House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
Bills are too high and the cost of living crisis is the biggest issue facing the country. That is why, at the last Budget, we took decisions to raise taxes on the wealthiest, which will enable us to take an average of £150 in costs off household energy bills from April. That builds on the fact that the price cap and average energy bills were lower in real terms in 2025 than in 2024.
Sir Desmond Swayne
We were promised a reduction in bills of £300, but they have actually gone up by just shy of £200. The impact assessment of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026, which we passed last week, states:
“we estimate that cost-pass through for most sectors could feasibly be at 80-90%”.
That is a euphemism for even higher bills, isn’t it?
Ed Miliband
I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman’s first point is wrong; he is taking one quarter—summer 2024 —and comparing it with today. If we look across 2025, bills are lower than in 2024. Actually, I had hoped that he would support the £150 that we have taken off energy bills, but the Opposition oppose all the measures making that possible.
Claire Young
The Government’s consultation on alternative heating that ends today does not cover installation costs, yet that is what is stopping many of my constituents in off-gas areas from switching away from oil. With National Energy Action warning of an £18 billion funding gap to meet fuel poverty targets, what action will the Government take to ensure that those least able to afford alternative forms of heating are not left dependent on fossil fuels and paying sky-high bills?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to our consultation. From talking to my ministerial colleagues, I know that we will take into account the points that she has made. We want to allow as many as people as possible across the country to convert to cheap, clean power. That is the point of our warm homes plan, and that is the point of the consultation she mentioned.
Aphra Brandreth
A recent survey conducted by Censuswide shows that two thirds of households with heat pumps say that their heating costs have increased, driven by electricity prices that are four times higher than gas. With energy bills now £190 higher, despite this Government promising to cut them by £300, does the Secretary of State acknowledge that his choices are making it harder for households to make the switch to greener heating options, and that, unlike the Conservatives’ cheap power plan, they are leaving households with higher bills?
Ed Miliband
I congratulate the hon. Lady on reading out the Whips’ handout. No, I do not, and I will tell her why. The Chancellor’s action in the Budget to take the renewables obligation off bills and put it on to public expenditure was the biggest single cut in the cost of electricity that we have seen dating back to even the Conservatives’ time in office.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The costs of new infrastructure are a pressure on bills, as the Secretary of State knows. He deserves enormous credit for the results of the allocation round 7 auction today, in which the strike price of renewables was less than half what it would have been with new gas. What is the approach to rolling out extra grid—and, indeed, maintaining the existing grid—which is so crucial to the plans, given that there is so much to make up for following the failure to invest over the many years since privatisation?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this morning’s auction, which saw record amounts of solar power. It is the cheapest form of power that we could possibly have in this country, and it costs less than half the price of building and operating new gas. On the point about infrastructure, he is right that we inherited a terrible legacy, and we are building the new infrastructure that we need.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
My constituents in North West Leicestershire will soon benefit from an average £150 cut per household to energy bills, and a number will be able to access energy efficiency schemes. Can the Secretary of State outline in more detail the expected changes to the fixed elements of our bills, such as the standing charges, which impact those in fuel poverty so much more than the rest of us?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend draws attention to the really important issue of standing charges. We have been consulting on moving the warm home discount from fixed cost standing charges to unit rates, which has been welcomed by Martin Lewis, among others. We want to bear down on standing charges, and we will announce the results of that consultation soon.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Last year, I teamed up with the local Labour council cabinet member for the cost of living and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) to launch a free local pension advice service, which has delivered over half a million pounds to eligible pensioners in Derby. It has helped with pension credit, home heating tips, fire safety advice and utility deals, and has even provided free draught excluders and radiator insulators. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure people know about the support they can get to reduce household bills?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this important issue. As part of our warm homes plan, we are going to set up a warm homes agency to give people proper information, advice and guidance on what they can do to cut their bills. We have made the biggest public investment ever seen in this country to help people cut their bills and upgrade their homes, and we will make sure people know about it.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)
We recognise that high energy costs remain a significant pressure on UK businesses. We are acting now through the British industry supercharger and the new British industrial competitiveness scheme to reduce electricity costs for energy-intensive sectors, while delivering our clean power 2030 mission to cut bills for good. We also intend to consult on further options to reduce costs and make low-carbon heat economically competitive.
Lincoln Jopp
Ametek and SSS Gears are two quite rare breeds—they are manufacturing companies in my Spelthorne constituency, inside the M25. One employs 200 people, while the other employs 43, and they seek to export around the world. How does the Minister expect those companies to be competitive in a global market when energy prices in Ashford, Middlesex are four times higher than those in Ashford, Alabama?
Chris McDonald
It is exactly that disparity in international energy prices for industry, which the previous Conservative Government left us with, that we are addressing through our clean power 2030 mission. However, we recognise that as clean power is coming online, industry will need further support. Both Ametek and SSS Gears are exactly the sorts of manufacturing businesses that this Government wish to support through initiatives such as our British industrial competitiveness scheme. The consultation for that scheme has just closed—I do hope both of those businesses responded to that consultation—and we will publish the results shortly.
Dr Pinkerton
Small and large businesses in my constituency of Surrey Heath—everything from small cafés to care providers and large manufacturers—tell me that they are being crushed by high energy costs. Given that the wholesale cost of gas has fallen substantially since its peak in 2022, can the Minister indicate what proportion of a typical business energy bill is driven by wholesale costs, network charges and policy costs, and which one of those is likely to be borne down on over the next year as a direct consequence of Government action?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out the impact of energy costs on small businesses. As we have seen, that has been largely driven over many years by the linkage between energy costs and gas prices, which is something that this Government are determined to deal with as we pile on renewable energy as part of our clean power mission. UK gas costs are competitive with Europe after policy costs are included, but of course we want to remove businesses from having to rely on the whims of the fossil fuel market and enable them to rely on low-cost, secure, home-grown energy.
Zöe Franklin
A third-generation advanced manufacturer in my Guildford constituency invested in a solar-covered, energy-efficient factory to cut emissions and expand, yet overall operating costs have risen sharply, including business rates increasing from £130,000 to £570,000. That business is doing everything right, including switching to renewables and working to become more efficient. On top of the crippling hike in business rates, the straw that breaks the camel’s back is energy costs, so what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor about reducing industrial energy costs and the associated costs so that firms investing in clean growth are properly supported?
Chris McDonald
Of course, it is central to the Government’s policy that businesses are incentivised to invest in renewable energy and electrification where that is possible, so that they can access the lower-cost electrical energy that is coming on stream as part of our 2030 clean power mission. The hon. Lady mentioned that the business was a manufacturing business, so it is possible that it could qualify for our British industrial competitiveness scheme, which we will bring forward in 2027. The results of the consultation on that scheme will be published shortly.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
In Cornwall, after our groundbreaking critical minerals strategy, there is the possibility that floating offshore wind could power critical minerals processing plants. This is a fantastic opportunity. Will the Minister look closely at the proposals and see how the Department can help something like that to happen?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend does a grand job of championing the critical minerals industry in Cornwall and the potential for floating offshore wind in her constituency. She highlights a great opportunity, where investment in energy and industry side by side can reduce the cost of capital for both parts of the supply chain and so create an economic opportunity. I thank her for the representations that she has made to me on behalf of her constituents prior to today. I will continue to work with her in trying to realise this opportunity.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
To transition away from fossil fuels, we need zero emission vehicles on the road. Manufacturers such as Alexander Dennis should be leading that transition, although it currently operates with a gas-intensive production process. To stay competitive against imports, those manufacturers need greater support. The British industrial competitiveness scheme is hugely welcome as it will reduce industrial electricity costs, but will the Minister consider supporting a dual fuel discount that includes the cost of gas to support the automotive advanced manufacturing sector, including Alexander Dennis?
Chris McDonald
I am very concerned about gas-intensive industries, and the Government’s policy is intended to ensure that they are given the support to decarbonise by electrifying, where that is possible, whether that is through confidence in long-term energy prices owing to the delivery of our clean power mission or through support to invest in their business.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
I know that the Department is working hard with the Department for Transport to decarbonise shipping, but the current system works against businesses. One of our ferry companies is having to pay £12 million up front for a shoreside connection and then wait for up to seven years. Will the Minister commit to reviewing this system to speed up electric shipping for places such as the Isle of Wight?
Chris McDonald
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for engaging with me on this topic in advance of the recent changes to the emissions trading scheme to include maritime emissions. It is incredibly important that domestic maritime emissions are included, so as to incentivise the investment required to decarbonise. I am aware of the issue in the Isle of Wight. On one route, two vessels will be affected. I know that he has invited me to visit the Isle of Wight and meet the businesses concerned, and I am allowed to make the commitment from the Dispatch Box that I will do that.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Businesses and public services in the north of Scotland pay among the highest commercial energy prices in the whole UK. The Government have had 18 months to try and fix that. Why do they still think it is okay to discriminate against people in the north of Scotland in that way?
Chris McDonald
In fact, the Government are taking an approach across the whole United Kingdom to deliver the energy infrastructure and energy generation capacity to guarantee low-cost, home-grown, secure energy for the future, ensuring that the jobs and benefits from that are seen across the country. I would have thought that the hon. Member might wish to welcome those jobs in Scotland. There will be 20,000 additional jobs by 2030 in clean energy industries in his community and mine.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Time and again, small manufacturing firms in my constituency of Llanelli tell me that high energy costs are making it difficult for them to be competitive, and they feel that they are on the edge. Given the lack of investment by the previous Conservative Government and the fact that this Government are playing catch-up, when does the Minister think that enough new sources of energy will be generated to bring down prices? How soon will interim help arrive?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right to champion the small manufacturers in her constituency, which I know well from the time that I spent working in south Wales. It is important to note the announcement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this morning—it will shortly be the subject of a statement to the House—about allocation round 7. It demonstrates our commitment to putting on new solar farms, new onshore wind and new offshore wind. Every single one of those installations contributes to our energy security and to reducing the cost of energy for domestic consumers and industry alike.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The cost of electricity is still too high, and, as we have heard, businesses are struggling to pay their energy bills. While the Government have offered help to the energy-intensive industries, it is the small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency and around the country that still feel overlooked and forgotten. Liberal Democrat researchers have estimated that 3.1 million SMEs saw a total bill increase of £7.6 billion when the Conservative Government ended the energy bill relief scheme. When will this Government finally help SMEs—the small businesses, the backbone of our economy—to see off their crippling energy bills?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Lady and I agree that more needs to be done to alleviate the high energy costs for small businesses. I used to run an energy-intensive small business myself, and I know how difficult that is. She is also right to point out that this is the legacy that the last Government left us.
We are pushing forward to 2030, when we will have lower energy costs and more secure energy in the UK, but we recognise that more needs to be done to support small businesses—although we are already helping with measures such as our zero carbon services hospitality trial, which is now delivering support for 600 hospitality SMEs across the UK, and the provision of £200,000 to fund improvements in the UK business climate hub and help SMEs with their carbon emissions.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
As we explained in our solar road map, the Government consider effective community engagement to be crucial as we scale-up solar deployment throughout the country. Developers must consider local community views as part of their applications, and the quality of that community engagement is taken into account by decision makers.
Calum Miller
Just across the border of my constituency lies Southill Solar, a scheme that works with the local community, pays a direct return to residents, funds local projects, and has even won awards for its landscape and environmental design. By contrast, Botley West, one of the largest solar farms ever brought forward in Europe, would have a profound and long-lasting impact on a rural area, but local people feel that the level of developer engagement and transparency, as well as the community benefit on offer, falls far short of the scale of that impact, and the Planning Inspectorate recently described the absence of key information as “very disappointing”. Does the Minister agree that community benefit should be proportionate to the scale and impact of solar development, and will he agree to meet me to discuss how those operating large-scale solar schemes can listen better to rural communities so that clean energy is delivered with, not against, local consent?
Michael Shanks
I have had many productive meetings with the hon. Gentleman, and I shall be happy to meet him again to talk about these issues. The Government absolutely believe that communities that host infrastructure should benefit from doing so. We have consulted on mandatory community benefits and we will respond to the consultation in due course, but today we have published the local power plan: the biggest shift in power and wealth that we have seen in the energy space in British history, which will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s community and communities throughout the country benefit from the ability to own their energy infrastructure, and that the benefits of that flow into those communities. That is the ambition that we have set out as a Government.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
A solar farm is planned for my constituency, and the developer has engaged well with local residents. Yes, it will power 20,000 homes, and yes, it will get carbon emissions down, but most important of all, it will make our bills more affordable because solar is 50% cheaper than natural gas. Does the Minister agree that when it comes to renewable energy, Members in all parts of the House should say, as I say today, “Yes in my constituency, and yes in my back yard”?
Michael Shanks
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. He takes seriously the issue of how we can build the infrastructure that the country needs for our energy security, but he also rightly draws attention to a fact that Opposition Members seem to ignore completely: the fact that renewables are the cheapest and quickest form of power to get on to the system. Just today, the new auction has resulted in 4.9 GW of capacity. That, taken together with the offshore wind results, makes it the most successful renewables auction in British history. The entire Opposition Front Bench used to agree with this. These renewables are 50% cheaper than the new-build gas that is now championed by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), which would add money to the bills of people throughout the country. This is the right plan for bringing down bills, for our energy security and for providing jobs throughout the country.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I do not think the Minister fully appreciates just how much communities threatened by large-scale solar up and down the country feel that they are having things done to them and not with them. The No. 1 complaint that I have heard from campaign groups represented by Stop Oversized Solar up and down the land, including some in my constituency, concerns the threat to food security. When they try to engage, they keep being given this bogus figure of 1%, but if we carry on in the direction the Government are going in, by 2035 an area the size of Greater London will be covered in solar. That is equivalent to nearly 2,000 farms capable of producing 2 billion loaves of bread. When are we going to get the truth about the threat to food security from solar?
Michael Shanks
This is just the most absurd nonsense from the Conservatives, who I see are now crowdsourcing their energy policy on Twitter. It is not surprising that they come up with that sort of nonsense, when that is the information that they use. Even in the most ambitious deployment scenarios, all the statistics suggest that 0.4% of UK land would be occupied by solar. The Conservatives come to this House time and time and time again calling for bills to be brought down, but their policy would put them up and turn away the investment that is driving jobs and opportunities across the country. They had no answers in energy policy for 14 years, and they have learned absolutely nothing in opposition.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)
This Government are absolutely committed to supporting the NHS to be at the heart of our decarbonisation effort in order that, first, it gets to reduce its emissions and that, secondly, it can reduce its dependence on expensive fossil fuels. That is why Great British Energy has already supported over 260 NHS sites with up to £130 million of funding. GPs are not part of NHS sites but under the boiler upgrade scheme they can access £7,500 towards heat pumps and £5,000 towards biomass boilers.
Helen Maguire
Primary care accounts for around 25% of the NHS’s carbon emissions, with many GPs working in ageing, energy-inefficient buildings with high running costs. Research from the Royal College of General Practitioners reveals that only five GP practices in England and Wales have accessed the boiler upgrade grant scheme since May 2022, and most are unable to access the public sector decarbonisation scheme. GP partners across the UK identify a lack of capital funding as the main barrier to decarbonisation, yet 260 NHS trusts are rightly receiving Government funding for new solar panels. Will the Minister meet me and the Royal College of General Practitioners to discuss how GPs can access decarbonisation schemes, and will she expand GB Energy’s investment model to GPs?
Katie White
I thank the hon. Member for raising this really important issue, and for raising the figures. I think she would agree that we have an ambitious plan. Today’s announcement of the local power plan may well meet some of the needs that she raises. I will take this issue away and have a look at it. We recognise that retrofitting commercial buildings can be costly and complex, and we are looking at other levers to do that, including accessing private finance and exploring novel options such as property-linked finance. Today’s announcement will help, and I am very happy to discuss it further with her.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
It was fantastic to see GB Energy invest in new, clean, bill-saving technology for the Bedford Road health centre in my constituency last week. That comes on top of the investments already seen at Lister hospital and Bedford hospital, which serve my constituency. Solar is good for the NHS and for the planet, so how can we get it on to more public sector rooftops right across the country? Crucially, I have some fantastic examples in Hitchin where we would love to see further action.
Katie White
I applaud my hon. Friend for all his ambition and championing of the opportunities that are presented in our low-carbon transition plan. Today’s announcement of the local power plan is a real opportunity to turn the dial on this issue, for local communities to become involved, and to make the best of the benefits of the low-carbon transition. I look forward to working with him further on it.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
The carbon pricing emissions trading scheme is set by the market, rather than the Government. The price is effective at driving investment in carbon abatement measures, but it is for individual operators to decide whether the costs of abatement in a project are effective for them.
Sarah Olney
Last week the Government updated their carbon values to reflect their latest net zero emission target, but the UK emissions trading scheme does not take into account the updated figures. In 2021, it was predicted that carbon abatement for a third runway at Heathrow would cost £100 million, and costs will have only risen since. According to the emissions trading scheme, just 15% of the clean-up costs of expansion will be covered by Heathrow; the rest will fall on the taxpayer. Will the Minister update the UK emissions trading scheme to reflect the carbon abatement costs of major projects such as Heathrow expansion, so that the taxpayer can understand how much they will have to pay for a third runway?
Chris McDonald
The Government do not comment on or interfere with the carbon price. Ultimately, the price is set by the market to ensure that the ETS drives decarbonisation where it is cheapest. In this way, it can act most effectively as a financial incentive to decarbonise, without specifying the particular technology.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it is great to see you back on your feet.
Last week, the Labour party voted to increase the carbon tax, which increases costs for households and industry, and those costs have already doubled because of its policies. It is absolutely shameful for the Government to say that they have had no impact on the carbon tax whatsoever. It now accounts for over 10% of household electricity bills, and the rise is in effect a £5 billion a year tax on the British economy. Can the Minister explain why the Labour party wants to tax our industrial jobs out of existence, leaving Britain reliant on dirtier imports from abroad?
Chris McDonald
I am not sure if the shadow Secretary of State is conflating the various carbon taxes with the emissions trading scheme, but to be clear: the Government do not set or comment on the value of the carbon in the emissions trading scheme. That is a matter for the market. It is of course a policy on which the previous Government were very keen, because it drives the most efficient forms of decarbonisation. Ultimately, it places a price on carbon emissions that ensures private capital floods into the right places to decarbonise, as we have seen so successfully with the power sector in the UK.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
There is huge potential from small modular reactors for both our energy security and jobs. I am proud that the decisions this Government have taken have enabled us to fund the UK’s first SMRs at Wylfa, supporting up to 3,000 jobs on site and thousands more across the supply chain. We want every part of the country to benefit from this potential, including Scotland.
