the Bill, £3,000 of that saving is treated as earnings for national insurance purposes, and that individual will be paying more national insurance, not because their income has increased but because they are trying to secure a decent pension. This represents an additional hit of £240 a year for a young working person, coming on top of student loan repayments at a ridiculously high interest rate, tax, existing national insurance contributions and the high cost of living.
This raises a question for the Minister: quite how are the Government defining a high earner? A graduate in their 20s, living in London and living on £45,000 a year—£40,000 after sacrificing £5,000 for their pension—is not a high earner: not against average income, and certainly not in the context of where they are living. So where has the Treasury decided to draw that line? Unless the definition is clearly set out, it risks becoming a flexible and politically convenient threshold, capable of being shifted over time to suit the Treasury’s needs. Without a fixed and transparent definition, no group can be confident it will not be caught by provisions targeted at high earners.
The example I gave goes to the heart of one of our core concerns with the Bill, which is that the likely behavioural response it will generate risks undermining pensions adequacy. We already know that adequacy is a serious and unresolved problem. Auto-enrolment, introduced on a cross-party basis, has been a major success in bringing people into pension saving. But even so, the statutory minimum contribution of 8% is widely accepted as insufficient to deliver a decent retirement income for many people. The system relies on employers paying over the statutory minimum for their workers to be sufficiently funded in retirement. That is not a controversial point; it is the settled consensus of the pensions world.
The IFS report, Adequacy of Future Retirement Incomes: New Evidence for Private Sector Employees, clearly makes the point that despite the success of automatic enrolment, a large minority of private sector employees are not on track for an adequate retirement income and saving has become more challenging. It found that only 57% of private sector employees saving in defined contribution pensions are projected to hit the Pensions Commission’s target replacement rates, and around one-third of savers are not projected to achieve even the minimum retirement living standard defined by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association
Against that backdrop, discouraging additional pension saving is exactly the wrong policy response, yet that is precisely what the Bill does. Evidence published prior to the Budget suggested that nearly 40% of workers would reduce their pension saving if the benefits of salary sacrifice were capped, and the costs and complexities of the new system will almost certainly mean that employers reduce their salary sacrifice offerings altogether. That outcome is a foreseeable consequence of the policy design set out in the Bill.
The effects of the Bill will be felt not just immediately but deeply over time. Lower saving today means lower retirement income tomorrow and greater reliance on the state in future decades. At a time when we are rightly concerned about the long-term sustainability of the public finances, it is deeply troubling to introduce a measure that reduces pension saving, thus storing up higher costs for future Governments.
It would be a mistake to pretend that the Bill bears only on savers. Employers, especially small businesses, will be hit directly by higher costs, new administrative burdens and unpalatable choices about pay and pension provision. It comes at the worst possible time. Businesses are already struggling under the cumulative weight of this Government’s economic choices—minimum wage increases, punitive business rates, an expanding national insurance burden and an economy mired in prolonged stagnation.
Under the current system, salary sacrifice arrangements are a widely used mechanism through which employers support pension saving. They reduce employer NI liabilities, simplify administration and enable employers to offer more generous pension provision without increasing headline wages. The Bill fundamentally damages that settlement.
From April 2029, employers will be liable for employer national insurance contributions at 15% on any salary-sacrificed pension contributions above £2,000. That represents a direct increase in payroll costs for any organisation with meaningful take-up of salary sacrifice arrangements.
Let us imagine an employee aged 50 with a £40,000 salary, trying to make up a potential pension income shortfall before they retire by sacrificing £5,000 per year. Their £5,000 sacrifice is due to trigger national insurance on £3,000 of that amount, costing the employer an additional £450 and the employee £240 per year.
The Office for Budget Responsibility assumes that around three-quarters of those additional costs will be passed on to employees, either through lower wages or reduced employer pension contributions. But even with these anticipated changes in behaviour, employers will still bear substantial transitional costs, ongoing compliance burdens and reputational risks associated with scaling back on pensions.
Employers will also face new administrative and reporting requirements. To administer the £2,000 cliff edge, they will be required to track and report total salary-sacrificed pension contributions through payroll systems, calculate national insurance liabilities on any excess above the cap and communicate clearly with employees about changes to their take-home pay. While the three-year window will allow many to update their payroll software, the complexity should not be underestimated, particularly for smaller employers without sophisticated payroll infrastructure or for employees with more than one job, which is common in the SME sector.
Faced with these costs and complexities, it is entirely rational for employers to withdraw salary sacrifice. The result is likely to be less flexibility, fewer incentives to save, and weaker pension provision across the workforce, making the private sector even less competitive as compared with the generous defined benefit pension provision in the public sector.
This is not mere speculation by the Opposition. The OBR’s own revenue projections already assume significant behavioural change, and evidence suggests that employers are actively reassessing their pension strategies in anticipation of the Bill, meaning that it is increasingly likely that the OBR has been overgenerous in its estimations. At a time when successive Governments have encouraged employers to play a greater role in supporting retirement adequacy, often paying above the statutory minimum, the Bill risks pushing employers in precisely the opposite direction. Higher costs, greater complexity and weaker incentives are not a recipe for stronger workplace pensions, and there could even be a backlash against the Government as individual employees find it difficult to know whether they have hit the cap.
The Government argue that this is a modest measure necessary to raise revenue of £4.8 billion—and, I note cynically, to do so by the end of the forecast period in 2029-30, which is the horizon against which the Chancellor’s fiscal rules are judged. The revenue assumptions depend heavily on people not changing their behaviour, but the evidence suggests that they will. When incentives change, behaviour changes, by both individuals and employers. When behaviour changes, revenues fall, but the damage to pensions adequacy remains. The Bill risks achieving the worst of all worlds: reducing trust in the pensions system, a cap that disincentivises pension saving by responsible individuals, an increase in future dependency on the state, and a failure to deliver the long-term fiscal benefits the Government want.
Tax is a behavioural lever—a powerful one—and should not be considered independently of other pension priorities. The Government are legislating for these changes in isolation today, at a time when the Pension Schemes Bill and the Pensions Commission are likely to transform the whole pension environment. Is this really wise? I believe this House must scrutinise this Bill, its costings and any regulations made under its powers with the greatest of care.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I accept that this Government, like their predecessor, have little room for manoeuvre if they are to keep within their fiscal rules at a time of sluggish growth, so I am not surprised to see them bearing down on the tax efficiencies of employer pension contributions, which the Treasury believes would generate almost £7.5 billion in tax revenue over the two financial years 2029-30 and 2030-31. Unlike with last year’s NICs Bill, with its growth-sapping and job-depressing £25-billion hike in employers’ NICs, I currently have no plans to table any amendments to this Bill—but I do have two questions for the Minister about Clause 1.