Irene Campbell
An SMR and new nuclear at Hunterston power station would make a huge difference to my constituency, given that nearly 650 people are already employed in highly skilled and well-paid jobs in the civil nuclear sector there. I was concerned to read a BBC article about a Scottish nuclear worker who relocated from Hunterston to Hinkley because there is no new nuclear in Scotland. Does the Secretary of State agree that we are losing talent and investment because of the SNP’s continuous opposition to nuclear?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks incredibly well on this issue. It is just common sense to have nuclear as part of our energy mix. We know why it is not going to happen in Scotland under the current regime. It is because SNP politicians, for dogmatic reasons, have set their face against it. They are even embarrassed to have this policy. The answer to it is to vote Labour in May.
Mr Speaker
Order. Jim, you were not here—you have just appeared—and the problem is that I think you missed the first part of the question. [Interruption.] Do not worry, Jim—just get on with it!
Jim Shannon
I thank the Secretary of State and I know he is interested in small modular reactor schemes, which we are very interested in having in Northern Ireland. The shadow Secretary of State has also giving a commitment to them. Can I please ask the Secretary of State what discussion he has had with the Northern Ireland Assembly—Gordon Lyons, in particular—to ensure that we can also benefit?
Ed Miliband
Obviously, this is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, but I think the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Throughout the United Kingdom, there is huge potential for SMRs. This is the technology of the future, and it can play a really important role in our energy mix across the UK.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is unusual—indeed, unheard of, in recent months anyway—for the Secretary of State and I to agree on anything on energy policy, but it is probably not the first time this week that he secretly agrees with a Scottish politician. I know he agrees that new nuclear, particularly SMRs, offer huge potential for the UK and for Scotland. This week, Trade Unionists for Safe Nuclear Energy launched a petition addressed to the First Minister of Scotland, calling on him to lift the ban on new nuclear development in Scotland. Can that group expect the Department’s support?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman is right about this. Let me put it this way: given the scale of the climate change challenge, only those who are dug in dogmatically can oppose new nuclear. Given the scale of the challenge we face, we need all the tools at our disposal. It provides good jobs and energy security, so it is only for dogmatic reasons that the SNP Government oppose it. There is one difference between him and me, and that is that he promised SMRs, but we are delivering them.
Andrew Bowie
The difference is that this Secretary of State’s ambition for nuclear pales in comparison with our ambition when we were in government.
When I served as the Minister for nuclear, it was a source of the greatest frustration that, despite the many countless—indeed, huge—strides we took to kick-start the new nuclear age in the UK, none of the investment or the jobs would be seen north of the border. The Scottish National party is most at home refighting the battles of the past—they tend to be the battles of the 14th century—but in this age of nuclear revolution across the world, the aversion to nuclear is inexplicable. It is a luddite approach. The SNP is anti-science, anti-progress and anti-jobs. There can and should be a future for nuclear in Scotland. Does the Secretary State not agree that this is the time for the SNP Government to drag themselves into, and to move Scotland into, the 20th century—let alone the 21st century—change course and lift this ridiculous ban?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman makes his point in his own way. As I say, I believe the SNP’s position makes no sense. I gently point out to him that although he might have had grand ambitions, with no delivery they are completely worthless—and that was the Conservatives’ record on nuclear.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
Great British Energy’s mission is to power Britain with clean, secure and home-grown energy. It has already started that work, with Great British Energy and the Government funding around 250 school and 260 hospital solar installations, including at Rakegate primary school and Ormiston NEW Academy in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Warinder Juss
In my constituency, almost one in five households have been living in fuel poverty, struggling to heat their homes this winter. I welcome the Government’s commitment to lifting 1 million more households out of fuel poverty by 2030, which will have a significant impact on my constituents. Will the Minister please outline what other tangible changes my constituents can expect to see over the next year thanks to GB Energy, so that by the time we come to next winter they can feel comfortable that they can now afford to heat their homes?
Martin McCluskey
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that he is focused, as I am, on reducing energy bills for his constituents and people across the country. I have already spoken about the extensive investment in solar not just in his constituency but across the country. People in Wolverhampton and across the country will also be benefiting from our action to reduce energy costs by an average of £150 this April. That is in addition to continuing the warm home discount for nearly 6 million eligible households this year.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
There have been numerous references to the cost of energy and reducing that cost in the United Kingdom. Has any assessment been made by the Minister or the Department of the comments made by the International Energy Agency in the past few days, which seem to indicate we have one of the highest prices in the western world?
Martin McCluskey
I think where the IEA and I would agree is that we need to get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels and ensure we are investing in clean home-grown energy that people across the country can take advantage of to lower their bills.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)
As set out in the recent northern growth strategy, the north-east is at the forefront of our clean energy revolution. Our industrial strategy’s clean energy industries sector plan sets out measures which will support investment and growth across the UK. Great British Energy has supported grants to mayoral strategic authorities, which will enable locally led energy projects.
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for that response. For 100 years and more, skilled workers in the north-east have relied on high-paid energy jobs, be they in coal, gas or oil in mines, factories, ports and rigs. Labour’s clean power mission can bring new jobs to existing supply chains, but companies and workers need help to transition. Will the Minister tell me how she plans to future-proof the north-east’s energy supply chain and deliver secure, well-paid and unionised jobs?
Katie White
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to highlight the huge opportunities for the north-east in the energy transition. We estimate an additional 10,000 jobs by 2030, building on those that are already in place in offshore wind in the Port of Tyne and in nuclear Hartlepool. She is right to point out the importance of the transition for both existing workers and the next generation. That is why we have introduced a clean energy jobs plan to ensure that that transition is as successful as possible. I highlight the work of Mayor Kim McGuinness, who held an excellent green jobs fair in the north-east, which has provided a blueprint for the rest of the country, and the importance of our work, hand in hand with the trade unions, to ensure that we deliver the most effective transition possible.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Great Britain’s electricity distribution network is highly resilient and the Government work closely with industry to maintain that. Energy resilience is a top priority for the Government, which is why my Department will publish an energy resilience plan in 2026.
Mary Kelly Foy
Constituents in areas like Esh Winning, Witton Gilbert, Brandon and Waterhouses and increasingly businesses in Durham city regularly contact me about repairing power outages. They have been told by Northern Powergrid that temporary repairs will be made, but that clearly offers no reassurance to those who are elderly, live alone or rely on their electricity supply for medication or to power medical equipment. Recent storms cannot be blamed, as many of the outages were reported during spells of fine weather. Will the Minister say what work the Government are carrying out to improve the resilience of the electricity distribution network in Durham so that my constituents are not constantly worried about when their power will next go out?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend asks an important question. I completely understand the frustrations of people who are without power and the disruption that it has on people’s lives. My Department has had a number of conversations with Northern Powergrid on the particular issues in my hon. Friend’s constituency and I am advised that many of the power outages across Waterhouses, Brandon and Esh Winning were caused by trees contacting overhead lines. This is all feeding into work that is being done to ensure that the resilience of the network allows us to avoid those situations in the future. We are also working on how we can upgrade the network where possible to ensure it is resilient. There is always more that we can do, but the grid does remain hugely resilient across the country, and we will work to support communities such as that of my hon. Friend where, unfortunately, there are power outages.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
There are two things that the Government could do to improve energy resilience, particularly in communities like mine in Cumbria. First, they could support Electricity North West by ensuring that it buries its cables where possible to protect them against wild weather, which, as the Minister knows, we have from time to time. Secondly, they could accelerate local energy markets so that in places like Coniston, which the Minister and I discussed in our meeting yesterday, they are able to provide energy for the community they are embedded within, thereby enhancing the resilience of the network. Will the Minister do those things?
Michael Shanks
I think Electricity North West is considering exactly that question, looking at where the lines can be buried to avoid repetition of the issues that have been caused so far. I will follow up on that point in particular with it. I had a fantastic meeting with the hon. Gentleman yesterday to talk about Coniston and local energy markets. I encourage him and Members across the House to read the local power plan, published this morning, which sets out our ambition to look at innovative ways in which communities can own and invest in their own energy while also having the resilience of local energy networks and smart energy systems that help the grid both nationally and locally.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
This Government’s actions mean lower bills for people across Scotland and lower levels of fuel poverty; in April, because of the Government’s actions, households across Scotland will see an average of £150 of costs removed from their energy bills. Just last week, we announced the extension of the warm home discount to 2031, meaning £92 million of support for some of the most vulnerable people across Scotland every year into the next decade.
Dave Doogan
The energy market in Scotland operates in surplus in both generation and transmission, whereas the energy market in England operates in shortage in both generation and transmission. Unfortunately, that means that in a GB energy market, Scotland gets sucked in to subsidising energy costs for English consumers. Over and above that, Energy UK has made it clear that there will be no meaningful reduction in energy bills until some indeterminate point in the 2030s. Will the Minister recommit—just before the Scottish elections—to energy bills in Scotland being £300 lower in 2029 than in 2024?
Martin McCluskey
Bills are coming down, and yes, I will recommit to that. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman does not want to listen to me about the impact of our policies, he might look at the Scottish Government’s own modelling of the £150 off energy bills, which says that the number of people in fuel poverty in Scotland will reduce by 9% and the number in extreme fuel poverty will reduce by 12.5% this April. That is because of this Government’s actions, not because of anything the hon. Gentleman or his colleagues are doing.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
It was good to see you walking in today, Mr Speaker.
I welcome the publication of the local power plan, which will be keenly read in my constituency—the heart of the Atlantic—where communities are taking their share in the wealth of wind. To renew and expand community energy, we need to get connected to the grid. I welcome what the local power plan has to say about setting up tailored support for communities, but there must be priority support from Ofgem, the grid operators and this Government to ensure that communities benefit from the wealth of wind.
Martin McCluskey
I know that my hon. Friend is a real champion for local community power in Na h-Eileanan an Iar. I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy will have lots to say on the matter soon on his visit to the Western Isles.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
The first-of-a-kind clean industry bonus as part of allocation round 7 is set to crowd in up to £3.4 billion of private investment in supply chains and support up to 7,000 jobs across the country. After a legacy of failure under the previous Government, we are determined that the clean energy future is made in Britain.
Sir Mark Hendrick
What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the jobs generated through the clean industry bonus are directed towards communities formerly dependent on fossil fuel industries and that workers at risk of displacement during the transition are supported into those new opportunities?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes an important point. One great thing about the clean industry bonus is that it will be focused on the industrial areas of our country, including those that are based on oil and gas. We also have, as part of our North sea future plan, a whole set of plans to help displaced oil and gas workers into these areas. There is huge potential in this innovation, as it rewards companies that invest in our country.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
One of the best ways to ensure accurate billing is by using a smart meter, which automatically records energy use in every half-hour period, allowing bills based on actual rather than estimated usage. That is why more than two thirds of non-domestic premises are already using a smart meter.
Cat Eccles
Small businesses across my constituency have been mis-sold commercial energy contracts by brokers. A business in Lye was recently locked into a three-year contract in which it found itself paying more than double the market rate. An independent café in the Merry Hill centre recently had to close due to the £1,500 a month in energy bills that it was forced to pay. Will the Government strengthen the law to protect small businesses against unscrupulous energy brokers and consider introducing a cap on business tariffs?
Martin McCluskey
I am sorry to hear about the experience of businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The short answer to her question is yes, we will strengthen the law in this area. Rogue energy brokers have been allowed to use predatory sales tactics for too long to take advantage of customers. That is why, once parliamentary time allows, we will be introducing new measures to stamp out that exploitation.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
On 4 February, the Government published the advanced nuclear framework, which establishes a pathway to market by introducing the UK advanced nuclear pipeline and clarifying the enabling policy landscape to unlock privately financed advanced nuclear projects in the UK, which is all part of our new golden age of nuclear power.
Mr Brash
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the publication of the advanced nuclear framework. It is an important step forward, providing a clear pathway for credible projects such as the one that X-Energy and Centrica are delivering in my constituency. Will he ensure, though, that the right balance is struck between backing those projects that are most robust and mature and recognising that Government support will be particularly important to unlocking private investment for the first project of its kind in the UK, which will make Hartlepool a trailblazer for our country?
Michael Shanks
Let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend who is an absolute champion for Hartlepool. I was delighted to be at an event recently as part of Nuclear Week in Parliament, where I met some of his constituents who pay tribute to him for the work that he does in this place and outside it to bring nuclear investment to Hartlepool. The framework that we have announced enables credible, mature privately led projects by providing the clarity needed to attract private capital. To join the UK advanced nuclear pipeline, projects must meet the readiness assessment, gaining in principle the endorsement of deliverability. Therefore, his point is hugely important and we look forward to these private-led projects coming forward as part of this huge investment in new nuclear.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I am proud that the Government have extended the warm home discount to an extra 2.7 million households, taking the total to around 6 million. Last week, we announced that the scheme would continue supporting households for a further five years to 2031. This will make a vital difference to so many families this winter, including an additional 190,000 households in Yorkshire and the Humber.
Mr Charters
I will never forget my mum renting a house in York with ancient heating, freezing rooms and an evil prepayment meter that drained her finances. In York, over a third of fuel-poor households rent privately. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the warm home discount reaches them and ends the unfair penalty paid by many simply for renting?
Martin McCluskey
The experience that my hon. Friend outlines is still all too common in our country, and I know that he continues to raise this issue on behalf of all his constituents. The warm home discount is available to eligible private renting households on prepayment meters, and through the warm homes plan we are taking significant action to increase the minimum energy efficiency standards for the private rental sector, so that every private renter in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere benefits from a warm home that is cheaper to heat.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)
This Government take energy security extremely seriously. We run one of the world’s safest, most reliable energy systems, and we are a top destination for investment. Investment in our energy infrastructure undergoes the highest level of national security scrutiny.
Gregory Stafford
Given reports from Norway and Denmark that Chinese-manufactured electric buses contain remote kill switch technology, and that the recent UK-China engagement appears to have delivered an embassy for the Chinese and little more than a Labubu for the United Kingdom, how can the Minister be confident that Chinese-made energy infrastructure does not pose similar national security risks? What steps is she taking to remove our reliance on Chinese-made infrastructure?
Katie White
That is slightly audacious, given that when we left government in 2010 we had, I think, three of the top solar companies in the world, but when we came back into office we had nothing—there was no supply chain. National security is this Government’s No. 1 overriding priority. We are engaging constructively with every opportunity and all actors but at the same time making sure that every single decision takes into account our national security, which comes first above anything else.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Domestic production of clean energy infrastructure technologies insulates us from Chinese security issues. In Cornwall we are on the cusp of significant geothermal baseload energy production. Geothermal Engineering Ltd in my constituency will imminently open the UK’s first ever geothermal electricity plant, producing energy and lithium from beneath our feet. Will the Minister ensure that there will be ministerial representation at this key milestone in the UK’s clean energy transition?
Katie White
From China to Cornwall, Mr Speaker! I thank my hon. Friend for his continued championing of Cornwall, geothermal energy and critical minerals. This Government support geothermal, and we will engage constructively at any key moment.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
This morning we have announced a record-breaking auction for solar and onshore wind, and we are launching our local power plan. That follows a month in which we secured the biggest offshore wind auction in Europe’s history and launched our warm homes plan. We are determined to deliver lower bills and good jobs as we take back control of Britain’s energy.
Olivia Blake
I welcome the Secretary of State’s leadership in restoring momentum on net zero. Will he outline how the Government’s energy and climate strategies will be underpinned by clear delivery plans, milestones and transparent reporting to Parliament?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks with great eloquence on these issues. As she knows, that is the great thing about the Climate Change Act 2008, which was passed with the support of all parties. David Cameron—my nemesis—was a great supporter of that plan. The Act gives us the milestones that my hon. Friend talks about. On top of that, we have our clean power action plan.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Last year, the Secretary of State signed a secret energy deal with China, which he has refused to publish. This is simply unheard of. We have heard repeatedly from intelligence services that China might seek to disrupt our energy system, so it is crucial that the public get to see what he has signed us up to. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing the full text of his secret energy deal with China, and if not, will he tell the House what it is that he is trying to hide?
Ed Miliband
May I give the right hon. Lady a piece of advice? Wacky conspiracy theories that she gets on the internet are no substitute for a proper policy.
Claire Coutinho
That is frankly another patronising non-answer from the Secretary of State. I am not sure whether he got the memo, but his party is fed up with the sexist boys club. What is crucial is that the public have lost faith in the Labour party. This is a serious moment. Does he accept that when he stands at the Dispatch Box and tells the public that by his calculation their bills are falling, not rising, they simply do not believe him? Does he also accept that when he does not set out what any of his plans—such as doubling the carbon tax or clean power 2030—will do to bills, he makes a mockery of his party’s pretence that it cares about the cost of living? Does he not reflect on all this—the £300 nonsense pledge, the Great British Energy fig leaf—and realise that when it comes to loss of trust, he is not their salvation but their problem?
Ed Miliband
We will take no lectures from the right hon. Lady on the cost of living crisis, because her Government presided over the worst cost of living crisis in generations. Let me tell her what we are doing: £150 off bills; the warm home discount extended; the warm homes plan. We have done more in 18 months to cut bills for people than they did in 14 years.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
My hon. Friend does a good job of standing up for workers in his constituency and, following the statement that I made in the House before Christmas, he will know very well the views of the Government on this closure. I was pleased to attend the local taskforce recently with my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). Along with the investment that the Government are making in Grangemouth and the guarantee of an interview for workers from Mossmorran at Grangemouth, our focus is on supporting the workers and the local community. A significant investment by the Government in the local area stands in stark contrast to the SNP Scottish Government, who have limited their support to £3 million a year.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Trump’s national security report made it clear that he wanted to use America’s gas to project geopolitical power. We must not replace Putin’s gas with a reliance on Trump’s gas. That is why signing the Hamburg declaration was a step in the right direction, strengthening energy co-operation with our European neighbours. We need to go further, and we should host the next North sea summit, demonstrating UK leadership. Has the Secretary of State managed to get the Treasury to see sense and agree to hosting the next summit?
Ed Miliband
Not yet, but the hon. Lady makes a really important point, which is that energy security from home-grown clean energy is important here, but that we should also work with our European allies.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Witherden, think about other people, not just yourself, please. We have to get more questions in.
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
My hon. Friend was at a Westminster Hall debate on this issue a few months ago, and what I said then remains the Government’s position: we work closely with the Welsh Government on this issue. We are content with the Welsh Government’s position that this area is already regulated and sufficient, but we obviously keep these things under review.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Michael Shanks
Again, we have had a meeting to discuss that issue. I will not get into Ofgem’s decisions, but any planning applications or further processes will be dealt with by the Government and by Ofgem in the usual manner.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
As a Labour and Co-operative MP, I am absolutely delighted by the publication of the local power plan. I have seen that work in action through local energy projects such as Bo’ness scout group, which is reducing its bills with 40 solar panels and delivering funding support for young people. What steps will the Government take to increase accessibility and community capacity to deliver local power plans, and will the Secretary of State join me on a visit to Bo’ness scouts?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I congratulate the scout group. The Minister for Energy promises that he will visit, and that is now on the record in Hansard.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady will not be disappointed because, as she said in her question, I will not comment on the application. However, we set out clearly in response to the Finch ruling how scope 3 emissions will be taken into account. That process is now under way, and I cannot comment on those applications.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The 2025 EU-UK summit set ambitions for the UK to join the single electricity market. Does the Minister agree that close and easier energy interconnection between the EU and the UK constitutes a key strategic component of our continent’s energy security, and reduces costs for UK businesses and customers?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)
At the recent North sea summit, we committed to a joint ambition of 100 GW of offshore renewable projects with our European neighbours, including through co-ordinated energy infrastructure planning. We are determined to work closer than ever with our European neighbours to maximise our joint clean energy independence. Strategically planned, interconnected and efficient electricity trading is a key element of that plan.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Ed Miliband
This has happened because of the fossil fuel crisis presided over by the previous Government. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that we are doing absolutely everything we can to help his constituents and others. We recognise the scale of the problem and that there is more to do.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
My local workforce desperately needs new nuclear at Dungeness. Does the Secretary of State agree that the way we protect nature and habitats must be reformed in the way recommended by the nuclear regulatory taskforce, so that we better protect nature while also providing the skilled jobs and energy security that my constituents deserve?
Michael Shanks
We want to improve regulations and processes for new nuclear projects while continuing to protect the environment. We will present a full Government response, and an implementation plan, by the end of this month, taking into account our national security and environmental considerations.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
We are working closely with heritage organisations to tackle precisely that problem. The hon. Lady will see in the warm homes plan that there is specific advise about retrofitting historic buildings. [Interruption.] Although they are not in her constituency, I will be visiting some projects soon.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Morwind recently received funding to conduct an important feasibility study for a major offshore wind hub at Portland. If built, the hub would be a key part of the west country’s manufacturing supply chain, and it would create hundreds of well-paid green jobs for local people. Will the Minister work with Morwind and me to deliver the hub at pace, and will he come to Portland to meet the key players and get the ball rolling?
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Michael Shanks
Of course, all projects that are consented and licensed have to follow the law, and the North Sea Transition Authority as a regulator makes that happen. I will not comment on projects that are currently going through the consenting process.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
In Blackpool, around 75% of privately rented homes have damp or mould. It is a huge problem in our town, so I was delighted when the Chancellor announced £30 million in the warm homes plan. Can the Secretary of State outline for my residents when Blackpool will receive that money and when this plan will finally get under way?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is really important is not just the funding we are providing but the regulation we are introducing in the warm homes plan—promised by the last Government but never delivered—so that people who are privately renting get the decent, warm, comfortable homes they deserve.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I must raise a very important issue with the Secretary of State: there is concern about thermal runaway in batteries, especially those on prime agricultural land. Heavy metals vaporise at 900° and thermal runaway burns at over 1,000°. What research and assessment has been done on the evaporation of these heavy metals, which would poison agricultural land?
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. All the evidence points to the fact that the fire risk from batteries is less than in residential homes, but we take safety incredibly seriously. I recently convened a roundtable of those involved to look at what more we might do in the regulatory space, and DEFRA is looking at environmental regulations on batteries. We obviously take fire safety incredibly seriously.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I welcome the news this morning of Imerys’s success in auction round 7. What steps is the Minister taking as part of the local power plan to ensure that local communities share the spoils of Cornwall’s great renewable energy potential?
Ed Miliband
If my hon. Friend stays tuned, he will be hearing all about it in an hour’s time.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Many of my constituents are anxious about the consultation process and the environmental impact of the Peak Cluster project in rural Cheshire. Will the Secretary of State commit to meeting me and local representatives to ensure that community concerns are properly addressed before the development consent order is submitted?
Michael Shanks
As I have said repeatedly, any projects that are going through the planning system have to demonstrate community engagement and that they have engaged genuinely with that feedback. That is part of the process, and projects of any kind are assessed against that. I will not comment on individual applications for obvious reasons.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
What progress is being made on carbon capture, usage and storage and hydrogen projects in the Humber?
Michael Shanks
Given that it is topical questions, I might struggle to say all the progress that is being made, but the Government have committed in our energy strategy and in decisions made by the Chancellor to fund hydrogen and carbon capture, to ensure that those are important parts of our energy mix. I will be visiting projects in the Humber soon, to see exactly what is happening on the ground, but we are committed to carbon capture, usage and storage and the jobs that go with it.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Rendesco is a brilliant renewable energy business in my constituency. Just before Christmas, it was awarded a £2 million grant from UK Research and Innovation, but since then the phone has not been working at UKRI’s end. Can Ministers have a word to see whether this money can be unlocked, to ensure that Rendesco’s product can be brought to market and that jobs are not lost?
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Working with Councillor David Branson, I have been pushing to get more support for our local schools to cut their bills. I am really pleased that Great British Energy funded new solar panels for Sunnyside academy in Coulby Newham last year. Will Ministers meet me to see whether we can get more support so that more of our local schools to cut their bills?
Ed Miliband
I congratulate Sunnyside academy. This Government and GB Energy are delivering a policy opposed by the Conservative party.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Last week the Government pushed through the imposition of the emissions trading scheme on domestic shipping. That will have a huge impact on Northern Ireland, because so many goods are brought into Northern Ireland from GB, or sent there, on ferries. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact this will have on consumer prices and manufacturing costs in Northern Ireland? Does he recognise that Northern Ireland will face heavy costs because of this net zero policy?
Chris McDonald
The right hon. Member and I debated this at length in the Delegated Legislation Committee last week. On the impact of this measure on Northern Ireland, I am sure he will be pleased to welcome the fact that we are providing a 50% reduction on the carbon tax associated with the extension to domestic maritime for journeys to Northern Ireland, to ensure that they are not disadvantaged when compared with journeys to the Republic of Ireland.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
This year Teddy Grays in Dudley celebrates 200 years in business, with five generations of the same family keeping that local sweetshop and mainstay in Dudley. However, as with many small businesses, energy bills are a constant threat to its success. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that Teddy Grays can enjoy another 200 years of sweet success, and will he meet me to discuss this further?
Chris McDonald
That was an extremely sweet question, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue further and outline many of the initiatives that the Government are taking to support small businesses. Perhaps it would be best to do that on site, where I can get my favourite chocolate limes.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
“Our Governments seem stricken, almost delusional, in the face of onrushing disaster,”
and we are seeing
“arguably the most destructive industrial calamity in our nation’s history”.
Those are the words of the GMB’s Scotland Secretary about the Government’s determination to tax and regulate the oil and gas sector out of business. Does the Minister agree with the words of his union friend?
Michael Shanks
I recently had a useful meeting in Aberdeen, in which the GMB participated, about building up the future of the North sea. What I never hear from Conservative Members is any support for industries that will invest in the North sea in the future, and in the tens of thousands of jobs that will go with it. Perhaps at some point they should support the future in the North sea.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, there is a fantastic site on the edge of the M1 at Ratcliffe-on-Soar—the last of the coal-fired power station sites to be decommissioned—which will make a superb site for clean energy generation. Will he commit to meeting me and Claire Ward, Mayor of the East Midlands, to discuss it further?
Michael Shanks
I visited Ratcliffe-on-Soar for the closure ceremony. It was a good example of a just transition done well, and an historic moment of consensus, delivering the phase-out of coal across our country. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend. I recently met the mayor to talk about the future of that site, which has huge potential.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Returning to the imminent imposition of the emissions trading scheme on domestic shipping, why will consumers in Northern Ireland face the imposition of a carbon tax, whereas consumers in Scotland who equally depend on ferries for their supplies are obtaining an exemption? Where is the parity?
Chris McDonald
The Government were pleased to provide an exemption for the islands around Scotland for a number of reasons, but particularly because of the small populations on those islands and the non-competitive nature of the ferry services.
Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department’s contracts with Palantir.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
Palantir is a strategic supplier to the Ministry of Defence, providing secure data integration, analytics and AI platforms that help to support operational planning and decision making.
In 2022, the Conservative Government signed a three-year enterprise agreement with Palantir, in light of the growing significance of faster operational decision making, and the impact that that technology has had in operations, including in Ukraine. This Government negotiated a new enterprise agreement to update the one signed in 2022, and that was published in a transparency note in December last year.
As part of the development of the new enterprise agreement, the MOD negotiated a strategic partnership with Palantir last September. The SPA reaffirms the strong relationship developed between UK defence and Palantir over the past decade, and includes new commitments that this Government secured from Palantir, including £1.5 billion investment into the UK, a new UK defence tech SME mentoring scheme to help companies grow and access the US market, and a commitment that London is to be the company’s European defence headquarters.
This Government took over what the Tories started in 2022, but we made it work better for Britain and better for our forces. As the Defence Secretary has said, the contract was his decision, and his alone. Peter Mandelson had no influence on the decision to award this contract. The deal that we struck with Palantir will significantly reinforce the innovation of our forces, and reinforce the safety of this country as we move towards warfighting readiness.
James Cartlidge
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. Before I turn to the detail, let me say that the Mandelson scandal is truly shocking. When debating these matters, it is incumbent on all of us to remember the victims of Epstein’s crimes.
Following Peter Mandelson’s sacking as US ambassador, serious questions surrounding his influence on MOD contracts have emerged, to which we have had no meaningful answers. Specifically, the MOD signed a contract with the US firm Palantir in December 2025 worth £240 million. Critically, at a time when UK defence companies are struggling for orders from their own Government, this contract did not involve a competition with British firms, and was granted to a US company by direct award. Why was that?
For the record, this is not about Palantir or any other US company. From my time as the Defence Procurement Minister, I recognise the huge mutual gain to us and to our closest ally that results from our strong defence relationship. It is true that many contracts in the MOD are rightly let on a single-source basis, but this is about transparency. Above all, the question is: to what extent did Peter Mandelson and his firm Global Counsel, in which he was a controlling shareholder at the time, benefit from privileged access not available to potential UK competitors—access that was used to deliver a defence contract of some £250 million to a client of Global Counsel without competition?
Regarding the meeting between the Prime Minister, Peter Mandelson and Palantir in February 2025 in Washington DC, is it true that no minutes were taken? If they were not taken, why not? Crucially, at the time of the meeting, was the Prime Minister aware that Palantir was a client of Mandelson’s firm? The Minister must answer that. In the build-up to the US state visit, we understand that Peter Mandelson lobbied the UK Government for deliverables. Will the Minister commit to publishing what those deliverables were? Did they involve any clients of Global Counsel?
Finally, let me mention the actions to take. Given the public interest in this matter, will Defence Ministers follow the lead of the Health Secretary and publish all their correspondence with Peter Mandelson? In addition, in the spirit of the Humble Address, will the Government publish, as part of the Mandelson files, all relevant material relating to this contract award?
Luke Pollard
As I said in my first answer, Peter Mandelson had no influence on the decision to award this contract; it was a decision made by the Secretary of State, and it was his decision alone.
As the shadow Secretary of State well knows, this enterprise agreement builds on the one that Conservative Ministers signed with Palantir back in 2022, and he knows that the MOD uses Palantir tools and technology on a daily basis to support operations and wider data analytics. I am sure he is not suggesting that we should not be maintaining access to those vital capabilities. Is he saying that his Government were wrong to formalise the relationship with Palantir in their 2022 agreement? I do not think he is.
It is really important that we publish the information. Last time I was in Washington, the then ambassador unfortunately was not available to meet, or was not there, but the Prime Minister has been clear at the Dispatch Box that the public and the House deserve transparency. We intend to publish as much material as we can, as soon as reasonably possible. The Cabinet Office is working with the Met police and Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that the release of any documents does not prejudice the Met investigation, or the UK’s national security and international relations. That process is under way, and that is in addition to the other actions that the Prime Minister has already taken.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
In this evolving security environment, it is clear that developments in artificial intelligence and tech are changing the world at a rate of knots. Those things are integral to defence, but that must not come at the cost of transparency, trust and British businesses. Hon. Members who have served in this House for quite some time will know that dealings with Palantir have been the subject of intense scrutiny and speculation for several years. The key question is: why was this particular contract not subject to the usual competitive procurement processes?
Luke Pollard
The Palantir enterprise agreement was a direct award, justified under the Procurement Act 2023. The agreement covers existing services and areas in which there is a robust technical justification for using Palantir products and services for defence outcomes. All procurement procedures were followed, and a transparency notice was published.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
In 2020, Palantir accepted a fee of £1 for trialling its data collection services during covid. Since then, the company has amassed contracts with the NHS and the MOD worth more than £500 million. Given the growing scale of Palantir’s involvement in the UK, transparency around its operations is vital, yet the Government have consistently chosen to obfuscate, rather than clarify. Such transparency is especially important when it comes to technology that may lock the UK into dependency on one supplier. In respect of the recent £240 million contract awarded to Palantir, I ask the Minister one more time: will he tell the House why there was no competitive process? Was the Defence Secretary aware of Peter Mandelson’s commercial links to Palantir when this decision was taken solely by him, as the Minister has said?
Last month, Donald Trump threatened a NATO ally with annexation. Despite that, the Government have chosen to green-light a multimillion-pound defence contract with a company co-founded by Trump’s billionaire backer, Peter Thiel. We must be alert to the genuine risk that data collected by Palantir in the UK could be fed back to the White House. Will the Minister provide firm guarantees that all data collected by Palantir will not be shared beyond our Ministry of Defence?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman will have heard the answer I just gave to the Chair of the Defence Committee about the procurement process. As I set out, the decision was made by the Secretary of State alone; he has been clear about that. The hon. Gentleman will know that the UK has a strong security and defence partnership with the United States. We are clear that we will continue to invest in that strong security and defence partnership, while we deepen partnerships with our European friends and allies further afield. On data, UK defence data used and developed in Palantir software remains sovereign to the UK and under the control of the MOD, and it resides in the United Kingdom. We have clear, contractual controls in place to ensure that, and we have control of the data system that Palantir software sits on. No change can be made to that without the consent of the MOD.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
When I was in opposition, I raised concerns about Palantir and the £1 deal that was made. It was always a trap to ensure that Palantir got its foot in where no one else could. The co-founder of Palantir is mentioned in the Epstein files. I think that anyone who is mentioned in the Epstein files should be fully investigated by this House and by the police; the scandal is an absolute disgrace. The Minister must ensure transparency and robust safeguards. Palantir and AI organisations have the ability to bamboozle Ministers, unless we have concrete ways to ensure that they cannot abuse their power.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is right that investigations are under way. As the Government made clear to the House last week, we will co-operate fully with those investigations, and we will ensure that the information that the House requires to be published is published in a way that creates the transparency that we all seek. There are already safeguards in place around the use of artificial intelligence in Ministry of Defence decision making, and we are looking at ways to enable new opportunities, especially for UK firms, given the growing requirement in the Ministry of Defence for faster decision making and better data management. I understand her concerns about AI and safeguards, and I will continue to update the House as the AI strategy that Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has published is rolled out.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Most British scandals are fairly pathetic by international standards—they are about things like serving a piece of cake to the Prime Minister—but this scandal is monumental because it involves somebody in service to the Government using his position for commercial gain. In my long experience of such scandals, what brings down Presidents and Prime Ministers is not the original scandal, but the cover up. My advice to the Minister is to answer the perfectly sensible questions that are being put to him, particularly by the Chair of the Defence Committee about the lack of competitive process, and by the Opposition spokesman about the meeting in Washington. Will the Minister now answer the questions put to him?
Luke Pollard
I have answered those questions. I say politely to the Father of the House that the partygate scandal, which is not the subject of today’s urgent question, is not a trivial scandal, and it is important to put that clearly on the record. It undermined confidence in the Government at a time when we were being asked to do something that the decision makers were not doing themselves. I agree with him that transparency is necessary and important. The MOD publishes its procurement decisions in the usual transparent way, continuing the theme from when his party was in office. We will continue to do that, and I am happy to continue to take questions about the transparency of this contract.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
Given the scale of the contract—it is for almost a quarter of a billion pounds—and the fact that Mandelson had had a contract with Palantir, and attended a meeting in Washington with the Prime Minister and Palantir after he became the ambassador, questions inevitably arise. May I ask the Minister explicitly whether all the papers relevant to the Prime Minister’s visit and the contract will be made available to the Intelligence and Security Committee, as we believed we decided last Wednesday? I am aware that at least five or six senior civil servants in the Ministry of Defence have gone to work with Palantir. Can we have an assurance that there are proper firewalls in place to protect the interests of the public, as against the private interests of Palantir?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend asks valid questions. I say to him clearly that this Government will stand by and honour the agreement on the publication of information that was struck last week during the debate on the Humble Address. If there are documents from the Ministry of Defence that need to be published, we will continue to support the cross-Government effort to do so. On employees, when anyone who has worked in defence moves over to a defence contractor, be it Palantir or any other, we make it clear that they have certain obligations, and there are certain requirements. Palantir employs an awful lot of UK veterans; it has made employing veterans a point of principle. It is a good principle, and that should be done by all defence companies, in my view, but I take his point and I agree with it.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Minister know whether or not minutes were taken at the key Washington meeting in February last year? If they were not taken, why not? Why was Lord Mandelson, a political appointee, not required to sever any links with his former activities and business that could have given rise to a conflict of interest in his role as ambassador?
Luke Pollard
Peter Mandelson has let us all down in this House. The question about the minutes is being looked at by Downing Street, and it will be for Downing Street officials to publish more in due course.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for reply to the urgent question, and want to press him on safeguards. On contracts being held to ransom or a lock-in, what safeguards are there to protect our data and its sovereignty? Is there an exit strategy, if the Minister wants to choose a different contract in future?
Luke Pollard
We take vendor lock-in very seriously. We will build a more comprehensive AI framework in the Ministry of Defence; we will be using AI more frequently in more aspects of defence, just as the wider economy is doing. We want to ensure that our data sovereign. Our contract with Palantir retains the sovereignty of that data, and of decision making about the systems that the data sits on. That data resides in the United Kingdom, and no changes can be made by Palantir without the consent of the MOD. It is because we take the data issues so seriously that that is locked into the contract.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
The Select Committee said that DSIT was in the loop when it came to buying things, so I challenge the Minister’s statement that it was purely the Secretary of State who made the decision about the contract. This contract with Palantir is nearly three times the value of the previous contract with it. The MOD transparency notice sets out that “only Palantir” can run the service, and that there would be a “significant cost” to changing all the analytics services, so we are entirely locked into a contract with a company that is now hiking up the price. What is the exit strategy?
Luke Pollard
We signed a contract with a supplier to provide a service for which there is clear military need and clear utility, in order to strengthen our armed forces. We keep all contracts, not just those with Palantir, under constant review to ensure that they are delivering what they were signed up to deliver, and we will continue to do that. We want more companies to provide AI services, so we are looking at how we can support more British AI companies to interact with defence. We recently stood up the Defence Office for Small Business Growth because there are many AI companies that are not yet defence AI companies but could be, and we are trying to make it easier for them to access defence contracts.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
This deal with Palantir stinks. It stank before Peter Mandelson was involved, and it stank when those now on the Opposition Benches initiated the NHS and defence contracts. Peter Thiel is an oligarch who despises democracy, and the company has had widespread allegations of human rights abuses made against it. Even the Swiss army has rejected Palantir as a platform on national security grounds. Surely, after Greenland, now is an opportunity for our Government to begin to distance themselves and pivot away from companies, such as Palantir, that are so closely connected with Donald Trump. It is time to move away. Will the Government commit to such a pivot?