Before asking those questions, let me say that I am concerned that the Bill penalises the responsible working person who is doing the right thing, putting some money aside to fund their retirement and old age, as a pension funding crisis looms on the horizon. For greater insight into that, and the disturbing economics of our ageing society, perhaps I may recommend the latest report, Preparing for an Ageing Society, from the Economic Affairs Committee, on which I sit, as does the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. It is a sobering read because, quite simply, we are not prepared.
The first area I would like to probe concerns the forecasts for £40 million to £75 million annual losses in tax revenue in the next three years, before the Bill comes into force. I understand that those losses factor in the expected behavioural change that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, correctly highlighted, but they strike me as undercooked based on what I am seeing and hearing at the coalface. I should declare that I am an adviser to, and invest in, a range of start-ups and scale-ups, a number of which, understandably, have drawn up plans for their staff to increase and front-load levels of salary sacrifice while the three-year window allows, so that both employer and employees reduce their exposure to NICs.
Of course, I accept that that is anecdotal evidence, but it strikes me that the behavioural change triggered by Clause 1 of the Bill may result in nine-figure annual reductions of tax revenues: that is, hundreds of millions, not tens of millions, as suggested by the very brief tax information and impact note. Could the Minister explain how these figures have been calculated? What are the assumptions? The Minister may be interested to hear the advice coming from a leading HR and tax consultant, whose advice to CFOs and CPOs reads as follows:
“There are still more than three years to take advantage of salary sacrifice available and, with another General Election due in 2029, the legislative landscape could change again”.
My second question concerns the rationale for setting the contributions limit at £2,000 per tax year, which, as we have just heard, will hit middle earners the hardest. As we have heard, due to the way that employee NICs work, the deductions will be 2% of the contribution over the cap for higher earners but up to 8% on the excess for people earning below £50,000. Why are we hitting this group, which includes nurses, therapists, teachers, data scientists, young professionals and entrepreneurs, so disproportionately hard? Could the Minister please explain? This has some echoes of last year, when the increases to employers’ NICs disproportionately penalised SMEs with more than three staff, employers in the lower-paid sectors and, especially, part-time workers in areas such as hospitality and retail—and look how that has worked out for job creation and employment prospects in those sectors since.
I finish with a more general point about our tax system. This Bill and last year’s Act highlight why we need to radically overhaul—that is, simplify—our horrendously complicated tax code, which is an accumulation of chopping and changing by Governments on both sides over the last 50 years or so. However, I acknowledge that that is a big subject for another day, and time is short.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for presenting the Bill to the House. I speak as a friend of the Bill, although I suspect I will be its only friend apart from the Front Bench.
I do know something about the subject. I am a strong supporter of tax relief for pension provision—it is one of the foundations of a successful pension system—but that does not mean that we provide tax relief without limit. How much tax relief we provide is a question. You cannot logically adopt the line that every extra bit of tax relief is to be justified. The case has to be made.
I have listened to both speeches so far and read the articles in the press, and really the opposition to this change is all a bit overcooked. The total amount of tax relief granted to pension provision, occupational and contract based, is enormous, but the amount that is lost through this Bill is limited: it is marginal. It is obviously a significant amount to the individuals concerned but, looked at as an overall policy objective, the amount that is being reduced here is limited.
I have always regarded salary sacrifice as an illogical nonsense. It really makes no sense. It is a form of regulatory arbitrage and I have always thought that it was vulnerable to changes in government policy. What I had not realised, since I was active in advising members and employers, was how much it has grown in recent years. This is really the point: there was life before salary sacrifice became so popular. People still saved for their pensions and still received good pensions. The argument that this whole structure depends on salary sacrifice is nonsense.
The whole concept of salary sacrifice is based on a false dichotomy: that in some way, employer contributions are distinct from employee contributions. They might have a different label on them but they all come from the same employment package. It is fungible, to use a popular word. There is no real difference and to have one type, the employee contribution, which is subject to national insurance contributions and another form, the employer contribution, not subject to them is and always was nonsense, so I welcome this Bill.
There are practical problems to be addressed. We will have two days in Committee to look at those. Two days in Committee for what is effectively a one-clause Bill seems quite surprising, but maybe there are issues. How does it work for different periods of payment and people who have changing incomes during the year? How does it work for people with more than one job and how do we achieve confidentiality of an individual’s income from one employer rather than another?
There is also something that is a new term to me: optional remuneration arrangements—OpRAs. That appears in some way to limit the extent to which contracts can be changed. I think we will have to look at that carefully because, on the one hand, the way it is being done will lead to attempts to manoeuvre around the legislation; at the same time, we do not want it to cause problems with the jobs market. There will be behaviour change and, again, I would be interested in my noble friend’s views on how that will work.
I have run out of time. I support and welcome the Bill and I look forward to an interesting period in Committee when we will get the details right.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure and a challenge to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, but I welcome his remarks.
This is the second attempt by the Government to raise money by stealth through national insurance—first on workers, now on savers. Your Lordships will recall the disaster of the last Bill to try to do this and its wrecking effect on the UK economy, so let us have a look at these proposals and the impact they may have.
We are, of course, aware of the Government’s need for cash, not least for their out-of-control welfare bill. Spending on health and disability benefits alone is forecast to reach nearly £100 billion by 2030, and the CSJ shows that around 6.2 million full-time workers—roughly one in four—would now be financially better off on benefits than in work, when you take tax into account. It is a shame that the PM could not stand up to his Back-Bench colleagues and deliver the necessary reform on welfare. As a result, the Government are scrapping around with initiatives such as this, which will have a potentially disastrous effect on people’s desire and ability to save for their pension. It is not just the numbers; it is the message.
This Bill simply punishes people who are trying to do the right thing. We were told by Labour that it would not raise taxes on working people, so perhaps the Minister can explain how this fits in with that commitment, given that the NI will come straight out of people’s salaries, including the salaries of people who are, frankly, on quite modest incomes.