Luke Pollard
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s passion on this matter but, as I have set out to the House, we will continue to maintain a close defence and security relationship with the United States—it is in our national security interests to do so. In signing any agreement with a US company, just as would be the case with a French, German or Australian company, we ensure that the agreement is in the UK’s national interest, and that controls are in place on the sovereignty of data, particularly with AI contracts. We will continue to ensure that those standards are upheld in all contracts, but we will also continue to work with international partners where no UK provider could deliver that work, or where the services they offer are in excess or deliver a defence capability faster, better or cheaper than one provided elsewhere.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I want to return to a question that was initially asked by the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). When the Prime Minister met Palantir and Peter Mandelson in February 2025 in Washington DC, was he aware that Palantir was a client of Peter Mandelson’s firm Global Counsel?
Luke Pollard
As I said in reply to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), that is a matter for Downing Street to publish in due course. I am afraid that I have spent the last three days in Saudia Arabia, so I am just catching up on these events. I have been clear about where that information will come from, and I point my hon. Friend in that direction.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
There is a pattern with Palantir: its £1 covid contract with the NHS expanded to a £330 million contract under the last Government, and its Ministry of Defence contract tripled in size to £240 million, without due process or competition. As we have seen, the links with Global Counsel are now on the record. Will the Minister ensure that all contact with Global Counsel from his Department and across Government—Palantir has a total of 34 contracts with public sector bodies—are published, so that we can understand the revolving doors around Peter Mandelson, Global Counsel and this Government?
Luke Pollard
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s direction of travel and passion. We followed due process, in accordance with the Procurement Act, in awarding those contracts. As I have clearly set out, we will comply with the agreement made last week on publication of data and documents.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It shows yet more extraordinarily poor judgment on the part of the Prime Minister that he met personally with Palantir—a highly questionable organisation that is complicit in the ruination of Palestine and the devastation wreaked in the US by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Palantir are into the United Kingdom taxpayer for half a billion pounds, half of which was not competed. We should be concerned about Palantir, full stop. We should be concerned, in addition, about a direct award. We should be further concerned by the company being a client of Peter Mandelson and then having a meeting with the Prime Minister—for which there are apparently no minutes. When will Downing Street come up with a confirmed position on whether minutes were or were not taken in that meeting with Mandelson?
Luke Pollard
As I have been clear to the House in a number of answers, we will continue to have a security and defence relationship with the United States, and it is in our national interests to do so. We are a party that takes defence and security very seriously, which is something that I hope the hon. Gentleman’s party would do more of, although I have much respect for him. I will continue to ensure that we get the best services for our armed forces as we move to warfighting readiness. I have answered the question about minutes, and it will be for Downing Street to publish that in due course.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome this Government’s record funding for our defence, and I also recognise that the US is one of our closest allies. In this House we often talk about energy security, but I sometimes think that we do not talk enough about the security of security. What more can this Government do to invest in UK tech firms so that we are less reliant on foreign firms?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should look at security, data security and the opportunities here. In the strategic defence review, we set out our direction of travel in defence, and investing in new technologies, including artificial intelligence, is key to securing our national security. I want to see the best-in-class products used by our armed forces, and I also want to see more British small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, being able to access this area. We have set up the Defence Office for Small Business Growth, and we are looking in particular at how we can support small defence AI companies to onboard their software in a whole range of defence utilities. We will continue to do so as we look to spend more of our rising defence budget with UK SMEs.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister and the Secretary of State have said that Peter Mandelson was not involved in the decision on Palantir. However, the issue is not the decision itself but the run-up to it. We know that Peter Mandelson, or executives from Global Counsel, were flown into embassy parties, and we need to understand more about whether Peter Mandelson, in pushing for deliverables for the state visit, was pushing for deliverables with Global Counsel clients. Will the Minister confirm that Peter Mandelson was not involved in any way, at any stage, in the decisions on the contracts given not just to Palantir but to Anduril Industries?
Luke Pollard
I am afraid that looking for deliverables ahead of a state visit is pretty standard practice, and it is something that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government looked at just as much as we do. We will continue to have conversations with our ambassadors in all circumstances, as he would expect. The right hon. Gentleman raises questions that should be answered by the publication of the information. We as a Government have committed to publish the relevant information that the House asked for last week, and we stand by that.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
The Government’s ongoing relationship with Palantir is deeply concerning, given the company’s involvement in Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians. Palantir’s AI technology has been used to destroy entire neighbourhoods, schools and hospitals. If we claim to want an ethical foreign policy and pride ourselves on being a rules-based nation, why are we still signing contracts with such a company?
Luke Pollard
I entirely appreciate my hon. Friend’s position. Palantir provides services to the United Kingdom that keep our troops safe and enhance our national security. We have a range of contracts with US firms in procuring not only services but platforms. All those contracts go through the necessary rigour and assessment before they are signed. Some are subject to competitive tender and some, for other reasons, are subject to direct award. We will continue to work with our US partners.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The co-founder of Palantir, Peter Thiel, maintained a close financial and personal relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. There are profound ethical concerns about the web of connections between Thiel, Epstein and Mandelson. The hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) is absolutely right: the MoD’s contract with US-based spy-tech giant Palantir absolutely stinks. Will the MOD now cancel that contract? Will we get a fast and independent inquiry into the Government’s contracts with Palantir, as it currently has several billion pounds-worth of further framework contracts with the UK Government? Will we find out whether Mandelson shared privileged information with Palantir? If it is true that Palantir is hosting a party in Mayfair tomorrow for MOD officials, as The Times has alleged, will the Minister get that stopped?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Lady’s position would be stronger if the Greens were not so soft on defence. We will continue to invest in our national security, and we will invest in the contracts that keep our troops and our country safe. That will involve investing not only in UK firms, but in international partners at the same time. I have been clear at the Dispatch Box that we will comply fully with the agreement made on the Humble Address last week, and we will publish information in the right way in due course. I hope that will be able to provide more of the answers that the hon. Lady is looking for.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Minister appreciate how appallingly bad it looks for the Prime Minister of this country and the then ambassador in Washington, the disgraced Peter Mandelson, to have met Alex Karp, the chief executive of Palantir, in February last year without any written record of the meeting being made? Is he at least able to say which officials—other than, of course, our then ambassador—were present at that meeting?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the photographs that appeared on No. 10’s Twitter feed, to which I referred in response to the earlier question about the publication of information. He will also recall—perhaps from his time as a Defence Minister—that in 2021 the then Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, also met Alex Karp.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Does the Minister really understand the depth of anger and feeling across the country when people read and hear about Palantir—the way in which it has wormed its way into Government contracts and the national health service, and its behaviour on behalf of the Israeli Defence Forces in the destruction of Gaza and other places using artificial intelligence technology? Do we really want to be involved with a company like that? Can we not just distance ourselves from Palantir altogether and have an ethical procurement policy across Government—not just in the Ministry of Defence, but in other Departments as well?
Luke Pollard
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s long-standing position on a number of the items he asks about. I have been clear to the House today that we will continue to work with our US friends—they are our closest defence and security partner. Where appropriate, we will look at working with US technology firms that can provide best-in-class products that deliver increased defence for our armed forces and our nation. We will continue to do that, as well as investing in UK firms.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I am not qualified to make observations about the enduring value for money or effectiveness of Palantir, but I am concerned that Mandelson’s dynamics with every aspect of this Government have toxified the integrity of their processes. Unless the Minister can make absolutely clear what quiet, unspoken influences Mandelson had on this follow-on order with Palantir, people are bound to question the integrity of the process. To respond to the Minister’s earlier point, if we are to have a viable alternative and meaningful competition in future, he will need to do a little more to advance the case for alternatives, beyond just saying that he has an SME strategy.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is right; it is important that people can have confidence in the system, including the procurement system. As I have set out to the House, the decision to extend the contract with Palantir was originally signed in 2022 by the previous Government, of which I think he was a part at the time. That decision was made by the Secretary of State, and by the Secretary of State alone.
I do want to see more British AI companies working in defence—something we have been very clear about. Indeed, I think even the last Government set out an ambition to do more in that space. We have stepped up to make sure we can grow our own indigenous AI industry, with its software and services able to be onboarded into a more AI-friendly defence environment, because AI provides a decision advantage for our forces that is necessary to keep our country safe. However, I take very seriously the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made, and when we publish the information that we have committed to publish, that will hopefully answer some of his questions.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Palantir has links to Peter Mandelson, to Peter Thiel and to the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and it is extending its web of influence across multiple parts of our public sector. It is extraordinary that the Government are so reluctant to have this deal properly scrutinised. Does the Minister come to this place today feeling any shred of embarrassment that he cannot tell us why there are no minutes of the February 2025 meeting? We do not know whether a future contract was discussed, or whether the Prime Minister was aware of Mandelson’s links to Palantir.
Luke Pollard
I am absolutely happy that we have signed a contract and conducted that process in the appropriate way. Scrutiny of that process is not something I am afraid of. I actually think it will show that the decision was made by the Secretary of State, and by the Secretary of State alone, and that the extension of the contract—which was originally signed by the Conservative Government in 2022—delivers a benefit to the United Kingdom and secured £1.5 billion of investment in the UK. It also supplies onboarding routes for more SMEs and makes the UK Palantir’s European headquarters, which will help to support our economy and our armed forces in the future. As I have mentioned a few times, publication of the minutes is a matter for Downing Street, but it is pretty standard for Ministers to meet defence suppliers.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
In a call with investors a couple of weeks ago, Palantir’s chief executive officer Alex Karp said that
“we are super proud of the role we play, especially in places we can’t talk about…Palantir is here to disrupt…and when it’s necessary, to scare our enemies and on occasion kill them.”
Palantir’s share price has almost doubled over the past year, so can the Minister confirm whether Peter Mandelson, the Prime Minister, any Cabinet Minister, any member of this Government or of the Ministry of Defence, or any public official currently has shares in Palantir and will financially benefit from the Government contracts it has been awarded?
Luke Pollard
I am afraid that the role of defence is to disrupt our adversaries and to secure our national security. To do that, we possess capabilities that can disrupt, deter and, if necessary, defeat our adversaries. That includes killing our adversaries at times—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. First, do not walk across the Member who is asking the question. [Interruption.] Just sit down. Secondly, if you have asked a question, please wait for the answer—do not keep interrupting. We have to treat people with respect and tolerance in this House.
Luke Pollard
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is the role of defence to keep our country safe; as part of that, we do procure lethal capabilities, but not all the capabilities we procure are physical capabilities to secure our national security. AI will continue to be an increasingly large area.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s question about the transparency of our shareholdings, Defence Ministers have to publish all of our shareholdings with the relevant standards commissioner. I do not hold shares in Palantir, and no Defence Ministers are allowed to hold any shares in a company that interacts with defence businesses.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
In 2024, Leicestershire police signed a contract with Palantir worth close to £1 million for an intelligence and investigation platform. From what I can deduce through the work I have done, there was absolutely no formal tender process. I raised this concern in the Chamber in June 2025, along with my concerns about Palantir’s racial profiling and civil liberty abuses, which we are seeing in ICE raids now. The written response I received did not address any of my concerns, so will the Government now ensure that all the information about that contract is released immediately? Can the Minister confirm that Peter Mandelson played absolutely no role in unleashing this dystopian contract on the residents of Leicestershire?
Luke Pollard
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s focus on that particular contract. As a Defence Minister, I do not know about Home Office policing contracts that were secured by individual forces, but I can direct him to my colleagues in the Home Office, who might be able to help more.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I have been trying to follow the Secretary of State’s responses regarding relationships with political parties and others. There are issues with regard to some companies. For example, the Quadrature hedge fund has massive investments in Palantir and donates to political parties in this country, including the Labour party, to which it made a £4 million donation in 2024. Will he take away the question of what influence that had on the decision-making processes for the award of contracts?
Luke Pollard
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and for the inadvertent promotion he has given me. He is right to talk about the necessity of ensuring that political donations are transparent and in order. That is an area in which the Government have already set out some changes, and I want our politics to learn lessons from the experiences of the past to make sure that donations are clear and transparent, which was not always the case under the last Government. However, I take seriously the issue that he has raised, and if he writes to me with the detail of that particular donation, I would be happy to look into it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. He is well known for his decency; he is a good Minister, and always tries to answer well. As he knows, I have been a firm supporter of the need to enhance defence—both physically and in the cyber world—so I welcome the defence contract. However, public confidence is at an all-time low due to the Mandelson debacle, and his connection to Palantir naturally raises questions, which is why this UQ has been tabled today. How can the Government assure us that this firm was awarded the contract not due to any connection, but because it can provide the best program and the best defence for our nation?
Luke Pollard
I am a big fan of the hon. Member, too. I have been clear in my answers today that the decision to extend the 2022 contract signed under the previous Government was made by the Secretary of State alone. It was his decision to do so. We are procuring new AI capabilities to speed up our delivery of outcomes within defence. We know that our adversaries are using AI in how they position themselves, and it is necessary that we do so, too. He is right that as we deploy more artificial intelligence, not just in defence, but across our wider economy, we need to secure a level of confidence in the contracts and in the technology itself. That is a bigger debate than this one, but I understand precisely where the hon. Gentleman is coming from.
Court Reporting Data
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the implications for open justice of the impending deletion of the Courtsdesk court reporting data archive.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I am committed, as are this Government, to greater transparency in our justice system. I am also committed to putting the dignity of victims first. As Courts Minister, I have a concern that people should know what goes on in our courts. It is a way of enhancing transparency and of informing and educating the public, and that is why His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has made and continues to make information available to accredited journalists so that they can keep the public informed about what is taking place in our courts.
In 2020, a company called Courtsdesk entered into an arrangement with His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to conduct a pilot providing a new service. That agreement, made under the previous Government, was essentially to take some of the data that we routinely provide—and continue to provide—to journalists, and to re-provide it in a more accessible and easier to search form.
HMCTS was working to expand and improve the service by creating a new data licence agreement with Courtsdesk and others to expand access to justice. It was in the course of making that arrangement with Courtsdesk that data protection issues came to light. What has arisen is that this private company has been sharing private, personal and legally sensitive information with a third-party AI company, including potentially the addresses and dates of birth of defendants and victims. That is a direct breach of our agreement with Courtsdesk, which the Conservatives negotiated.
I believe that everybody in this House would agree that that agreement should be upheld. The Government take our data protection responsibilities seriously. It is for that reason that we decided to stop sharing data with Courtsdesk, a company that was prepared to put victims’ personal data at risk. We instructed it to remove that data from its digital platform. This is about preserving dignity for those who are in our justice system, be they those accused of crime or victims going through the court process. I know that the whole House would agree that that is incredibly important.
Let me be clear: the cessation of our agreement with Courtsdesk does not change the information available to the public about what carries on in our courts, nor does it change the information available to journalists. I recognise that the sort of service that Courtsdesk provided was useful for journalists, because it collated the information and presented it neatly. It is for that reason that officials in my Department are continuing to work, as we had always planned to do, on an alternative platform that allows us to make the information available, but to maintain the guardrails on data protection. I hope to update the House on that in coming weeks. As I conclude, this decision—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. and learned Lady will know that she had three minutes, which she has used. I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Mullan
Here we are again. Not even one week after this Government had to be forced to release the Mandelson files—looking out for themselves and not for victims—we are back with a Government who preach transparency and practise the opposite. The pattern is clear. They will not release migrant crime data. They fought our efforts to institute a grooming gangs inquiry every step of the way. That campaign was fuelled by journalists uncovering what was happening in our courts. What are the Government now intent on doing? Delete, delete, delete. They want to make it harder for journalists to report the truth. What is it that they are worried about? Could it be that they want to hide the fact that thousands of criminals will escape justice under their Sentencing Act 2026? Could it be that when they erode our rights to jury trials, they do not want the public to hear about the results? Can anyone draw any conclusion other than that they are determined to escape accountability for their damaging policies?
The Courtsdesk project has been a huge success. Introduced by the shadow Home Secretary, it has revolutionised the transparency of our courtrooms. Courtsdesk reports that more than 1,500 journalists have used the platform. That is why so many journalists are rallying in support. What of the apparent data breach that the Government are using as an excuse for this? Have they engaged with Courtsdesk? No, they have not. There has been not one single meeting, despite multiple requests to the Minister. It is not just officialdom that is to blame. The Courts Minister has been written to by Courtsdesk and several major media organisations. She has been told directly how important this system is.
This is a Minister who comes to the House and professes how vital magistrates courts are to the Government’s plans to take a sledgehammer to jury trials. She needs to tell us why she and her officials have refused even to meet Courtsdesk. What assessment have they made of the impact of this decision on open justice? Delete, delete, delete; stonewall, ignore and deflect—that is the character of this Government in their operations. We will not stand by and let them do the same in our courts.
Sarah Sackman
I am afraid that the bombast we have just heard is not just inaccurate but dangerous, because it suggests that there is anything like a restriction on open justice. Let me be absolutely clear: there has been no deletion of any court lists. [Interruption.] Excuse me. There has been no deletion of any court lists, which is the nature of the data that has been provided.
Let us be absolutely clear: we had an arrangement with Courtsdesk, which we accept provides a useful service. [Interruption.] What Courtsdesk did, which the shadow Minister does not seem to think is a problem, is to pass that information on in breach of the agreement—no doubt for commercial purposes—to an AI company. That information included defendants’ addresses and dates of birth. I do not think anyone in this House would think that such things should be provided to anybody other than accredited journalists, yet they were provided to an AI company.
We then asked Courtsdesk to delete the information that it held. As of yesterday, I understand that it still has not done so. It accepts that it has acted in breach of its agreement. It threatened the Ministry of Justice with legal action, which it has not chosen to take forward. We are saying that when a company acts in breach of an agreement, putting vulnerable people and parties at risk, it is very serious. I take data protection seriously, but there has been no obstruction to journalists being able to access through the usual channels the lists that we are talking about. That access remains open today, and it remains open to journalists to contact HMCTS.
Indeed, we want to put this system on a securer footing with the necessary guardrails. [Interruption.] I will repeat, because the shadow Minister is muttering through my entire response, that no one has deleted any court records. Everything that he refers to in relation to serious sexual historic crimes remains accessible. Case law remains accessible, and the court lists remain accessible.
Open justice is vital, but I will not have a wild west of private companies acting in breach of agreements with Government and passing sensitive data on to third-party AI companies. That will not do, and the shadow Minister knows that if he were in my position, it would not have been acceptable to him either.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
It is a pity that the shadow Minister is reducing this issue to one of his conspiracy theories, because I know that the Minister is an advocate of open justice, and the Government are doing a lot on open justice by televising the family courts, publishing transcripts and other means.
Courtsdesk gave evidence to the Select Committee in its 2022 inquiry into open justice, and it is, I think, the only centralised source of information for journalists. It is an important tool, because court reporting and local journalism have suffered greatly over the past years. We do need a service of this kind, so when can the Minister tell us what will replace it? In the meantime, will she continue to talk to Courtsdesk, notwithstanding what she has said today, to ensure that the information can be provided for journalists in a legitimate and legal way?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend has asked a very good question. It is vital for people to know what goes on in our courts, and local reporting of what happens there matters to wider society and, indeed, to our democracy. We recognise that Courtsdesk provided a useful service for journalists in collating information and presenting it in an accessible way, and that is what we want to be able to maintain, while at the same time safeguarding people’s data and putting it on a proper licensing footing.
On the timeline, we aim to initiate that licensing arrangement and make it available to companies more widely so that, next month, there is even more accessibility. We are very close to that, but what I will not abide is a flagrant breach of the agreement that we had with Courtsdesk and the sharing of sensitive data in a way that is irresponsible. I want the data to be available to responsible journalists to use responsibly, and that is exactly what we are getting on with.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the Minister for setting out the data protection issues that have been identified with Courtsdesk, but can she explain why her Department ignored the 16 letters written by Courtsdesk asking for dialogue before deciding to do away with the system? As was pointed out by the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), it is the only centralised tool for justice reporting. Reporters have described the MOJ’s own data as fragmented, incomplete and impractical to navigate, and according to HM Courts & Tribunals Service, its own records on court listings were accurate just 4% of the time. It is those gaps that Courtsdesk was designed to fill by providing clear and accurate information for reporters.
Doing away with this platform will naturally add to the feeling that the MOJ is avoiding difficult questions and dodging accountability by undermining journalism. Will the Minister suspend the deletion of the archive until the Information Commissioner’s Office has looked into these issues and drawn its own conclusions? If she insists on going ahead with the deletion in the coming days, will she please give an indication of a timeline within which we can expect a platform that will serve the same purpose?
Sarah Sackman
I want to make it absolutely clear that accredited journalists continue—as they have throughout—to have access to court information that they need, directly from individual magistrates courts and tribunal services, via either the court and tribunal hearings service, which is a new digital system, or the gov.uk website. I do recognise the utility of what Courtsdesk provided, but the company was clearly not acting in a responsible way. When we approached its representatives about the breach of its agreement with HMCTS, they accepted that they had breached it and then threatened the MOJ with litigation, which is not an appropriate way to behave if one is trying to co-operate and get things on to a sound and steady footing.
Let me also be absolutely clear about the timeline. All magistrates and court lists, and the accompanying case summarisation data, will be available from the court and tribunal hearings service from the end of March 2026. I want to put this on a stable footing so that journalists have ready access, because I accept that the information must be made easily available to them, in a responsible but properly licensed fashion. As I have said, that work will be made public and the licences made available from March.
We have to do this in a responsible way. We have to balance the very real needs of open justice—which I readily accept, and to which the Government are committed—with data protection, particularly when it comes to the vulnerable victims who are at the heart of this.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
There is an obligation on anyone who is aware of a data breach to report it to the Information Commissioner’s Office no later than 72 hours after becoming aware of it. Can the Minister say when the MOJ was first aware of the issues relating to Courtsdesk, and when the MOJ reported those issues to the ICO?
Sarah Sackman
The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that the report to the ICO has not yet been made. I raised the matter with our data officer, and the conclusion—the advice that I was given—was that it did not meet the threshold for an ICO referral. I have asked for that to be looked at again, but what is clear, and Courtsdesk accepted this fact, is that it breached the agreement by passing this material to an AI company. That is not a responsible thing to do with people’s private addresses and other sensitive data relating to individuals through which those individuals can be identified and which are not subject to the same reporting restrictions which, of course, journalists abide by. Let me be absolutely clear with the House: the sort of service that Courtsdesk provides is one that we want to replicate, but we want it to be on a stable footing with the necessary data protection guardrails, and that is what we are putting in place. If Courtsdesk had engaged with the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS in a responsible fashion, we would not be in the position that we are in today.
The fact is that, all along, journalists have retained the ability to obtain information. That is the critical point. This is about court lists, not court records. In respect of court lists, for all courts, journalists throughout have been able to engage with the information in the same way as they were able to do pre-2020, pre-Courtsdesk. They can get that information, and they can continue to report what is happening in our courts.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is certainly a cause of great concern if an AI machine now has access to people’s private home addresses. What investigations have the Government carried out to establish how much personal information that should not have been released is now out there for anyone, no matter how ill-intentioned, to dial up at will?
Sarah Sackman
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that this is a matter of concern, although it is clearly not a concern that is shared by the Front Benchers in his party. Our understanding is that some 700 individual cases, at least, were shared with the AI company. We have sought to understand what more may have been shared and who else may have been put at risk, but the mere fact that the agreement was breached in that way is incredibly serious. That is why all this needs to be put on a much more licence-secure and regulatorily secure footing.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
My observation is that surely it is for the Information Commissioner’s Office to decide whether the data breach is serious or not, and if the ICO does not have the information it cannot make that judgment. My question is this: when the contract was procured, was there a clause in the specification that prevented the release of personal and sensitive data? If so, is the company in breach of its contract, in which case the aggression should perhaps come from the Government as opposed to their waiting for the company to threaten them with legal action?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Lady is right, in that the original agreement that was reached between Courtsdesk and the previous Government made it clear that there should not be further sharing of the data with additional parties. It is one thing to share the data with accredited journalists who are subject to their own codes and who are expected to adhere to reporting restrictions, but Courtsdesk breached that agreement by sharing the information with an AI company. That is simply irresponsible, and when it came to light, I took the decision—I did not take it lightly, but I certainly remain confident in that decision—to cease giving Courtsdesk access unless and until it, or any other party, showed that it could use that information responsibly. Open justice is very important, but such information should not be shared with an AI company in breach of the agreement that exists with Government.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I accept what the Minister is saying, but I do not understand why the dispute resolution has not worked and why there is still no opportunity for it to work. I should appreciate it if she could clarify that for the House. May I also ask what will be new and different about the next procurement? What needs to be set up? If there was a breach, will it not be simply a procurement to avoid that happening in future?
Sarah Sackman
The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am all for being pragmatic and having dispute resolution, but, as I have said, in the course of our trying to get to the bottom of what has happened, litigation has been threatened, so it is very difficult to do that. What I want to do is move forward, and potentially with Courtsdesk if it can show that it is a responsible actor, which at present it is not doing.
Two things need to happen. First, we have all the power and all the data in a single company, and I do not think that is healthy. I think that everyone in the House who believes in an open market would favour a tendering process that opens up the potential for different parties to gain licences, and in that way we can make the information accessible to different companies.
Secondly, the licence agreements need to be strengthened so that we do not see a repeat of what we have seen here—a sharing of data where it should not go—and we need to have guardrails in place. The nature of the agreement that was agreed under the previous Government was too informal, too baggy and too loose for my liking. In fact, it is partly what has allowed this situation to happen, which is why I want to put things on a better footing. We will not take ages; I have said that we will do this by March, and we are getting on with it. In the meantime, it is a wild west. We simply cannot have companies acting in breach of the agreement, sticking personal, sensitive information belonging to victims and defendants alike into an AI bot, and passing it on to an AI company that will do who knows what with it.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
The Minister will be aware that we have privately crowdfunded a rape gang inquiry, which is ongoing. During the course of the inquiry, we have uncovered vast evil that is happening across the country, as well as systemic state failures. When we release the report, we are intending to pursue private prosecutions against those who failed, so will—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s question ought to relate to the urgent question.
Rupert Lowe
Will the Minister give me a copper-bottomed guarantee that the transcripts of previous court cases will not be destroyed?
Sarah Sackman
Let me start by saying that this Government are committed to tackling grooming gangs, punishing offenders and protecting children. The grooming gangs scandal is one of the most heinous crimes of our time, but allow me to repeat this: it is fundamentally incorrect to say that court records are being deleted. Court records remain completely intact, and will only be deleted in line with the general data protection regulation and record retention policies. The data that we are talking about here is data that a private company, Courtsdesk, has been asked to delete because it has failed to demonstrate that it is using that data responsibly. The data includes only magistrates court lists and outcomes, not the transcripts of which the hon. Gentleman speaks—data that Courtsdesk is not entitled to hold. The sort of data that he is concerned about remains, and those who need to access it for investigative purposes or otherwise can do so through the usual channels. Let us not conflate that with the data in question here.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
For decades, victims, survivors, campaigners, whistleblowers and journalists have fought to force the British state to reveal the whole truth about the rape and grooming scandal. The data held by Courtsdesk could be invaluable in uncovering the truth. The Minister tells us that we can rely on the Government’s own data instead, but just 4.2% of magistrates court cases are listed accurately by the courts themselves, so for every 25 cases listed, 24 are wrong. How can the Minister ask victims, survivors and any of us who care about the truth to rely on that, especially in the context of the most disgusting cover-up in our nation’s history?
Sarah Sackman
I share the hon. Lady’s concern regarding the victims, whom we so often fail to centre in our discussions in this House. Let me be absolutely clear: as a Government, we have demonstrated time and again our commitment to open justice, whether that is through increasing the provision of free transcripts of sentencing remarks to all victims on request, introducing audio recording in magistrates courts, or ensuring that the judiciary allow more judgments and decisions to be published. To be absolutely clear, the data shared with Courtsdesk was listing data and, in some cases, the outcomes of those cases.
Sarah Sackman
Of course listing data is important, and of course it is important that it is accurate. By the way, it is also important that such data is not shared unlawfully with third parties that are not entitled to it. We continue to make that information available to journalists in the same way as before 2020. A journalist working in the field can access that information from HMCTS if they make a request, and it will be passed to them in the usual way. We are seeking to open that up further and to put it on a stable footing, which will remove the wild west that appears to have emerged.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Minister complains that it is currently the wild west out there, and hopes that we can somehow regulate it. Well, we do actually have a regulator for incidents such as these. Pursuant to the answer that she gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), she acknowledged that data breaches have to be reported to the ICO within 72 hours. We hear that she was advised that this breach did not hit the threshold, which I find absolutely staggering. Advisers advise, and Ministers decide. Why was the Minister’s judgment not to go away and immediately question the advice that she received from her Department?
Sarah Sackman
I regard the data breach of the agreement as serious, and I referred it to the data officer at the MOJ. That is the conclusion they have reached, and I have accepted their advice. As I said, I have asked them to conduct a further review in the light of further information that has come to light, just as we have asked Courtsdesk for further information. The information came to light because Courtsdesk admitted that it had been inputting and sharing this data with an AI company, in breach of the agreement. We have to get to the bottom of that, but it is so important that we tighten up the licensing agreements and make court lists available to more companies, so that journalists can continue to access the information in a way that is safe for defendants, safe for victims, and safe for anyone who participates in the court process.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her full answers. The fact that justice should be open and transparent is not negotiable. Anything other than that is not democracy but, by its very nature, despotic. The Minister has provided a justification. However, it is clear that although the system could undoubtedly be tightened up, completely scrapping it without a viable alternative does not provide confidence in the judiciary; it does the opposite. Will the Minister reassure the House and those outside about the decision that has been taken?
Sarah Sackman
I want to be really clear that the data held by Courtsdesk is not an archive of criminal court case files. A number of Members have mentioned the importance of criminal court case records, which are held in a variety of places, not least the National Archives. They continue to remain available. The court lists, which I accept are important, continue to be available to the public—a member of the public can look them up now. Enhanced listing, which has a bit more information, remains open to journalists. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that it is important to have transparency and open justice, and for reporters to have the ability to expose what goes on in our courts. That is why I want to make the data open to more people, but we will put it on a safer footing to ensure that data breaches like this do not occur again in the future.
Dr Mullan
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We obviously benefit from enormous privilege in this House, because we are able to say things without any worry about what might happen legally. The Minister said several times in her statement that Courtsdesk has admitted that it breached the data-sharing agreement. Courtsdesk has been absolutely clear with me that it has never admitted that it breached the agreement. I wonder if the Minister might want to take the chance at least to caveat what she said in the Chamber.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a point of order and not a matter for the Chair. I do not intend to continue the debate via points of order.
Local Power Plan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
With permission, I will make a statement about the local power plan and allocation round 7 solar and onshore wind auction results, both of which have been published today.
Britain’s drive for clean energy is about helping to answer the call for a different kind of economy that works for the many, not just the wealthy and powerful in our society. In the last few weeks, our warm homes plan has delivered the biggest public investment in upgrading homes in British history to cut bills for millions of people and to tackle fuel poverty. We have secured the largest offshore wind auction in European history, with a clean industry bonus to drive investment into our industrial communities, and we have agreed a fair work charter with business and trade unions as a first step to improving workers’ rights in renewables.
Today, I can report to the House the results of the AR7 auction for onshore wind and solar. In onshore wind, we secured 1.3 GW of power at a price of £72 per megawatt-hour. In solar, we secured nearly 5 GW at a price of £65 per megawatt-hour. I can inform the House that, together, this onshore wind and solar will provide enough power for the equivalent of more than 3 million homes, further reducing our dependence on international fossil fuel markets. It represents the largest solar and onshore wind auction in UK history.
I have had representations that we should have cancelled the auction and built new gas instead. I can tell the House that the price of this onshore wind and solar is less than half the price of building and operating new gas stations. Indeed, onshore wind and solar are by far the cheapest power sources available to build and operate, so I have rejected those representations. Instead, we have record-breaking results that will cut bills for families across Britain.
As we get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets controlled by petrostates and dictators, we do not want this clean energy simply to be owned by big companies and multinationals. We want every community in this country to have the chance to own our energy future. We know that community ownership is a transformative tool to build the wealth and pride of local areas and give people a stake in the places in which they live. We already see this in pioneering community energy projects across Britain, and I pay tribute to them, including Lawrence Weston in Bristol, where England’s tallest onshore wind turbine, which I have visited, is 100% community-owned and generates tens of thousands of pounds a year to reinvest in the local community; the Geraint Thomas velodrome in Newport, which hosts nearly 2,000 solar panels and is one of the largest rooftop solar projects in Wales, cutting bills in Wales dramatically; and the Huntly Development Trust in Aberdeenshire, where community wind projects generate income that helps fund local charities.
We know that community energy not only spreads wealth and power, but contributes to the resilience of our energy system by generating and storing power closer to where people live, yet despite the individual success stories, Britain has never decisively seized the opportunities of community energy. Around half of wind capacity in Denmark is owned by its citizens, as is almost half of solar in Germany, yet in Britain currently less than 1% of our renewables are community owned. With our local power plan, we will change that.
Today, we announce the biggest public investment in community-owned energy in British history. During the previous Parliament, less than £60 million was spent on Government community energy schemes. Today, we set aside up to £1 billion of funding from Great British Energy to invest. This will offer grants to local authorities and community groups to support projects in their early stages, loans and project finance to support construction and operation, and funding to help communities buy a stake in larger renewable projects in their areas.
This funding will also be targeted at underserved areas of the country where it can make the biggest difference. Great British Energy estimates that this funding will support an initial 1,000 community and local energy projects, but this is just the start. Today, we send out the message to community groups, sports clubs, miners’ welfare institutes and village halls across the country that, in every community of Britain, we want to give people the chance to own their own energy, to transfer money from the pockets of energy companies to their community, and to generate income for the benefit of local people for decades to come. This is a Labour Government enabling every community of our country to own and build wealth for local people.
However, we know that making that happen is not just about providing capital funding, because communities need help to plan and develop their projects. So alongside this funding, Great British Energy will establish a one-stop shop to provide support and advice about local and community energy, with a team of expert advisers to help communities get their projects off the ground. This is Britain’s publicly owned energy company working hand in hand with our brilliant mayors, local authorities and community groups to turn the ambitions of local communities into reality.
Alongside the funding and support, we also know we must confront the reality that for years the rules of our energy system have held back the growth of community energy. Local and community schemes face hurdles that may be straightforward for large developers to overcome, but are too high for voluntary groups with limited time and resources. We are determined to break down these barriers, so we will also work with Ofgem to reform market codes and supply licences to help communities sell the power they generate, and we will ensure community energy projects benefit from our reforms to planning and the grid.
We also want to make it much easier for communities to take a stake in larger projects through shared ownership, building on examples such as the Isle of Skye co-operative in the Hebrides, which owns a share of a local onshore wind farm and has generated over £1.5 million for the local community. We think there is huge potential for many more projects like that, so we will consult on how we could use existing powers in the Infrastructure Act 2015 to mandate an offer of shared ownership. Those powers were passed more than a decade ago, but were never implemented. It would mean that, when companies built big projects, local people and communities would be offered a stake in them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) has said, we need to move from a situation where communities can only aspire to be passive beneficiaries of projects owned by large companies to their being owners themselves with benefits in perpetuity. We are moving from community benefit to community share and community stake.
Taken together, this is the most comprehensive package of support to grow local and community energy that our country has ever seen. It builds on the Pride in Place programme, the community right to buy and our world-leading commitment to double the size of the co-operative sector. We know that the local power plan will be delivered not from Whitehall, but place by place and community by community. Today, I issue an invitation to local and community groups: if they come forward with proposals, we will support those groups to help make them happen. This statement is about a stake for the British people in our energy system, generating returns for local communities and local people, with power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many not the few, and I commend it to the House.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell whether the Secretary of State is at the Dispatch Box as the Energy Secretary or rehearsing for a future move to perhaps No. 11. Once again, he is more distracted by personal ambition than concerned about the bleak reality families are facing across the country with crippling energy bills. Today’s announcement is being sold as a bold shift of power to local communities, but cutting through the fluff, this plan does not make electricity cheaper and it does not offer value for the taxpayer.
This plan does nothing to reduce wholesale prices, nothing to fix the grid connection backlog and nothing to tackle the structural costs. Instead, the Government are asking taxpayers to fund small-scale projects which, optimistically, will provide minor reductions in costs for a few local buildings while leaving families and businesses across this country still paying higher prices. There are no guarantees that the £1 billion committed through the Great British Energy scheme will deliver lower bills, no clear test of value for money and no convincing explanation of why subsidising small, piecemeal projects offers a better return for taxpayers than backing affordable, large-scale nuclear generation that would genuinely move the dial. Spread thinly across the country over several years and funnelled through yet another Whitehall-controlled body, this is not a serious intervention, but a press release masquerading as an energy strategy.
Alongside the local power plan, the results of allocation round 7 this morning raise serious questions that the Secretary of State has yet to answer. In the Government’s own press release, they rely on “internal analysis” to claim that additional solar and onshore wind procured through AR7 could lower bills in the early 2030s, but that analysis has not been published. It looks only at a narrow scenario, excludes wider system costs and does not give a full picture of future bill levels. If Ministers are so confident of their figures, why will they not release the full impact assessment? What exactly is the Secretary of State hiding?