The Bill hits the regular taxpayer very hard. It follows the retrospective tax changes on pensions whereby this Government applied inheritance tax on private pensions. Needless to say, the main group of people not affected by those changes are, of course, those who work in the public sector and, in particular, the Civil Service. The Minister used the word “fair” a lot in his opening remarks, but does he not see how unfair this Bill is? While civil servants’ pensions are protected for life—and, indeed, often for their spouses—the Bill does not impact them at all. It is only those working in the private sector—typically, by the way, much more so on middle incomes than higher incomes—who get attacked by the Bill.
Why are the Government making it so much harder for private sector employers to contribute to the pensions of their employees? Does the Minister recognise that it is the private sector employee who will have to fund the unfunded £1.5 trillion liability of public sector pensions? Perhaps it is because there is so little private sector expertise on the Front Bench, with the notable exception of both Ministers sitting there tonight. The amount raised by the Bill peaks at £4.845 billion in 2029-30 but then, according to the Red Book, falls to £2.585 billion in the following year.
We are told that this is due to behavioural changes. However, I cannot find any explanation as to what this might mean. Could the Minister please elaborate: what behavioural changes? In his opening remarks, I think he referred to no changes in savings behaviour, so how is this extremely dramatic fall explained? Is it a coincidence that the amount generated peaks in 2029-30, which is the year that counts for the Chancellor’s fiscal rule and possibly the year of an election? Do the Government realise that taxpayers will feel that they are taking money out of their pockets just at that moment?
I commend to the Minister the representation from the Chartered Institute of Taxation, of which I am a qualified member. I do not have time to go through it all, but it is clear that the Bill does not explain what is meant by—as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, mentioned—“optional remuneration arrangements”. In particular, greater clarity is needed as to which conversations between employer and employees regarding pay and pension provisions could give rise to optional remuneration arrangements.
As noble Lords may well be aware, there are two types of optional arrangements: type A, which the Bill clearly covers, and type B, which it does not. Is the Bill intended to cover type B optional payments, which new subsection (6A) sort of implies? This is a big subject and needs much more work before Committee so that we can all understand what the Government’s intentions are.
Likewise, insufficient thought has gone into how the ridiculous annual £2,000 limit would be applied to employees paid weekly or monthly and those with multiple employments. Has thought been given to the likely impact on some employees where employers might withdraw pension salary sacrifice schemes as an option? What do they do?
Finally, as the Minister knows, I am always happy to be of assistance to the Government and, in this respect, I am happy to discuss other ways of raising revenue in this area, as I have done, for example, in VAT. I would like to understand from the Minister what assessment has been made of the effect of a national insurance charge levied on self-employed and LLP partners, which seems to me to be fair and would raise substantial amounts of revenue. I do not expect an answer on that tonight. We had a debate on it in an Oral Question a few weeks ago. A noble Lord who is a KC suggested that doing so might frighten off the legal profession to other parts of the world. I am not convinced that that is a fair argument, and I would like to see the Treasury’s assessment, perhaps in writing at a later date.
In the meantime, I look forward to the answers to the questions I have raised and a detailed discussion of these issues in Committee, and I just hope the public are made aware of the real effects that the Bill will have on them.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, I need to declare my interests as a non-executive director and a board adviser to pension companies. I understand the Government’s thinking, in theory, about the anomaly, as they probably call it, of national insurance relief, but in practice, this policy will have serious negative impacts. Indeed, I wonder whether it will save anything like the sums expected, as it will have damaging unintended consequences on both pensions and growth.
We seem to have a “push me, pull you” pensions policy, with the DWP setting up a Pensions Commission to review adequacy and improve pensions, while the Treasury increases tax on and the cost of employer pensions, making pensions less attractive and more expensive. This will reduce adequacy and hit growth. It will certainly reduce the take-home pay of a vast number of workers. It is, in effect, a tax on working people, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, has said. A rise in the cost of pension provision imposed on employers—but almost exclusively in the private sector—is surely the equivalent of a tax increase on ordinary working people.
If employers are already contributing more than the minimum, their pension costs are bound to rise because of this measure. The likelihood is that they will cut back to the minimum, making pension outcomes worse. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, doubts the scale of this impact. One of the reasons that salary sacrifices have increased so significantly since 2016 is that so many more employers have come into pensions as a result of auto-enrolment. There are hundreds of thousands more which were not there before; if they have advice they are told that it is a no-brainer to have salary sacrifice, because everybody benefits except the Treasury.
If employers are already contributing at the minimum and they cannot cut back, the likelihood is that as the cost of employment rises—because of the costs of pension provision—they will either reduce wage rises or cut employment levels. This is not some theoretical assumption, because all employers have to provide these pensions. The Government see this as impacting only high earners. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, have already described, this is simply not so. It will hurt ordinary workers, especially middle earners. Reducing take-home pay and pensions will either reduce current pay, or deferred pay, or both.
I have a number of practical questions for the Minister. What happens if someone changes jobs during the year? How will the new employer know how much of the £2,000 contribution limit has been used up so far? Who is responsible for compliance, and for reporting to HMRC? Employers may need to update their pension scheme rules, member booklets, calculators, website information, staff portals, and so on. What is the Government’s estimate of the cost to business of all that? What is the estimate of the cost to employers which need to renegotiate their employment contracts for staff who agreed to a pay cut to accommodate a salary sacrifice that no longer applies? Who will cover the costs of all the increased queries that are bound to arise, including the cost of system and software updates, and member comms? How many employers will decide to abandon salary sacrifice altogether, and do the Government’s estimates of cost savings factor in the reduction in growth, and the reduction in future pensions, to offset the expected savings?
In conclusion, I hope that the Government will think again. There is plenty of time. What do the Government want from our pensions system? Do we want private pensions to improve? Do we want pension assets to support growth? If so, we need to encourage more pension contributions and incentivise holding and investing more for longer. That will not be achieved by increasing taxation on pensions or raising employer pension provision costs. These are important issues to assess in relation to the £80 billion-plus cost of tax and national insurance reliefs. They should be the subject of a holistic review in the round, rather than continuous, ongoing salami-slicing, tax by tax. This leaves workers and pensions potentially worse off and will potentially worsen the growth and living standards of the future.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I wish to express deep concern about the Government’s decision to impose a £2,000 cap on salary sacrifice arrangements for pension contributions. This measure may appear technical, but its consequences for retirement saving are anything but trivial. It raises serious questions about the coherence of the Government’s approach to pension adequacy at a time when the nation can ill afford missteps.