AR7 also underlines the direction of travel under this Government: longer contracts, higher strike prices and greater risk locked in for bill payers. The extension of contracts for difference from 15 years to 20 years means that households will be tied into paying these costs for even longer, regardless of whether circumstances change. At the same time, the Government have relaxed planning requirements so some offshore wind projects can bid before planning consent has even been secured.
All of this points to the root problem, which is that electricity prices are already too high, and the policies pursued by this Government are only pushing them higher. Doubling down on carbon taxes and loading more expensive wind and solar on to a system that is not ready risks driving up costs for both households and industry, making British business less competitive and leaving families to pick up the bill. Families are being asked to pay more, not less. Labour promised to cut energy bills by £300; instead, bills have risen by £190 since Labour came to power. That is the reality behind its rhetoric, and that is the reality every family up and down the land understands as they open their energy bills.
At the centre of all this sits Great British Energy, an £8 billion taxpayer-funded quango that was meant to lower bills for everyone. So far, all we have is the promise of a highly paid chief executive, a new board and more bureaucracy. Why do we need another expensive state body to do what the market and existing institutions should already be delivering? That is the fundamental difference in approach. Our cheap power plan focuses on bringing down the underlying cost of electricity, saving the public sector and everyone else vastly more in the process, and doing so without costing taxpayers a penny. This Government are more focused on their own internal politics than on delivering the one thing people need: energy that is reliable, abundant and, above all, affordable for all our constituents.
Ed Miliband
Well, there were no questions, but I will reply none the less. Let me start with the AR7 auction, because this is very interesting and it will give the House a picture of what has actually changed. What has changed is the Conservative party, not the reality. We had the AR5 auction a couple of years ago, when the Conservatives were in power. In that auction, the price of solar was higher than it was in this auction. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) stated:
“our reliance on gas for electricity production today risks making power prices higher than they would be in a system with a greater share of generation from wind and solar…Moving to home-based, clean power mitigates risks to billpayers—now and in the future.”
What has changed? What has changed is that the Conservative party has gone full MAGA. Let us just be honest about this. It has decided to chase Reform into a ludicrous position, doubling down on fossil fuels and rejecting even solar and onshore wind, the cheapest, cleanest form of power you can possibly have. I guess the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) was just reading out the script.
On community energy, I have to congratulate the hon. Gentleman, because he has given a brilliant example of why the previous Government were so hopeless on community energy. He obviously thinks it is a terrible idea. He is very welcome to do so, but he is sending a message to every Member of Parliament and all their constituents that the Conservative party is against community energy projects and against the things that will cut bills for local community groups. To every sports club, community centre and library that will benefit from this funding, there is a very clear answer: the Conservative party says, “No, you don’t deserve it. We don’t want you to have those lower bills. We don’t want you to have that cheap clean power. We don’t want you to have the income and resources to reinvest in our local community.” If the Conservatives want that as a dividing line, bring it on, I say. This Government are on the side of local communities, on the side of cutting bills and on the side of reinvesting money into communities. The Conservative party, in its new incarnation, is against it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Select Committees look at the evidence. The evidence we have heard is that community energy is a great way of bringing down bills and giving people the confidence to take part in the energy transition. The Secretary of State talked about solar in his statement. We heard that golf courses use 10 times as much land as solar farms. Even if the Committee on Climate Change recommendations are adopted, twice as much land will still be used for golf courses. The Country Land and Business Association told us that concerns about land use are a myth: that the planning system protects the best and most versatile land for crop production, and that the roll-out of solar should be encouraged as a way of diversifying for farmers, delivering cheap electricity for both neighbouring businesses and domestic use. Will the Secretary of State say how he intends to ensure as many people as possible in rural areas understand the benefits of community energy and solar more widely? Will he ensure that those myths are finally busted?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend did a very good job of busting those myths in his question and he is absolutely right. The truth is that you cannot, at one and the same time, complain about bills being too high and then reject the cheapest cleanest form of power, but I am afraid that that is the position of the Conservative party. There is no hiding the fact. Nobody can disagree—you can disagree about other things—that solar is the cheapest form of power, but the Conservatives are against it.
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about community energy. Let us be honest, we are in the foothills of what we need to achieve as a country. Germany and Denmark are miles ahead of us. This is about a different conception of energy and who owns it: not just big multinational companies, not just the big companies that the Conservatives seem to want to just leave it all to. We want local people to be able to have a stake in the system. That is what this plan is about.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government recognising what communities across the country have been saying for years: community energy is one of the most powerful ways to cut bills, rebuild trust in the energy system, rebuild local resilience and take people with us on the journey to net zero. We campaigned hard to see community energy written into the Great British Energy Act 2025, alongside many people—although not everybody here today it seems—in this House and the other place, and alongside community groups such as the South Cambridgeshire Climate and Nature Group and other community organisations across the country.
We believe in localism, empowerment and giving communities a real stake and ownership in our clean energy future. I thank the Minister for working with us to make sure that we did get that into the 2025 Act. As we rightly move away from volatile fossil fuel costs controlled by foreign powers, we must ensure that our new clean energy system puts communities first. It must mean giving people the power to generate, own, and, crucially, sell their own clean energy locally, with profits reinvested in the places where the energy is produced.
We welcome the local power plan in principle, but the devil is in the detail. First, what happened to the Government’s pledge of £3.3 billion for community-owned energy, when today we are hearing about £1 billion of investment? We do not want to follow the Conservative Government’s retreat from ambition on local clean power. It is not the time to scale back ambition.
Secondly, on the crucial issue of local empowerment, regulation is needed. Organisations such as Power for People constantly told us that there are, as the Secretary of State said, barriers to access fair local markets. They welcome this plan, too, echoing the Minister’s promise that the Government will establish local energy supply models. The local power plan—I have looked through it very quickly—talks about the regulatory changes necessary, but when will they come through? The energy transition has to happen not to communities, but with them—
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Lady—I say this genuinely—for her advocacy on this issue ever since we came into government and before. She is a powerful advocate for community energy. I congratulate the group in South Cambridgeshire, too. Let me deal with the points she raised.
On investment, I think that in anyone’s view the scale of the investment we are making is very significant. As I said, it is £1 billion, compared with £60 million in the previous Parliament under the previous Government. This is a massive scaling up and a realist assessment of what can be spent over this Parliament, but obviously this is just the start of our ambitions.
The hon. Lady made a point, I think, on working with local community groups, which is very important. She will know that one of the challenges local groups face is in getting to the stage of having a project that is ready to go. Part of this issue is about working with those groups to make sure that can happen.
On Ofgem and some of the regulatory changes, absolutely we are going to work as quickly as we can to unblock some of the barriers and ensure that can happen as swiftly as possible.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Northampton is one of the towns across the UK that will benefit from the local power plan. Does the Secretary of State agree that my schools, colleges and universities, the four hospitals in my constituency, and my sports clubs, including the Cobblers—one of the greenest football clubs in the country—will benefit from the plan, and that the wealth generated by local power will be kept in our community?
Ed Miliband
I congratulate the Cobblers and all the organisations in my hon. Friend’s constituency. He is absolutely right. We think there are huge benefits across the country. GB Energy is, I think, now opening its website so that different groups can register an interest and work with it.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
National Grid is one of the large, national, private companies run by the wealthy and powerful in society that the Secretary of State derided in his statement. It is seeking to build, on the edge of an area of scientific interest and a nature reserve, a 90-foot high converter station covering the size of five football pitches. Local people, whom the Secretary of State claims to champion, do not want this. Will the Secretary of State champion the local people and consign this project to the dustbin of history where it belongs?
Ed Miliband
The right hon. Gentleman will know that there is a planning process for all projects. I would gently point out to him—not specifically on his project, because I want to make a more general point—that if we are going to get the benefits of cheap, clean power, we need to build the transmission infrastructure. The biggest threat to the countryside is the climate crisis; it is the single biggest threat to biodiversity and nature. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the specific issue he talked about, as do his constituents, but I do believe it is right to build the transmission infrastructure we need in order to lower bills for people and tackle the climate crisis.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement of the £1 billion in funding for community energy projects under Labour’s local power plan. Will he outline the benefits of community energy for constituencies like mine and set out how local communities can get involved and ensure that any profits are reinvested locally?
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Briefly, there are three important aspects to this: first, communities can have lower bills for their community centres and local institutions; secondly, they can generate a stream of income by selling power back to the grid; thirdly, there is something wider, and perhaps more intangible, which is the matter of giving local communities a sense of stake in the system. I think this is really important, because one of the ways that we gain consent from people is through the sense that it is not simply the big multinationals that will own our energy system, but local people themselves.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I welcome the publication of the local power plan and I honestly recognise the Government’s commitment to community energy. However, I think there is still a piece missing—namely that properties in the vicinity of a community energy generator can ultimately benefit by being directly supplied, rather than being supplied through a third party. Will the Secretary of State look again at how community energy is defined and include households benefiting from the energy generated within that community? We have been struggling with the definition of community energy on the Select Committee. I think it is important that households can benefit from the energy generated within the community.
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Lady for her advocacy on this issue. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, who is the world expert on these questions—or at least the UK expert; I will not push it too far—assures me that her important question about the statutory definition, which is, I think, on code P441, is being answered in the plan.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement. Community energy is incredibly powerful in rural Britain, particularly in the village of Humshaugh, where Humshaugh Net Zero set up the community-owned solar farm. I restate my invitation to the Secretary of State to join me on a visit to Humshaugh community solar farm, and thank him once again for the statement.
Ed Miliband
I will take up my hon. Friend on his kind offer. I think we will see a powerful example there of community energy in practice, and what is so exciting about today’s announcement is that we can now reproduce that right across the country.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Mandelson scandal illustrates the reputational risk and damage that can be done by ignoring aspects of criminal exploitation? Does he know whether there is a difference in the cost of solar panels that are imported from China compared with other possible sources? What sort of safeguards do the Government have to ensure that we are not encouraging people to put on their roofs the products of criminal activity and forced labour exploitation?
Ed Miliband
The right hon. Gentleman and I have had exchanges on this matter before. It is a serious issue, and he is absolutely within his rights to raise it. I would just say two things to him: first, following the Great British Energy Act 2025, GB Energy has pledged to be a leader in this area and has appointed an adviser to work on these issues; secondly, he will know that the industry committed to the solar stewardship initiative as part of the solar road map, which is precisely about having independent monitoring of where solar panels come from. I take this issue seriously and I take his advocacy on it seriously, too. It is a work in progress, but it is really important that we get it right.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), would do well to remember the measly £60 million that the previous Government spent on community projects, and the fact that they were opposed to GB Energy, whereas today’s plan clearly sets out the £1 billion for community projects coming through GB Energy. Community energy can deliver cheaper power, local jobs and, importantly, public support for clean energy and net zero. Will the Secretary of State set out how Great British Energy will remove barriers to community ownership, so that communities can directly share in the benefits of net zero?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks with great eloquence on these issues. I am very interested in the power, introduced under the Infrastructure Act 2015, to give local community groups the right to buy a share of large-scale projects. That power has never been triggered—I think it may have been the fruit of the coalition negotiations—but we are very interested in making that power a reality. That is just one of the ways that we can break down the barriers that my hon. Friend talks about.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that small businesses across the UK are really struggling with energy costs, particularly in communities in rural areas like North Yorkshire. What can small businesses get from this plan to lower their costs as quickly as possible? What role will the plan play in that?
Ed Miliband
This plan is mainly about community groups and non-profit organisations, but the right hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue. It is something that we are talking to the National Wealth Fund and others about, because it emphasises the fact that there is low-hanging fruit here. If we can make it possible for small businesses and others to make these investments, there are ways that they can lower their bills. We might as well use the free resources that are available, such as the free resource of the sun. Obviously, the cost of solar panels has come down a long way. That is something for me to take away and work on.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I am really excited by this announcement, because I am the chair of trustees of the Samuel Montagu youth club in my constituency, which has a roof that would benefit enormously from solar panels, which could generate income and make us more sustainable at a time when local government funding is drying up. We also have 13 acres of land, and I have always thought that we had the potential for ground source heating; if we could get some money to invest in that, we could provide energy to buildings around us as well. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when we delve into this issue, the scope is boundless? There are many projects that we could look into.
Ed Miliband
The two ideas that my hon. Friend puts forward sound absolutely ideal for this fund to me, but as for the eventual outcome, I must not put my thumb on the scale too much. He is right about this. We are starting something that will grow bigger and bigger over time. This is partly about raising our eyes and thinking, “Well, if it works in Germany and Denmark, why shouldn’t it work here? Why shouldn’t local people get the benefits of this?”. It represents a big, transformative shift in our thinking about what is possible.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The SNP has been very committed to community energy projects for a long time; indeed, we have invested more than the previous Government in community energy projects—over £67 million in nearly 1,000 projects. This announcement on community and renewable energy, while belated, is welcome. When the Secretary of State talks about community energy, does he include in that community heat projects that can be combined with community energy projects? A turbine with a community heat network, for example, can drive a huge amount of benefit to the local community.
Ed Miliband
Yes is the answer to that question. Community energy includes all kinds of innovative projects. As we open these funds for bidding—both from local authorities and community groups—we will find local people coming forward with innovative, imaginative ideas for how to drive this scheme forward. I suspect that we will be overwhelmed with the imaginative innovation that we see, and that is what is so exciting about this.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is quite clear that communities that host energy projects should in some way benefit from them. I welcome that principle being incorporated into this plan. I particularly welcome the Government’s support for rooftop solar for Swaffham community hospital in South West Norfolk, not just from an environmental point of view, but as a way of reducing the energy cost of public services; that saving can be reinvested in the frontline. Will my right hon. Friend commit to tracking the financial benefit of these proposals, so that we know the true benefit for communities up and down the country?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes an important point. As a super nerd, I am very interested in that kind of impact analysis. Sometimes Governments do things but do not track their impact, so they cannot prove the difference that a scheme has made. His point is very important, as is the one about Swaffham hospital. The work that GB Energy is already doing on schools and hospitals is making a difference to public services up and down the country.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Secretary of State talked about British people having a stake in our energy system, and generating returns for local communities and people. He then went on to say that he was on the side of local communities. I appreciate that he was talking about auction round 7, not nationally significant infrastructure projects, but in my constituency, we have the East Park Energy solar farm proposal. At 1,900 acres, it would have a huge impact on local communities. Residents of Great Staughton and Hail Weston in my constituency are massively opposed to the development. What would he say to my constituents, who feel that he is not on the side of local communities, given that the decision on this project falls squarely to the Secretary of State?
Ed Miliband
I will not go into the details of a planning decision, but areas that host energy infrastructure should see community benefits. What I say to his constituents and others is that there should always be community benefits, but if we want to bring down bills, and if we want energy security, we must build the energy infrastructure that we need. Solar is a really important part of that, because it is the cheapest, cleanest form of power. I am sure that some of his constituents will not like the proposal, but sometimes we have to stand up and say, “We think this is the right thing to do for cheap, clean power.”
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for announcing a big investment in local energy. He mentioned the fantastic example of the Geraint Thomas national velodrome in Newport, in my neighbouring constituency, with its 2,000 solar panels. This shows the value of community energy projects, which will cut bills, tackle climate change and literally give power to those local people on bikes going around the velodrome. I am delighted that the Welsh and UK Governments have an exciting vision for community energy, and that the Welsh Government created Ynni Cymru in 2023. What can the Secretary of State tell me about the investment in further local energy plans in Wales, and in my constituency of Monmouthshire?
Ed Miliband
I congratulate the Welsh Government on their important initiatives in this area; they are great leaders in it. I was whispering to the Minister for Energy about whether he and I should be cycling in the Geraint Thomas national velodrome, but he thought that was probably a bad idea. From the look on her face, I see that Madam Deputy Speaker seems to agree. I really hope that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) benefit from this initiative. They will be able to see, from the velodrome, the benefit that there could be for them. We look forward to working with the Welsh Government on super-charging the benefits of this plan.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Too often, my constituents, like many in the north of England, have seen such Government schemes ploughing money disproportionately into the south of England. In fact, Government figures show that total investment per job is about £13,000 in London, compared with £9,000 in the north-west. How will the Secretary of State ensure that such regional inequalities are not reinforced by decisions on where projects are funded?
Ed Miliband
As a South Yorkshire MP, I completely agree with the hon. Member on these matters. He makes a really important point, and he has put it on the record. I am sure that GB Energy will be very conscious of the need to ensure a fair balance across the country, when it comes to the allocation of these resources.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for explaining very clearly why the local power plan represents the biggest investment in community energy ever. It will help create jobs, develop skills and generate growth. Those are clearly the ambitions behind the redevelopment of New Stanton Park in my constituency. It is creating thousands of jobs and apprenticeships, and is returning industry to Ilkeston. Will the Secretary of State outline how the local power plan, alongside Mayor Claire Ward’s mayoral renewables fund, will support developments such as the New Stanton Park by lowering energy costs, attracting investment and expanding gold-standard apprenticeships?
Ed Miliband
Another really exciting part of this plan is working with local mayors, such as the excellent Claire Ward. There is a real chance here for mayoral vision to combine with the national Government’s vision, and local people’s vision of how they can transform communities and generate resources. I am very happy to endorse the sentiments of my hon. Friend, and I really look forward to working with him and Claire on this plan.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Community energy has an important role to play in Wales. It powers around 17,500 homes, many of which are in my constituency of Caerfyrddin, with Ynni Sir Gâr leading the way. I welcome the local power plan and its funding envelope of £1 billion, and hope that we can rapidly expand on that number. Will the Secretary of State tell me more about how this funding will be fairly distributed across the UK? Will he introduce a ringfence to ensure that Wales and the other devolved nations, Scotland and Northern Ireland, receive, at minimum, their population share?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady asks an important question. We will work with the Welsh publicly owned energy company to make sure that Wales benefits from this plan. I made that point about a fair balance of funding across the country to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), and I think it is very important. I think we will find that this programme will be highly oversubscribed—that is my prediction—because there is such an appetite for this plan and its potential. I hear that in the House. One thing that we will definitely be doing is working with the Welsh Government.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the local power plan, which builds on much clean energy investment in Norfolk, including backing for the Vanguard wind project and £17 million for warm homes in Norwich. I urge the Government to keep backing the east of England as a hub for clean energy. Will the Secretary of State outline in a bit more detail how constituents will be made aware of this project, particularly those who will not hear this statement, or hear about it on the radio, so that the communities that would benefit the most are able to maximise the benefits of this funding?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Local Members of Parliament have a massive role to play in, for example, approaching their local community groups and others who have the potential to benefit from the plan. I encourage all Members to do that. One of the most important things about Members of Parliament from all parts of the House is that so many of them have a sense of the groups and areas in their constituency that can benefit from the plan. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and I will provide resources for MPs across the House, so that they not only know about the plan, but can draw it to the attention of people and community groups in their constituency, so that they can benefit from it.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have long campaigned for community energy, but it is not enough to have a plan to deliver local power projects in the future, when there are projects around the country ready to go now, but sadly not supported by the national grid. In Wokingham, the Barkham solar farm is ready to go, but the National Grid is not yet ready to hook it up to the grid. It has delayed doing that for far too long, and it recently came up with a reason for another long delay. What is the Minister doing to fix this failure and get the Barkham solar farm hooked up to the grid for the benefit of our local community?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We have carried out a big overhaul of the grid connections queue, which, as he knows, was sort of like the wild west. There was a chaotic “first come, first served” queuing system. The National Energy System Operator has done a big reordering of the queue, but we still have to put pressure on the transmission operators, to make sure that they deliver. I encourage him to write to my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy about the project, and we will take that up with the National Grid.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
I have spoken to groups across my constituency such as Transition Crich and Derbyshire Dales Community Energy, which are working to create new community-owned energy projects in order to cut bills and drive down emissions. The £1 billion announced today will significantly help with their aims. However, these groups will grow faster if they are able to sell their energy directly to households in their communities. Could the Secretary of State therefore update us on what plans he has to implement local supply rights for community energy schemes?
Ed Miliband
We are right into the nerdery here—and it is really important nerdery. My hon. Friend makes an essential point about the ability to sell this power back into the grid. I assure him that we are working on this with Ofgem to improve the offer to local community groups, because it is an essential part of ensuring that economic value goes to groups, including those in his constituency.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Rochdale is the birthplace of the co-operative movement, so we know what happens when local people come together to take back control when there has been a clear market failure. That is one of the many reasons I am proud to be the Labour and Co-operative party MP for Rochdale.
The Secretary of State rightly talked about the shift from community benefit, which is crumbs from the table for the big energy companies, to community ownership, and how this shift can sustainably lower bills for community groups and community buildings. Does he agree that the local power plan is all about power to the people—not just in the sense of clean energy, but communities having the power to determine their own bills and future?
Ed Miliband
Power to the people, indeed—it is a great slogan. I really do share my hon. Friend’s sentiments, both about the co-operative movement and Rochdale’s pioneering place in the movement, which is so important in our country, and about the shift in thinking about ownership that this plan represents. We want to move from the idea that this always has to be done by the big multinational companies, which are privately owned, to a different way of thinking. Yes, those bigger companies will continue to play a role, but why shouldn’t local people be able to come together and own their own energy? That whole principle was founded in Rochdale, and this plan will help the doubling of the co-operative movement that this Government are committed to.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, the publication of the local power plan and the £1 billion investment that will support community groups to provide green, sustainable energy and help their financial sustainability. We have considerable expertise in Derbyshire when it comes to using water to create power. In fact, the mills that were built on the Derwent valley over 200 years ago were among the first to harness that opportunity, and now we have a number of hydro projects on that stretch of water. Can I encourage the Secretary of State to come to Derbyshire to see some of those projects and look at where we could add more? If he wants help from local people who have expertise in this space, I am more than happy to put him in touch with them.
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for his invitation, and I look forward to doing that. He makes the important point that we can look back at our history, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) also pointed out, and draw inspiration from some of the pioneers who had a vision that is not the same as today’s but that has similar principles. I congratulate his constituents who are working on these issues and look forward to meeting them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Secretary of State for making his statement—and for not doing so in Lycra.
Point of Order
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Health and Social Care questions on 22 July 2025—over six months ago—the Minister for Secondary Care agreed to meet me to discuss accelerating patient discharges from hospital. I wrote to her on 28 July to arrange that meeting and received no reply. I followed it up with a written parliamentary question on 9 September. I remain still with no reply. Could you please advise me on what further avenues are open to me to secure a reply, given the Minister’s commitment made in the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. It is of course crucial that Members receive timely responses to correspondence with Ministers. As he will know, it is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted his concerns. If there have been delays to responses to written questions, he can raise that with the Table Office.
Bill presented
Images (Non-consensual Recording and Distribution) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Wera Hobhouse presented a Bill to create offences relating to the non-consensual recording of images of a person and the online distribution of such images for profit with the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or of causing humiliation or distress to that person; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 381).
Eating Disorders (Training)
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a requirement for persons providing certain public services to undertake training relating to eating disorders and disordered eating; to make provision about the delivery and content of such training; and for connected purposes.
As many colleagues will know, this Bill is deeply personal to me. I have spoken before about how my youngest child’s experience with an eating disorder exposed me to the scale of failings across child and adolescent mental health services, wider mental health services and our in-patient system.
The Bill will not fix every one of those problems, but I do want to place on record my sincere thanks to the Department of Health and Social Care, particularly the Minister for Care and the Minister for Health Innovation and Safety, for their genuine commitment to understanding this crisis and their determination to confront it head-on.
Turning to the Bill itself, I have chosen to focus on training for frontline public service workers, ensuring that they are equipped to recognise and safeguard those experiencing one of the most misunderstood mental health conditions. The evidence is clear: early intervention—spotting the signs quickly and accessing appropriate care—dramatically improves outcomes. It can reduce the need for in-patient or day patient treatment by around 35%, meaning fewer hospital admissions and far less disruption to everyday life.
Yet eating disorders remain profoundly misunderstood. Unlike many other illnesses, the person affected may actively resist help. These conditions often drive secrecy, denial and a determination to mask the harm being done both to the individual and to the people who love them most. As with domestic abuse, it is so often our frontline public service workers who, in those brief moments when a sufferer allows their guard to drop, are best placed to reassure them that recovery is both possible and within reach.
Eating disorders do not only cause physical and mental deterioration; we must not forget that eating disorders carry the highest mortality rate of any mental illness. The most recent confirmed data from the Office for National Statistics recorded 36 deaths for 2019, yet research from the US suggests that the true figure for the UK could be far higher, potentially closer to 1,860 deaths once under-reporting and misclassification are accounted for.
Hospital admissions tell a similar story. Admissions exceeded 30,000 for the first time in 2023-24, which is a 60% rise compared with pre-pandemic levels. I fear that without legislative action we will continue to reach these devastating milestones: more children losing their childhoods, more parents fighting desperately just to have their child heard, and more entirely preventable deaths.
The framework for the training proposed in the Bill already exists. As I have said, it mirrors the approach taken for domestic abuse inquiries, giving frontline professionals the skills to ask sensitive, safe and appropriate questions. I firmly believe that the vast majority of dedicated frontline staff want to help. This Bill simply gives them the tools and confidence to do so.
In 2023, the Royal College of Psychiatrists developed the guidance document “Medical Emergencies in Eating Disorders” to improve the safe management of crises and prevent avoidable complications and deaths. Yet we still do not see consistent implementation across the UK. Far too many people with eating disorders arrive at A&E only to be turned away with no follow-up support. That cannot be right.
Eating disorders rarely appear in isolation. The eating disorders all-party parliamentary group has heard harrowing accounts of people undergoing cancer treatment whose chemotherapy was not adjusted due to a lack of understanding about their eating disorder, leaving those already facing the fear and loneliness of chemotherapy even more vulnerable.
One profession where this training could have a profound impact is teaching. Body dissatisfaction—one of the strongest risk factors—is now being observed in girls as young as six. That is a truly shocking fact, and many teachers feel utterly helpless when they see their students beginning to slip into harmful patterns of thinking or behaviour.
NHS figures show that around 6,000 children under 10 were hospitalised for eating disorders over a five-year period, including more than 1,000 children under five. I do not believe for a minute that the hospitalisation of over 6,000 children suffering from an eating disorder was inevitable. I can only imagine the helplessness felt by parents, carers, teachers and clinicians as they watched those children struggle.
The training in this Bill is designed to change that. It would give teachers and other frontline staff practical, evidence-based tools to recognise early warning signs: noticeable changes in eating behaviours, obsessive thinking about food or exercise, rapid weight fluctuations, withdrawal from friends, or sudden anxiety linked to body image. It would guide staff on how to ask sensitive questions safely, how to communicate without reinforcing harmful thinking and how to signpost families quickly towards appropriate clinical support. Crucially, it would also help staff understand what not to do, avoiding language that might inadvertently validate disordered thoughts, resisting the instinct to offer reassurance that could make things worse and recognising when urgent escalation is required.
As I have set out, eating disorders are complex, often misunderstood conditions that present differently in every individual. Anorexia, binge eating disorder and other illnesses do not look the same from one person to the next, but we know that, in a moment of need, having someone who can recognise the signs and intervene can be the first step towards a meaningful recovery, giving someone the chance to reclaim their life.
As I said at the start of this speech, this Bill is not a silver bullet for the crisis in eating disorder services. I have been candid with Ministers about the breadth of change required across the system, and I suspect that the Department will be delighted to hear that I intend to continue campaigning, but the Bill recognises the deceptive nature of these illnesses and acknowledges the simple truth that families cannot and should not be expected to navigate such complex and deeply confusing conditions on their own, and that frontline staff must have the tools to help where they can.
For those such as Zara Taylor, who tragically passed away due to her eating disorder, we will never know whether the measures in this Bill might have made a difference, but we owe it to her and the many others who are no longer with us to do everything within our power in this place to ensure that those who are struggling can seek and access help wherever they are in their journey.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Richard Quigley, Wera Hobhouse, John Whitby, Llinos Medi, Baggy Shanker, Lee Barron, Siân Berry, Anneliese Dodds, John McDonnell and Josh Newbury present the Bill.
Mr Richard Quigley accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 380).
Business of the House (Today)
Pensions and Social Security
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I beg to move,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.
Sir Stephen Timms
In my view, the provisions in the instruments are compatible with the European convention on human rights. The draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order will increase relevant state pension rates by 4.8%, in line with the growth in average earnings in the year to May to July 2025. It will increase most other benefit rates by 3.8%, in line with the rise in the consumer prices index in the year to September 2025, so the regular formula has been used.
The order commits the Government to increased expenditure of £9 billion in 2026-27, of which £6 billion will be from state pensions and pensioner benefits, £2 billion from disability and carers benefits, and £1 billion from other working-age benefits. A further £2 billion of expenditure on working-age benefits will be incurred in 2026 as a result of uprating decisions made under separate legal powers in the Universal Credit Act 2025, which will set new rates for universal credit and income-related employment and support allowance.
Let me say a little more about each of the benefits being uprated in turn. First, on pensions, the Government’s commitment to the triple lock means that the basic and full rate of the new state pension will be uprated by the highest of the growth in earnings or prices or 2.5%. That means that the uprating will be by 4.8% for 2026-27. As a result, from April the basic state pension will increase from £176.45 per week to £184.90, and the full rate of the new state pension will increase from £230.25 at the moment to £241.30 per week.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I suppose I ought to declare an interest, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.]
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that we welcome the adherence to the triple lock that my party introduced. He will also know that there are tens of thousands of expatriate United Kingdom citizens whose pensions have been, and remain, frozen at the point at which they left the United Kingdom, in spite of the fact that they have paid their full taxes and national insurance contributions throughout their working lives in the UK. The last Government, to our shame, failed to address this issue. Do this Government have any plans to do so?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this point. It might be of some comfort to him to know that it was not only the last Government who failed to do anything about this, and that previous Governments also failed. Indeed, in my previous tenures of the office of Pensions Minister, this issue was raised with me. However, it was the case that when those people left the UK, the rules were then as they are today. They were quite clear when people left. Of course, it depends on which country they went to, but in the countries where uprating has not been applied, it has always been the case that uprating has not been applied there, so it should not have come as a surprise to those who left that their pensions were not uprated. We are not looking at any proposals to change the situation at the moment, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this matter consistently over a long period and I pay tribute to him for that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We very much welcome the triple lock and the extra moneys coming to our pensioners, but an issue has come to my attention recently. I had an 84-year-old pensioner in my office just last week who said, “Jim, I’ve got a demand from the HMRC for hundreds of pounds, but I’ve never been in debt in all my life.” When it comes to those pensioners who now find themselves being taxed when they were never taxed before, is it not possible to have a different system where the money could be taxed at source, rather than asking pensioners who are financially, mentally and emotionally under pressure to fill in an online form, which they just cannot do? There must be a simpler way of doing it.
Sir Stephen Timms
The question of how the tax system operates is a matter for His Majesty’s Treasury rather than for me. However, the hon. Gentleman might take some comfort from the reassurance provided by the Chancellor that those whose only income is the basic or new state pension, without any increments, will not have to pay any income tax in the course of this Parliament. Of course, those who have additional income beyond the state pension often do have a tax liability. The mechanism for how that is applied is a matter for my hon. Friends in His Majesty’s Treasury rather than for me, but I can certainly ensure that his point is passed on to them.
Other components of state pension awards, such as those previously built up under earnings-related state pension schemes, including the additional state pension, will increase by 3.8%, in line with prices. The Government are committed to supporting pensioners on the lowest incomes, so the safety net provided by the pension credit standard minimum guarantee will increase by 4.8%. That means that it will increase from £227.10 to £238 per week for single pensioners, and from £346.60 to £363.25 per week for couples. The maximum amount of pension credit savings credit will increase by 3.8%, in line with prices.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
One of the first acts of this Government was to remove the winter fuel payment, before their subsequent partial U-turn. The Prime Minister himself promised assistance for WASPI women, which is manifestly not happening. Both things affect pensioners significantly. When it comes to uprating, the gap between new and old pensions is widening all the time, because although they are going up by the same percentage, they start from different baselines. What are the Government doing to equalise pension levels to prevent that situation from worsening?
Sir Stephen Timms
We are not proposing any change in those arrangements. As the hon. Gentleman will know, those arrangements were introduced by the previous Government. In fact, the coalition Government put in place the current arrangements for the new state pension, which were introduced with commitments to future uprating. We are committed to delivering the triple lock, but we are not planning to change the relativities between those two arrangements.
Most working-age benefits and other benefits for people below state pension age will also increase by 3.8%. They includes statutory payments such as statutory sick pay, statutory maternity pay, the personal allowances of income support, housing benefit, jobseeker’s allowance, and contributory employment and support allowance. The order will also increase by 3.8% the child amounts, the carer amounts, transitional severe disability premiums in universal credit, and pensioner and carer premiums in income-related employment and support allowance.
As I mentioned earlier, the Universal Credit Act 2025 included important changes to rebalance universal credit. For 2026-27, the standard allowance in universal credit will be uprated by September’s consumer prices index plus an additional 2.3%. That represents the first ever permanent above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance, and I believe that it is the first permanent real-terms increase in the headline benefit rate since the 1970s. That is not part of the order that we are debating, but all these increases will apply across Great Britain.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I very much appreciate the action that the Government have taken to uprate UC—for the first time in its history, as the Minister says—but does he accept that it still will not cover the cost of basic essentials such as food, heating and rent for many of our most put-upon constituents?
Sir Stephen Timms
I think perhaps the point that the hon. Gentleman is making is that it does not fulfil the aspirations of the essentials guarantee campaign, with which he and I are familiar, and that is true. However, April’s above-inflation uprating will be the first of four such upratings, so there will be a similar over-inflation uprating in each of the following three Aprils. It will not end up at the level on which the essentials guarantee campaign has focused, but let us see what happens beyond the period for which we have made these announcements. As he said, it is an historic change of direction for public policy.
Benefits for people in England and Wales who have additional costs as a result of disability or ill health will also increase by 3.8%. These include disability living allowance, attendance allowance and personal independence payment. The increase will also apply to carer’s allowance.
The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026 sets out the yearly amount by which the guaranteed minimum pension part of an individual’s contracted-out occupational pension, earned between 1988 and April 1997, must be increased when it is being paid. The increase is paid by occupational pension schemes, and helps to provide a measure of inflation protection for people in receipt of contracted-out occupational pensions earned between 1988 and 1997. The law requires that GMPs earned between those two dates must be increased by the percentage increase in the general level of prices measured the previous September, capped at 3%. The September 2025 inflation figure— or CPI—was 3.8%, so the increase for the financial year 2026-27 will be 3%.
The 3% cap provides pension schemes with more certainty, allowing them to forecast their future liabilities more reliably. That is important when they are considering their funding commitments. The measure strikes a balance between, on one hand, protecting members against the effects of inflation, and on the other, not increasing scheme costs beyond what schemes and sponsoring employers can reasonably afford.
The draft Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 2026 will, if Parliament approves it, commit the Government to increased expenditure of £9 billion in the next financial year. Changes will mainly come into effect from 6 April this year and apply for the tax year 2026-27. The order maintains the triple lock—which benefits pensioners in receipt of both the basic and new state pensions—raises the level of the safety net in pension credit beyond the increase in prices, increases the rates of benefit for those in the labour market, and increases the rates of carers benefits and benefits to help with additional costs arising from disability or health impairment.
The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order requires formally contracted-out occupational pension schemes to pay an increase of 3% on GMPs in pensions earned between April 1988 and April 1997, giving a measure of protection against inflation, paid for by the scheme. I commend the orders to the House.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I wish to reassure the Minister about something that I said in last week’s debate on the two-child benefit cap. I shared something of my story, and said that we had lost child benefit as a result of the Labour Government coming into office in 1997. I was convinced I had said “family credit”, which was what I was supposed to say. When I read back over Hansard, I realised that, in my haste to get my point across, I had said the wrong thing, which explains why I caught sight of the Minister’s perplexed face from across the Dispatch Box. I have also corrected the record through Hansard.
I can confirm that the Opposition support the usual increase in the guaranteed minimum pension, and the uprating of social security benefits. However, given that this debate is largely a formality and there will be no vote on the motions, it is a good opportunity to take a step back and reflect on the pensions and benefits system more broadly—in the context of the motions before us, of course.
First, let me highlight what I call the “benefits barbell”. At one end is the working-age welfare bill, which keeps getting heavier; at the other is the eye-watering cost of public sector defined-benefit pensions. In the middle of those two heavy weights is the hard-working taxpayer, straining under the load. Welfare and pensions both matter—they are pillars of a decent society—but it is Britain’s taxpayers who do the heavy lifting. They are the ones who get up before dawn, commute in all weathers and keep the economy moving. Without their efforts or even more Government borrowing, there would be no welfare state at all, and we cannot pile more weight on to their shoulders indefinitely.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has already admitted that the long-awaited Timms review will not involve making welfare savings and is not likely to be published before 2027. It seems that this Government are shunning any attempts at reform over the coming year, and yet again, it is taxpayers who bear the cost of this delay. Right now, the UK is on the verge of becoming a welfare state with an economy attached. Over 40,000 people were signed off work every day by GPs over the last year, according to the Centre for Social Justice. Over 5 million people are claiming benefits with no work requirements, which is equivalent to over half of London’s population.
Concerningly, that number includes more than 300,000 people aged 16 to 24—young people with promising lives ahead of them whose ambitions are being stifled by a benefits system that would rather write them off. Labour is presiding over a youth unemployment crisis and seems unable to offer long-term solutions. There are already nearly 1 million young people in the UK who are not in education, employment or training. Over 700,000 university graduates are out of work and on benefits. One and a half years after taking office, this Government are still failing to tame the runaway benefits bill and rising unemployment rates. By contrast, the Conservative plan to get Britain working again will tackle youth unemployment by offering young people a first jobs bonus, which they can use to save for their first home.