Salary sacrifice has long been a legitimate and widely used mechanism, enabling employees to exchange part of their salary for pension contributions, benefiting from both tax and national insurance relief, as we have heard. It is not a loophole. It is not an avoidance scheme. It is a deliberate feature of the system that encourages people to save more for their retirement. By imposing this cap, the Government are restricting one of the few tools that has demonstrably helped individuals to boost their pension savings in a tax-efficient manner.
This decision comes at a time when the UK is confronting a substantial and widening retirement savings gap and when an independent commission is actively considering how best to strengthen pension adequacy. The evidence is stark. The Department for Work and Pensions acknowledged in 2025 that around 14.6 million working-age people are undersaving for retirement. The Scottish Widows Retirement Report 2025 shows that only 30% of the population is currently on track for a “comfortable retirement”, while 39% are at clear risk of falling short. Mercer—I declare my interest as an employee of their sister company Marsh—has repeatedly highlighted, most recently in 2024, the need for higher contributions if we are to close the savings gap.
Against this backdrop, it is difficult to understand how the Government can justify a policy that will, in effect, discourage additional voluntary saving. The commission’s message has been unambiguous: we must help people to save more for their later life, not place fresh obstacles in their path.
The scale of the impact is not marginal. According to the Government’s own explanatory notes, 3.3 million savers—around 44% of employees using salary sacrifice—stand to be affected. Many of these would not be considered high earners exploiting generous tax reliefs. Furthermore, there are lower and median earners who make occasional larger contributions when they can, often after life events or periods of financial stability. This cap will hit them the hardest. It risks undermining the ability of savers to build a secure retirement income at precisely the moment when demographic pressures, an ageing population and rising life expectancy make adequate saving more essential than ever.
There is a fundamental question of fairness. The pension adequacy commission is tasked with ensuring that all workers can aspire to a decent retirement income. Yet this cap risks creating a two-tier system: those who wish to save more are restricted, while those already struggling to save enough continue to face structural barriers. Rather than reducing inequalities in retirement outcomes, this measure threatens to entrench them.
The implications extend beyond individuals. Some 290,000 employers currently use salary sacrifice arrangements, benefiting from reduced employer national insurance contributions. If the cap reduces participation, employers will face higher national insurance liabilities, increasing the cost of employment. The OBR suggests that many employers will shift to ordinary pension contributions, including relief at source schemes.
Under these arrangements, employees will pay full income tax up front and reclaim it later, effectively giving the Exchequer an interest-free loan. In 2029-30, this manoeuvre raises £4.85 billion, before falling to £2.29 billion the following year when individuals reclaim the tax on the previous year. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Government are playing cash-flow games with workers’ retirement savings while imposing yet another cost on employers. At a time when economic growth is desperately needed, this policy risks becoming yet another drag on the very companies we rely on to invest, innovate and employ. I urge the Government to reconsider.
A pensions system must be judged by its ability to help people build security for later life. Policies that restrict saving, complicate incentives or undermine confidence run counter to that mission. If we are serious about addressing the challenges of an ageing society, then tax and national insurance policy must align with and not work against the goal of pension adequacy. The Government still have time to correct their course. I hope they will do so, in the interests of savers, employers and the long-term financial health of our country.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I raised the topic of today’s debate, salary sacrifice, in the Budget debate on 4 December. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on my questions in summing up that debate. He felt that the changes to salary sacrifice pension arrangements were a proportionate measure that would mainly affect higher-rate taxpayers. I reflected on those comments. They are possibly fair, but the cost of this measure is not fair to all employees, employers and working people trying to save for pensions over their working lives.
I note my registered interest as an SME business owner and employer. For employers like my business that have benefited from NIC savings over the past 10 years, it will be another addition to our ever-increasing tax burden on employers for the privilege of employing people.
The Government have noted that there will be behavioural changes by individuals and businesses with regard to this proposed change. As set out in the explanatory notes, as many noble Lords have mentioned, NIC receipts will increase to just under £5 billion in the first year, reducing by 41% in the second. Of this reduced figure of £2.5 billion, the majority will be paid by employers. As someone who does the monthly payroll for 130 employees, of which 24 will be affected, I am aware that the extra employer NIC would mean an additional £8,500 for our business. This means that I will certainly be investigating, like other businesses, how we can pay employees’ pension contributions via other methods.
One of the benefits of auto-enrolment, as mentioned by others, is that it has encouraged more salary sacrifice to take place. Employees have found it easier to make pension contributions and additional contributions above the minimum of 5%, as it is a lot simpler to contact your employer than a pension provider, plus some employers are willing to match any additional contributions due to NIC savings. One possible outcome is that employers will make only the minimum contribution to auto-enrolment salary sacrifice schemes to avoid additional NICs, therefore creating a barrier for people to save money.
Another concern is that it is unfair on some workers. Medium earners, as my noble friend Lord Londesborough mentioned, will suffer most from this change. According to the Resolution Foundation, 75% of workers will not be affected as they do not pay salary sacrifice. Of the 25% who do, only half will be affected as their salaries are below £40,000, if pension contributions are based around 5%. Therefore, only 12.5% of workers will be affected. The highest-paid individuals—those paid over £100,000—represent 32% of the salary sacrifice contributions paid and 3% of employees, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. These are highly valued employees and will have the financial resources, with their employers, to look for other ways to avoid this NIC payment, for example through the optional remuneration agreements mentioned tonight, therefore reducing the tax take from higher taxpayers, which was the aim of this policy.
This change of policy will affect the medium earners of the workforce. It will be an additional stealth raid on their income and future savings. This group of earners is already being dragged into the 40% taxpayer bracket. How are aspiring members of society under 32, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe mentioned earlier, who are paying student loans at 9%, expected to buy homes, start a family and save for the future with an ever-increasing tax burden on their income?
In summary, this Bill targets employed middle earners who want to save for their future via pensions, and employers who will have to pay even more NIC. This change brings further complexity to an already complex tax system. Is it necessary? Would it not have been simpler not to bring in a change at all, as a lot of the targeted taxpayers will avoid paying this NIC, as noted by Government, or to withdraw pension payments from salary sacrifice in total, therefore making it simpler?
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, who spoke about his personal experience of running a small business, which I also share.
When the Bill was introduced, the Treasury Minister in another place said:
“It is the richest who benefit from these schemes ... it is right that we make the scheme fairer for all”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/12/25; col. 1023.]
It is a weird definition of “fair” when someone earning £45,000—a basic rate taxpayer—is penalised for saving too much for their pension.
I reject the notion that fairness means endless redistribution from those who contribute to those who do not. A truly fair society recognises that those who work hardest, take the most risk and contribute the most deserve to be rewarded, because it is their success, and the wealth they create, that make it possible to help people who genuinely need the help. You do not lift up the poor by bringing down the rich; you do not make anyone richer by arguing about slices of the pie. Your Lordships do not need me to remind the House that it was Mrs Thatcher who said that. This progressive instinct—to take ever more from those who contribute and redistribute it endlessly—is yet another thing that sounds compassionate but is the opposite.
However, it is not just on values that I differ from the Government. I also differ from them in the practical outcomes. It actually would not matter if we had different values if the evidence showed that their policy was going to be successful and help people and society; but, as we have heard from all across the Chamber, these policies are not successful: they are economically illiterate and self-defeating. You just cannot tax your way to prosperity. Societies around the globe have tried it over and over again and it never works.
Your Lordships should consider this: the top 1% of earners in the country pay approximately 29% of all income tax. The top 10% pay roughly 60%. These are not bad, greedy or selfish people. They are working damn hard and are carrying the entire system on their backs. And what is their reward? To be told they are not paying their “fair share”. To face ever-higher taxes. To see their pension arrangements restricted, and to be demonised while people who choose not to work or who have only recently arrived in this country and never paid in, get benefits paid for by these very taxpayers.
The Government have claimed that this measure targets higher earners who benefit disproportionately from salary sacrifice, but that is just not the case, as we have heard in many other remarks. The Chartered Institute of Taxation found that limiting salary sacrifice will affect basic rate taxpayers more, pound for pound, than higher and additional rate taxpayers. Moreover, this change is likely to cause some employers to withdraw pension salary sacrifice as an option.
I started my business with my husband in a small flat above a former garage in Acocks Green, which is a suburb in inner-city Birmingham. We could not compete with large employers—established large companies—for the kinds of graduates we were trying to hire. We barely even had a flushing toilet in the first years we were starting, so we had to offer something to get people to actually come and work for us. We were able to offer salary sacrifice and pensions: that was one thing that we could do. We could not offer any other fancy perks, but at least we could offer that, and we knew that we were doing the right thing for people.
It is not surprising, unfortunately, that the Government take this approach, because—with a couple of honourable exceptions sitting here tonight—barely anybody in the Government has actually ever started a business or knows what it is like or has even worked in the private sector. Unfortunately, the Treasury’s own figures show that approximately 85,000 basic rate taxpayers will be affected by this. These could be people earning about £45,000 after 20 years in the workforce. The Treasury Minister talks about the rich, but these are not millionaires or billionaires: they are not Elon Musk. They are people who have just worked very hard in ordinary jobs for 20 or 30 years. They are the backbone of our country. They are saving for the future and they do not ask anything from the state. Yet their taxes are going up on absolutely everything and they do not get any of the benefits available to people on lower incomes. They cannot use those benefits and they do not use those services.
This is another restriction on these people’s ability to save, while the Government are subsidising many others who make lifestyle choices not to work and have unlimited numbers of children, while claiming benefits and not working. We are seeing that balloon now, with the two-child benefit cap going. We are providing housing and support for record numbers of illegal migrants at taxpayers’ expense. This is the absolute madness of this system now. The Bill is yet another punch in the guts for exactly the kind of country that we want to encourage and the people who keep this country going.
The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that two-fifths of people are not on track to achieve their retirement incomes, so the solution is to encourage more saving. I am out of time, but can the Government please look at amendments to protect basic rate taxpayers, index the threshold to inflation and require comprehensive review before implementation?
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, it is not just a capitalist economy that runs on incentives; it is human nature to calibrate actions through the lens of what is in it for us. Encouraging people to work hard, succeed, earn their place in the world, and deliver safety and security for themselves and their families, while generating the taxes that sustain public services, is the right thing. But get that balance wrong by destroying the incentives to do the right thing, or set tax rates too high, and that leads to no tax at all. It is the Laffer curve in action, and Britain is being subjected to a whole-economy experiment on the Laffer curve. At every level, incentives to advance in the UK are being weakened, just as incentives in other countries become more attractive.
Behaviours do change. A close school friend and a substantial British taxpayer has just gone to live in Dubai. Someone in my electoral ward is buying a ranch in Montana, and expensively trained newly qualified doctors and nurses are moving to Australia. Our problem is so bad that, earlier this evening in your Lordships’ House, we had an emergency debate on emergency legislation.
What is the effect of this Bill on those who are left behind? First, it creates a glass ceiling on aspiration—on salaries approaching £100,000. But, as we have heard this evening, it is not just those salaries but middle-class professions that are affected, such as those found in the other place, and mechanics, timber merchants, solicitors and accountants—a whole raft of middle-class aspirational professions.
I am sure the Minister will talk about those with the broadest shoulders, but I will give the example of my daughter’s boyfriend, who works in the West End. He was so proud to come and tell us he had been awarded a £17,000 bonus from his business for having worked so hard and become so valuable to his firm, but I was astonished when he told us that he got to keep only just over £6,000 of that tidy sum. He is paying not 60% but nearly 70% because of the student loan. Why did he bother to work so hard? He has the broadest shoulders only in the sense that he plays rugby at the weekend, but he is no fat cat. He is 28 and at the start of his career. He lives in a flatshare with people he does not know in Brixton—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Davies, could go round and knock on his door. He is just a young man working hard for long hours, trying to save for a deposit to climb the ladder and better himself.
But at least that option or incentive has been opened to my daughter’s boyfriend to sacrifice some of that bonus to salt away some money into his pension, well over 30 years away, so that one day he might be able to reduce his reliance on the state—and, yes, perhaps look after my daughter—but that option will be slammed shut by this Bill. Earning £17,000 to get around £6,000; that is not right. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies: that is what has been overcooked. How much more can the man be expected to give for having worked so hard? Of course, let us not forget his company, which will have had to chip in another £2,500 in its own NIC. It is not right for him, it is not right to drive the brightest and best overseas, and it is not right for our economy or the Exchequer in the long term.
I know that salary sacrifice is not for everyone, but it is for many. As we have heard, it incentivises people who are doing well at the start of their career to invest in themselves, with a second long-term return for the state by reducing their reliance on the taxpayer in later years—both the individual and the state co-investing in our collective future.
We know that limiting salary sacrifice will affect basic rate taxpayers more, pound for pound, than higher rate taxpayers, although I accept that the sums are larger for the higher earners. We have heard, and I confirm, that employers will withdraw pension salary sacrifice as an option altogether. It is going to complicate pensions and HR in companies that are already burdened with extra costs and onerous duties, and will potentially encourage undesirable optional remuneration agreements and avoidance schemes. Further, we will see few practical details around how that £2,000 limit will be applied to weekly and monthly paid employees, and those with multiple years.
Taken together, this Bill is just another example of bureaucratic, counterproductive, anti-growth, incentive-sapping policies: more taxes on employment, inexplicable investment-sapping taxes on private rather than public businesses, existential taxes on pubs, crippling carbon taxes on our heavy industries, discriminatory taxes on private, not public, pensions and—astonishingly—even new taxes on tomatoes that will disproportionately affect those with the smallest means. Now, with this Bill, there are new taxes to discourage people from doing the right thing. This insanity will impoverish us all and the Minister is creating a fresh black hole in his name. The Government will drive tax revenues down into the dirt and impoverish our nation.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I do not enjoy the same pension expertise as virtually every other speaker tonight; I also do not think, ideologically, that I fit well with the last two speakers, who take a position that is different from mine. However, even I can see that this Bill is another example of the Treasury’s inability to align taxes with its stated economic and industrial goals, including its plans for growth. I note the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, that you have one department trying to encourage people to increase their savings and pensions because of pension inadequacy—“push me, pull you” as the noble Baroness described it—and then the Treasury working, it seems, in completely the opposite direction.
On that general growth objective, I guarantee to the Government that capping salary sacrifice NICs exemptions will not add a single penny to the amount that working people save and invest. Yet savings and investments are the key drivers of the prosperity we seek. Some 3.3 million people, which is 44% of those who save through salary sacrifice, will be hit by this change.
Others have made this point, but I particularly noticed that the recent report from the Pensions Policy Institute warned in the strongest terms that people are not sufficiently building their pension during their higher earning years, which is exactly when salary sacrifice comes into play. For many people—this probably particularly affects women who take time out for childcare—higher earnings are typically for only a period of someone’s working life. Therefore, it is during that period that they need to be able to put aside that money for later life and pensions. This capping change works exactly in the opposite direction of letting them push down on the accelerator during that relatively limited period of higher earnings, when they can set money aside.
We are not talking about multi-millionaires, as people have said; this is about incentivising millions of ordinary people to put more aside during those years when their income is just sufficient to allow them to do so. I regret that the Government, rather than encouraging that approach through this Bill, are now discouraging it.
For individual workers, this change comes in the context of frozen income tax thresholds, as well as eye-watering increases in the cost of living. Many who diligently choose to live more frugally and save through pensions have already faced the changes in inheritance tax, and now they have this. The two have to be seen together as changing the psychology of many who are trying to make a decision about what to do with their money. Many will now reduce their saving for old age. How anyone thinks this will help with the demands on or the cost of social care—two of the biggest burdens that we carry as taxpayers—I simply do not know.
For businesses, especially small businesses—the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, spoke as a living example of someone with a small business, as is the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford—this is just another tax rise at a time when so many other costs have been thrown on to businesses. We debated business rate changes just last week.
While larger businesses may find other ways to help their employees—it has certainly been clear from some of our speakers that there are mechanisms that they can turn to—most small businesses do not have that capacity. The cost of both employee and employer NICs, especially in small businesses, tends to fall on the workers in the end. It creates a real differential between being employed by a big firm or a small one. The Federation of Small Businesses has looked at this Bill and warned of the impact on staff retention. I just wonder: does no one in the Treasury understand that an expanding small business sector is the backbone of the economy, our major source of new jobs, the underpinning of communities and the birthing ground for key industries of the future?
Then we have the investment impact of curtailing pension savings. Only yesterday, in Committee on the Pension Schemes Bill, we were dealing with the Government's concern to direct pension savings into investment in the UK economy, from private equity into infrastructure—absolutely core and key to their growth agenda. How on earth does this Bill help that? In fact, how does it not hinder it? The Mansion House Accord, on which so much of the Pension Schemes Bill rests, applies only to a small part of the pension world: auto-enrolment by low earners. If the Government are seriously looking for a step change in investment into the UK economy and into the riskier parts of the UK economy, it is exactly the money that goes into salary sacrifice schemes that they require to undertake those kinds of ventures.
The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, talked about the timing of the Bill and the potential for front-loading salary sacrifice schemes over the next few years. That is a point that the Government need to address. The timing of when this comes in is truly weird. I cannot work out whether the change that takes place in 2029 is essentially an actual change or an attempt to game the fiscal rules. We are past the point where any of us want to accept the gaming of fiscal rules anymore. We know what it did under the last Government, and we do not want to see it repeated here.
I give way to others who talked about the practical impacts: what do you do with someone who changes jobs? How do you deal with the paperwork and the systems? I am very conscious that those things that get brushed aside often turn out to be huge stumbling blocks. We need to hear more from the Government on that.
The prize for any Government when it comes to pensions is to get people to save in their times of higher earnings as much as they reasonably can. That is what reduces demand on the taxpayer for social care and benefits in old age. Frankly, with our ageing population, it is increasingly vital, not less vital. This Bill simply pushes in the opposite direction. We need to address that through serious amendment.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
I thank the Minister for leading this debate and for his customary courtesy in listening to all the observations of noble Lords. There is a common observation that there is nothing new in tax. Maybe this Bill is a small Bill; the noble Lord, Lord Davies, says it is a trivial matter that does not really need our scrutiny. Nevertheless, it is a moment in taxation when we are taxing savings—
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I actually said that I was looking forward to discussing it further in Committee. It certainly does require our attention.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
I stand corrected.
This is a moment in taxation when we move towards taxing savings. It is against a backdrop in which policy has been relatively settled in this area in recent years. There was an understanding that we need to provide private sector pensions. Quite broadly, there was cross-party support for auto-enrolment; it has been quite successful. Against this background of a degree of consensus, we are now introducing—in a small but nevertheless important way—the taxation of savings. We made the changes towards auto-enrolment not just for social benefit reasons but to protect the state. It is important to remember that we are doing this also because the liability for retirement is falling on the state, and it became urgent to do something about this and to make sure that there was private provision to offset this rising cost.
With this Bill, we find ourselves at a moment when the tax system begins to eat itself. It would be illusory to suggest that there will be any gains from taxing savings, because the liability that will accrue to the state will likely be greater. That is because the returns to invested pensions over time will, in almost all cases, exceed the growth of the state, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, knows from his time in pensions, and it is the growth of the state that provides the tax income that can support people. So the gap will be very wide if people do not save in private sector pensions.
That is the unfunded liability that stands behind this tax change. That liability could be very wide for the cohorts who are affected by this: middle-income earners who might have 30 more years of saving. Quite small amounts accumulating over 30 years can make an enormous difference to their retirement: it is enormously important. But, in the absence of those savings, regrettably, the state will be exposed. Therefore, the Government need to tread very carefully when making these changes, because the credit of the Government rests on securing some stability to future liabilities. Growth in this area of future liability is extremely important for investors in our bond market, and we need to make sure that they do not feel that there is a rebalancing here towards current taxation income against liabilities in the future.
I turn to the themes that have been raised so far, starting with fairness. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe explained, the Bill is, in practice, aimed not at higher earners but at earners around the middle of the income distribution. Among this group will be a large number of younger workers, already taxed quite heavily, and among them graduates required to repay the student loan. This initiative is a quite specific transfer from the young to the old. These groups are being encouraged to behave responsibly—as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, mentioned—and to put aside savings.
For employees, the Bill raises fundamental questions of fairness and coherence. Two individuals may arrive at precisely the same level of pension saving yet be treated very differently for national insurance purposes, depending solely on how that saving is structured. Direct employer contributions remain exempt, while salary-sacrificed contributions above the threshold do not. This difference undermines neutrality in the tax system and distorts incentives away from arrangements that many workers actively rely on to manage affordability and long-term planning.
Quite a few noble Lords mentioned complexity. We should also consider the burden on employers, particularly those operating within tight margins and employing large workforces. Professional advisers in the pensions and benefits sector have warned that increased payroll costs and added administrative complexity may prompt businesses to reconsider pension enhancements and lead to a contraction of workplace pension ambition itself. That was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Altmann.
Businesses that have structured remuneration packages in good faith around existing rules now face not only higher contribution costs but a new layer of administrative complexity. The introduction of a £2,000 cliff edge creates a compliance burden that is wholly disproportionate to the revenue that it is said to raise. For many firms, this is a material increase in payroll expenditure. There is good evidence that employer costs could account for a substantial share of the projected yield.
We have already seen the dampening effect of recent national insurance increases on recruitment and wage growth. To compound that pressure risks discouraging the forms of workplace pension generosity that public policy has long sought to encourage.
The distributional effects further complicate matters. For those earning above the higher earnings threshold, portions of what is, in essence, deferred income are drawn back into the national insurance net at marginal rates aligned with current earnings. The result is a reclassification of pension saving itself. Contributions made today attract national insurance, while withdrawals in retirement continue to attract income tax. Although these are different fiscal instruments, the policy makes pension saving resemble present consumption rather than deferred provision, creating the perception and often the reality of taxation both on entry and exit. This matters because the architecture of pension policy rests upon encouraging individuals to defer consumption, to assume responsibility for the later years. The messaging around this is sensitive, as my noble friend Lord Leigh mentioned.
The Government keep changing pension policy, so we might expect taxpayers to become better at adjusting behaviour. In this case, we have heard that some employers are encouraging employees to increase salary sacrifice now, which will of course reduce tax receipts in the short term and may reduce student loan repayments. The younger cohorts have learned to adjust their student loan repayments using the salary sacrifice scheme. Taxpayers may be hoping for a policy change later and would be rational in expecting some adjustment here, particularly for graduates. Given this uncertainty, we are asking for an independent assessment of the policy.
We have already witnessed the economic cost of uncertainty generated by repeated speculation and late clarification in fiscal policy. To proceed now with a measure that introduces fresh complexity and perceived inequity risks compounding that loss of confidence at precisely the moment long-term saving most requires reassurance.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to close this Second Reading debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their expertise, their contributions and questions, particularly at this late hour.
The Bill before your Lordships’ House legislates for reforms announced in the Budget last November. It was a Budget to build a stronger, more secure economy that had at its heart three deliberate pro-growth choices: to maintain economic stability, to protect £120 billion of additional investment in growth-driving infrastructure, and to back the fast-growing companies of the future, but, as I have said previously, these choices need to be paid for. That is why the Budget contained a series of reforms to the tax system to ensure it keeps pace with a fast-changing economy. Those reforms include the changes that we are debating today.
As several noble Lords mentioned this evening, the Government spend over £500 billion each year on tax relief. The size of this spend means they must always keep the effectiveness and value for money of tax reliefs under review. This Bill addresses just one of these reliefs, pension salary sacrifice. The cost of that was set to treble to £8 billion a year between 2017 and the end of this decade. That growth has been fastest among higher earners, with additional rate taxpayers tripling their salary sacrifice contributions since 2017. But while those on the higher salaries are most likely to take part in salary sacrifice, others are completely excluded. For example, the majority of employers do not offer salary sacrifice, including many small businesses. Groups who are most likely to be undersaving for retirement, such as those on the national minimum wage and the UK’s 4.4 million self-employed workers, are also completely excluded from using salary sacrifice. The status quo is therefore neither fair nor fiscally sustainable. We simply cannot afford to allow the cost of pension salary sacrifice to balloon, benefiting predominantly higher earners.
The Bill therefore contains two main elements: first, to introduce a cap of £2,000 under which no employer and employee national insurance contributions will be charged on any pension contributions. Some 95% of those currently making pension contributions to salary sacrifice earning £30,000 or less will be entirely unaffected. Secondly, we are introducing this change with a long implementation period so that it comes into effect only in 2029-30. This gives employers and employees over three years to prepare and adjust.
The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, asked about the Government’s commitment not to increase taxes on working people. As he knows, the Budget in November kept our manifesto promise not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. It contained a series of reforms to the tax system to ensure it keeps pace with our fast-changing economy. The cost of pension salary sacrifice was set nearly to triple to £8 billion between 2017 and the end of the decade—as I said before, benefiting mainly higher earners.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke extensively about the impact on employers. The Government are taking a pragmatic, balanced approach by introducing a cap which protects ordinary workers and limits the impact on employers while ensuring that the system remains fiscally sustainable. The majority of employers—some 61%—do not offer this kind of salary sacrifice arrangement. Of the employers which do, most sectors, including retail, hospitality and leisure, have salary sacrifice contributions well below the £2,000 cap and are largely protected. Everyone using salary sacrifice will still benefit from the tax advantages available up to the £2,000 cap, this includes employers, which can make up to £300 of employer national insurance contribution savings through salary sacrifice per employee. These changes will not be implemented for over three years. In comparison, the previous Government gave just one year’s notice from announcing their changes to salary sacrifice in 2016 to implementing them from 2017.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also spoke about employers potentially stopping offering salary sacrifice schemes. The Government do not expect significant numbers of employers to stop offering salary sacrifice arrangements. Everyone using salary sacrifice will still benefit from the tax advantages available up to the £2,000 cap.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, asked about the cost to employers. The majority of employers do not offer salary sacrifice arrangements, and most sectors, including retail, hospitality and leisure, have salary sacrifice arrangements well below the cap. Everyone using salary sacrifice can still benefit from up to £300 employer national insurance contribution relief under the cap, and the full national insurance contributions relief is available on employer pension contributions outside of salary sacrifice. The Government are working closely with employers and the payroll industry to operationalise the change in the most effective way.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, spoke about the impact on small businesses. Small businesses are far less likely than larger businesses to offer pension salary sacrifice. Only 10% of employees in SMEs have pension contributions through salary sacrifice exceeding the cap, compared with 18% of employees in larger firms. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also spoke about the impact on retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. As I have said already, most firms in this sector have salary sacrifice contributions well below the £2,000 cap and are therefore largely protected.
The noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord de Clifford, spoke about the impact on low earners. Higher earners are most likely to be using salary sacrifice and the majority of those currently using salary sacrifice will be unaffected by the changes. The Bill impacts only employees who use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions, which is around 35% of employees. Those earning at or near the national living wage cannot use salary sacrifice at all. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, also asked about basic rate taxpayers. The £2,000 cap is worth up to £160 a year for basic rate taxpayers. Those earning below £30,000 making pension contributions through salary sacrifice are overwhelmingly protected, with only 5% making pension contributions above the cap.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about individuals earning around the £50,000 mark. The Government are taking a pragmatic, balanced approach by introducing a cap which protects ordinary workers and limits the impact on employers, while ensuring that the system remains fiscally sustainable. Everyone can still save up to £2,000 via salary sacrifice free of national insurance contributions. Amounts sacrificed above £2,000 will continue to be fully relievable from income tax, but we must continue to ensure that the £500 billion of tax reliefs provided each year are effective and provide value for money.
The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, asked about the profile of the costings, also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe. The costings reflect independent OBR scrutiny and use the best available data on current salary sacrifice and bonus sacrifice behaviour. Employees will respond to the changes in a number of ways. One way is that many employees will switch to making ordinary pension contributions, some of which will be to relief at source schemes. Where an employee contributes to a relief at source scheme, they will initially pay higher rate and additional rate income tax on their pension contributions and then reclaim this through their self-assessment tax return in the next year. This creates a temporary timing effect. Beyond the forecast period, this effect becomes very small.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, asked about indexing the £2,000 cap. The Government have no plans to index the cap, but we will keep the £2,000 level under review to ensure that it continues to meet its objectives and remains fair across the labour market. This is consistent with the approach to other pension tax reliefs, including the annual allowance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, asked about the costings of this policy and about the savings generated from this change. The costings for this policy have been scrutinised and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility in its economic and fiscal outlook. They already account for changes in employer behaviour, including employers providing higher employer pension contributions to replicate the national insurance contribution benefits of salary sacrifice. We remain confident of these costings.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, suggested that this was designed only to meet the fiscal rules in 2029-30. The reality is that the Government are giving employers sufficient time to prepare and adjust their systems by implementing the changes from April 2029. That is over three years’ notice before the changes take effect. We are also engaging with employers, payroll administrators and other stakeholders on the administration of the cap to provide certainty ahead of implementation.
On that specific point, also raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lords, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Fuller, about the administration of this policy, HMRC is engaging with a wide range of stakeholders in the payroll, employer and software developer industries to work through exactly how the cap will be implemented. This will be vital to ensuring it is implemented in the least burdensome way possible for employers. Engagement will also help inform the secondary legislation, in which the detail of the operability will be set out and further consulted on.
My noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton spoke about how salary sacrifice is just one part of the pension landscape, and I say that to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who did not mention during her contribution that saving into a pension, including via salary sacrifice, will remain hugely tax advantageous even under these changes. The Government currently provide over £70 billion of income tax and national insurance contribution relief on pension contributions each year. That spend will be entirely unaffected by these changes. Employees’ pension contributions, including those made via salary sacrifice, will continue to be fully relievable from income tax at the employee’s marginal rate. For employers, all pension contributions remain exempt from both income tax and national insurance contributions. This makes pensions one of the most tax-efficient ways to invest in their workforce.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Altmann and Lady Kramer, spoke about the impact on pension savings. The Government do not believe that these changes will negatively impact the overall level of pension saving. Salary sacrifice existed in the 2000s and early 2010s, yet there were significant falls in private sector pension savings during this period. In 2012, only one in three private sector workers saved into a pension.
As I said in my opening, the key factor that led to an increase in saving in recent years is not the complicated national insurance reliefs available to some employees but rather automatic enrolment, which the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about, and which has reversed the collapse in workplace pension savings. As a result of automatic enrolment, over 22 million workers across the UK are now saving each month. The Office for Budget Responsibility has also made it clear in its economic and fiscal outlook that it does not expect a material impact on savings behaviour as a result of the tax changes made in the Budget.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Kramer, spoke about the impact on individuals who are currently undersaving. The groups that we know are undersaving for their pension, including low earners, women and the self-employed, are the least likely to use salary sacrifice. Workers on the national living wage are excluded entirely from salary sacrifice, and so are the 4.4 million self-employed people across the UK. By contrast, these changes overwhelmingly affect higher and additional rate taxpayers. In 2030, 87% of affected salary sacrifice pension contributions made from earnings will be from higher and additional rate taxpayers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, also mentioned the Pensions Commission. There is cross-party agreement on the importance of the work of the Pensions Commission as it examines questions of adequacy and fairness. The Government will not prejudge the commission’s work.
The Budget in November contained pro-growth choices to maintain economic stability, reject austerity, protect investment and back the fast-growing companies of the future, but these are choices which need to be paid for. That is why this Bill reforms pension salary sacrifice to ensure that our tax system is kept on a sustainable footing. The Bill protects lower and middle earners, gives employers many years to prepare, and preserves the incentives that underpin workplace saving. These are fair and balanced reforms. They build on the steps already taken by the previous Government to reform salary sacrifice and strengthen our economy for the long term. I beg to move.