Living within our means is one of those sensible, mundane things that gives the Conservative party its reputation as a safe pair of hands for the economy. Of course, making welfare savings is far less likely to grab headlines—scrapping the two-child benefit cap or rolling out more free school meals is a far easier win—but getting the deficit under control is crucial to a healthy economy. When the Conservatives took office in 2010, the Government were running a deficit of 9%. By the time covid struck, we had brought it down to under 1%. That, in turn, enabled us to provide generous support to individuals and businesses during lockdowns.
As I said in the debate on the two-child benefit cap last week, keeping the limit would have saved the taxpayer £2.4 billion in 2026-27, rising to £3.2 billion in 2030-31, yet our current Prime Minister would rather throw some red meat to his Back Benchers than exercise fiscal discipline. He has caved in to their demands, even though scrapping the two-child benefit limit was previously ruled out by the Chancellor and was conspicuously absent from Labour’s manifesto.
Conservatives believe in fairness for the working parents who make difficult choices about whether they can afford another child. Many working families do not have incomes much higher than the threshold for universal credit but are paying for others through their taxes. Why should we make those parents bear the double burden of supporting their own children and subsidising other people’s? A fair system should not simply exempt families on benefits from making tough choices.
Speaking of fairness, the issue of passported benefits desperately needs investigating. Last week, I highlighted the shocking statistic that one in four full-time UK workers would be better off on benefits than in work, but something that often gets overlooked is that people on universal credit also gain access to a raft of discounts and additional benefits such as free prescriptions, discounted broadband, healthy food cards and special savings accounts. There are over 20 of these schemes sprinkled across multiple Government Departments. Taken together, passported benefits give some families who are already on universal credit over £10,000 a year in extra support, costing the taxpayer over £10 billion, according to a new report from the think-tank Onward. These benefits need rationalising and streamlining within universal credit. Otherwise, we will continue to face three serious problems.
First, passported benefits disincentivise people from entering employment. Any sensible person would think twice about starting a job if they faced a cliff-edge denial of additional benefits worth thousands of pounds once their universal credit tapers away. Secondly, we have a two-tier system. As a result of these linked benefits, individuals just outside the universal credit threshold often face greater financial hardship than benefit claimants. Thirdly, for those who really do need these extra schemes, there is a labyrinth of bureaucracy that slows down the process of getting help. These piecemeal entitlements distort the system. From a quantitative perspective, it is harder to see which poverty interventions are actually having a positive effect. It is also incredibly difficult for everyone to see whether this Government are succeeding at reducing poverty.
I welcome the Government’s new emphasis on deep material poverty as a headline poverty metric, which is a far more holistic measure that captures how poverty impacts people’s daily lives and whether they can afford necessities. Last week, we heard endlessly that the Government’s child poverty strategy and the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap will bring half a million children out of poverty, but it is worth noting that we are talking about relative poverty. That can never be eradicated, because it refers to a household income below 60% of the median household income. The only way to reduce relative poverty is to raise the incomes of the poorest faster than the middle or compress the income distribution. An overemphasis on relative poverty has underpinned a misleading left-wing argument that exaggerates the need for income redistribution. I worry that we will end up paying people to be so-called middle-class if we continue as we are.
At the heart of Conservative philosophy is a belief in personal responsibility—taking control of our future through hard work and aspiration. If we are serious about tackling child poverty in the long term, it is vital to deal with the effects of intergenerational worklessness and not just rely on social security. Children in long-term workless households are four times more likely to be materially deprived and 10% more likely to end up workless themselves. For every parent who does not go out to work, there is a child who misses seeing a positive example of work modelled to them—the early alarm clock, the daily routine, the reward for an honest day’s work and the ability to save up to buy important things. That is not to say that there are not those in dire circumstances for a vast number of reasons, but ultimately, when we are looking at people in general, that is the reality we need to deal with. Under our watch, the number of children in workless households fell consistently. Under Labour, the number has reached a nine-year high, with 1.2 million children now living in homes where no parent has worked for over a year.
Turning to the topic of personal independence payments, I would like to ask the Minister about a disabled constituent I caught up with at the weekend. She is a veteran who served in the Royal Navy for 19 years and is now an unpaid carer for her elderly father. She works full time, mainly from home, and commutes to London a few times a month. She had a Motability scooter, which enabled her to get to the office and around London when required, but after her last PIP review, which took place over the phone, she lost her higher rate of PIP and thus her scooter. She then received a puzzling letter from the Department for Work and Pensions, which wrongly claimed that full-time work indicated she had reasonable mobility, despite the fact that her entire home is adapted for her accessibility requirements.
My constituent is a highly capable woman who is skilled at advocating for herself as well as her father and, indeed, her fellow veterans, but she admitted that she felt too stressed to open the letter for a few weeks, meaning that the reconsideration window had timed out by the time she fully processed the DWP’s decision. For context, she has also been diagnosed with complex post-traumatic stress disorder following a traumatic experience in the military and is currently on a long waiting list for treatment. Statistically, she is unusual; fewer than one in six PIP claimants are in employment.
It seems bizarre that the DWP assessors are happy to downgrade someone in this situation, who is in work and genuinely needs the higher rate of PIP to help her carry out that work, yet the Department seems reluctant to stem the tide of benefits claims from people with less severe mental health issues. That is why a Conservative Government will end sickness benefits for low-level mental health problems, to ensure that support is targeted at people who need it most. I welcome the Government’s commitment to increase the number of face-to-face PIP assessments to 30%, up from the very low rate of 5% in 2024, but I urge them to be even more ambitious with their target, to ensure that constituents like mine are accurately assessed and receive the help they need.
In conclusion, as I return to the image I began with, the barbell is getting heavier by the year, with welfare on one side and pensions on the other, and still the hard-working taxpayer stands in the middle doing all the heavy lifting. The Government are doing far too little to ease that pressure. Working families are paying the price for a system that grows ever more expensive, while true reform moves at a crawl. It is time for a welfare system that is fair to those who need support and fair to those who pay for it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the shadow Minister. I would like to challenge several things she said, but I will pick up on just a couple.
First, one of the hon. Lady’s opening statements was that hard-working people who get up at dawn and go out to work do not approve of this increase in support. I gently point out to the hon. Lady that most people in receipt of social security support are working, but they are in the low-paid jobs that were presided over by previous Conservative Administrations.
Secondly, the hon. Lady spoke of her concerns about young people. Yes, absolutely, nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training and that concerns us all, but we must all look at the evidence and at the underlying causes of that. She might not have heard me say last week—I have said it a few times—that evidence from the UK Millenium cohort study suggests that half of that population have experienced childhood poverty and adversity in their young years, under the former Conservative Government, and that is the driver. People are five times more likely not to be in education, employment or training if they have experienced that long childhood of poverty and adversity—I do not think the shadow Minister would claim that that has not happened.
It is also a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Minister. I give the pensions and social security uprating orders my wholehearted support. The uprating is absolutely the right thing to do, and I will expand on exactly why. This year’s uprating, confirmed last November by the Secretary of State, will see inflation-linked benefits and tax credits rise by 3.8% this April, which is the level of inflation as measured by the consumer prices index in September 2025. As a result of the Universal Credit Act 2025—some people did not support that, but I did once we got rid of the bits I had concerns about—we increased the universal credit standard allowance. That is important, as it means an additional 2.3% for the standard allowance, which equates to an increase in the standard allowance for a single claimant over 25 from £400.14 to £424.90 per calendar month.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware of today’s Resolution Foundation report that shows how increases in income have significantly slowed over the past 20 years, particularly for those on low incomes, as shown by the basic rate of UC, which has fallen by 9% in real terms since 2010. Does she think there is merit in proposals from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for an independent advisory process to inform universal credit rates, ensuring that the standard allowance reflects the real cost of essentials and the inflation experienced by those living on lower incomes?
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend may not know this, but the Minister and I were on the Work and Pensions Committee when the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust presented the case for the essentials. I think there is overwhelming support for such measures, but it is a question of how we do it in a sustainable way. If I may go on and develop my argument a little, he will see that I am moving in his direction.
As we have heard, the new state pension will also increase by 4.8% in April to £241.30 per week, which is in line with the annual increase in the average wage earnings index from last May to September. Briefly, I will explain why it is important that the increase in UC should be above CPI and inflation. Although state support for working-age people and pensioners was fairly similar when annual uprating was first introduced in 1972, the uprating or increase in working-age social security support such as UC in line with inflation has not always happened. In the last 15 years, social security support for working-aged people increased by only 1% between 2013 and 2016, and it was frozen between 2016 and 2020. If anyone wants to look at the changes to inflation over the past 15 years, it makes interesting reading, particularly in 2022-23 and 2023-24, and the increase was far below inflation. As a result, since 2012 benefit levels for working-aged people and their families have lost 8.8% of their value.
The UK’s social protection levels are among the least generous in the OECD. In 2021, the New Economics Foundation estimated that the actual loss in cash terms was equivalent to £14 billion. It also estimated that if spending had been maintained, there would have been 1.5 million fewer people living in poverty. People are often surprised to hear that over the last 20 years or so, the amount of DWP spending as a percentage of GDP—that is acknowledged as the only way we can fairly compare spending—has changed very little: it was 10% in 2005 and 11% in 2025, with the slight increase being accounted for by an increase in spending on pensioners. I think we would all agree that that is the right thing to do. What is alarming is that although poverty levels have been stabilised and will start coming down this year as a result of, for example, the removal of the two-child limit for social security support and the increase in the living wage, the depth of poverty is increasing.
Graham Leadbitter
Many things can be done to tackle child poverty. One thing the Scottish Government have done, which has massive backing from the third sector, is introduce a universal child payment. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is potentially the way forward?
Debbie Abrahams
I am familiar with the child payment, but I need to understand it in the context of what else is happening in Scotland. I am aware of it, and I think it is an interesting way for Scotland to try to address the issue. We had a meeting with the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and were impressed with what she was doing, but I will reserve judgment until I understand it a little more in the round.
Only last week, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published new analysis:
“In 2021-24, the average person in poverty had an income 29% below the poverty line, with the gap up from 23% in 1994-97”.
If we use equivalised figures, that means that couples without children are living on less than £12,500 a year, and couples with two children under 14 get about £17,500 a year. Social security is complex, but looking at deep poverty, as my right hon. Friend the Minister is doing, is important. If we are to avoid the appalling situation with NEETs that we have inherited, that is what we need to do.
Of the 14.2 million people living in poverty identified in JRF’s most recent poverty analysis, 6 million are in severe and persistent poverty, and more than half are disabled or live in a disabled household. Although I recognise the significant moves that this Government have made to address the inadequacy of working-age social security support to tackle the poverty and cost of living crisis that people are experiencing, I personally think we need to be a bit bolder.
As I said last week, I want to see us be clearer about our vision and values, which define what our social security system is for. It is 80 years since the National Insurance Act 1946, which was introduced in response to the Beveridge report and the outcomes and appalling circumstances after the second world war. I believe we need a new social contract that the British people can buy into and that spells out how all the elements of a comprehensive 21st century welfare state work together to deliver for them.
Our social security system, like our NHS, should be there for all of us in our time of need. It should protect us from poverty if we lose our jobs, are born with or acquire health conditions or disabilities, and when we grow old. It should also be there for us if and when we need extra support, become carers and, sadly, lose a loved one, but it cannot work in isolation; it needs to be considered in conjunction with our health and social care, education and skills, and business and employment systems in particular, but there are more.
Without a fit and healthy working-age population, a skilled workforce and a fair employment system providing quality, well-remunerated jobs, our economic productivity is known to fall, and our welfare system as a whole then comes under threat. As an example, Health Equity North’s “Health for Wealth” report shows that improving the health of the north to the same level as the rest of the country would add an extra £18.4 billion to the economy through enhanced productivity while reducing demand on the NHS.
Last year, the Work and Pensions Committee commissioned Health Equity North to report on what income could be generated through increasing returns to work for people in receipt of universal credit by just 5%. Its estimates show that that would yield an extra £20 billion over the life of this Parliament, with a return on investment of between £5.21 and £6.63 for every £1 of employment support invested. That is the way that we will reduce DWP spending and increase growth.
I look forward to seeing how the “Get Britain Working” and “Keep Britain Working” programmes, such as Connect to Work and the vanguards, are expanded. They are fantastic examples of how we can proceed. I was so impressed when I met organisations delivering Connect to Work. The Work and Pensions Committee had a session last week with Sir Charlie Mayfield and small businesses to see how they could be involved in that, and I hope that we can expand and build on this work.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). It is almost as if she has been cribbing off my speech—maybe it is because we are both on the Work and Pensions Committee.
The reality is that our welfare state is part of a society that should be at ease with itself. Let me reflect that the old age pension was first introduced by Asquith in 1908 for 70-year-olds. That demonstrates that the Liberals were there at the foundation of our welfare state. If we fast-forward a few decades, we find that Margaret Thatcher broke the link between earnings and pensions, which had a devastating effect on pensioner poverty and increased it significantly over many years.
It is really heartening that when the Liberal Democrats were back in government as part of the coalition, we were part of the Government who introduced the triple lock. We have seen pensioner poverty being driven down, but there is still too much of it. I am concerned that the current Conservative leader, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has mused about means-testing the triple lock, which is disturbing. Would she put it back to the five shillings a week for those of good character that we had under Asquith? We will look for the white smoke to appear from the Conservative party on that.
Let me reflect on pensioner poverty. As the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth reflected, we have done a lot of work as part of the Work and Pensions Committee around this issue. It has been interesting to hear from people, particularly those who have given us evidence in recent weeks, on how workers—particularly manual workers—find it harder to continue to do the jobs that they are in as they get older, as well as how we need to ensure that there is a whole-system approach.
We need to ensure that employers are more flexible, and the Mayfield report is important in that. Rather than just shuffling people off the books, we need to ensure that employers see what reasonable adaptations they can make to keep them on the books, as our continental friends do.
We need to drive forward with work on pensioner poverty. I reflect on my own constituency, where I have had people heading towards their pension who still want to work but are unable to because they have a dodgy hip and are awaiting an operation. Sadly, improvements at Torbay hospital have been delayed by many years. Again, as the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth alluded to, this is about ensuring that we sort out our national health service across the country as a whole so that people are in a fit state to work. Another thing that causes Liberal Democrats concern is the way in which social care has been kicked down the line and is not being resolved sooner rather than later.
Let me move on to a key element of these proposals. I welcome more generally the uprating that we have heard about from the Minister today, but what about carer’s allowance? The fact is that unpaid carers in the United Kingdom undertake work equivalent to the value of the whole of our NHS, which is absolutely mind-blowing. The Sayce review investigated overpayments to carers, and people needed to earn only £1 or so over the limit in a week for them to lose thousands of pounds from their carer’s allowance and end up having a liability.
Last February, the Sayce review found that nearly 87,000 people had that liability from the overpayment of carer’s allowance. The Government have committed to writing off the debts of 26,000, which means that debts remain outstanding for 61,000. That causes grave concerns for lots of people who have that hanging over them like the sword of Damocles. I would be really grateful if the Minister could reflect on that area in his winding-up speech.
Finally, the last benefit that I will reflect on is what was originally known as DLA but is now known as PIP. At the time when this benefit was a hot potato, some Ministers described it as pocket money for people with disabilities. However, it is there to support people with basic living needs, whether it is being able to get out and about and live a normal life, which many people would take for granted, preparing food or the simple dignity of being clean, able to wash and having help with that. This benefit supports those people, so it is disturbing that last July, the Minister had to almost rip up the speech in front of him and go in to bat with a rubber chicken in his hand, effectively. We welcome the upgrade to these benefits, but does it truly reflect the increase in earnings that we have seen, and give people on the personal independence payment the ability to take people on to support them?
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth was right to mention the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, because its report, published last week, shows that poverty has flatlined since 2005, and if we look at deprivation and deep poverty, we see that the situation is really disturbing. I hear from church leaders in Torbay that they are seeing much higher levels of destitution than they have done historically, which is shocking. It is disappointing that the Government have not driven hard to make the positive reforms to the welfare state that would tackle the deep poverty suffered by many in our communities. The Government should ensure that we reform the welfare state, with those who use it, so that they can live their best life.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Our social security system is the bedrock of our welfare state, but for years, the safety net that it was meant to provide has been developing bigger and bigger holes, through which some of our most vulnerable citizens have fallen.
For our older generation, the state pension is the foundation on which a decent retirement can be built. The restoration of the triple lock has been key to raising the income of some of our poorest pensioners, which is why we need it to continue, but it would be wrong to say that the job has been done when we still have 1.9 million older people living in poverty. The weakness of our means-tested pension credit system is that around 750,000 older people are eligible to claim, but have yet to do so. That is why we need to look again at the advantages of a universal system of income in retirement that reaches everyone.
Even in the current uprating arrangements, there is an unfairness. Some 8.3 million older people are in receipt of the pre-2016 state pension, made up of a basic state pension and a second state pension, which for many would have been SERPS—the state earnings-related pension scheme—introduced by the late, great Barbara Castle. While the triple lock applies to the basic state pension for these people, the lower consumer prices index is used to uprate the second state pension. This year, that will give a difference of 1%, and over time, we have seen the gap between those on the old state pension and the new state pension widen. That is unfair, and we should consider uprating all pensions in the same way.
As hon. Members have said, uprating is a contentious issue when it comes to overseas pensioners. Nearly half a million UK state pensioners do not receive the annual increase because they have moved to a country that does not have a reciprocal agreement with the UK. That means that their state pension is frozen at the value it had when they left the UK. For some, that will mean that their pension is now virtually worthless. Today, we are debating the annual uprating of the state pension, but the process does not include the frozen pensions policy, because that is dealt with through secondary legislation. Despite the serious impact that this issue has on many voters living overseas, there is a lack of scrutiny and opportunity to vote, which means that this House is unable to hold the Government to account on this issue. That needs to change.
Finally, I address an issue that a number of hon. Members have raised: our social security system needs to provide for the essentials for living. This April, for the first time since universal credit was introduced, as the Minister has said, the standard allowance will increase above inflation. That will go some way towards closing the gap between income and the daily cost of living, and it is welcome. However, despite this boost, too many families will continue to face a significant shortfall, caused by the increased cost of essentials.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Trussell estimate that a single adult needs at least £120 a week, and a couple need £205 a week, to afford the essentials. Sadly, universal credit falls short of this. We know that the vast majority of people referred to a food bank were in receipt of a means-tested social security payment, such as universal credit. At the heart of the problem is the fact that there is no evidence-based foundation for setting benefit levels. As a result, updated rates do not properly reflect people’s needs. That is why there is a call for an independent process, which draws on research, including from those with lived experience, for advising Ministers on how much universal credit needs to be, if people are to afford essentials like food, utilities and vital household items.
The protection offered by our social security system should ensure that no one in need falls through the gaps. That is the mark of a compassionate society, and something that we should be proud to advance.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful for the opportunity to wind up this debate. I thank everyone who has taken part for their constructive and helpful contributions, and I want to make a number of points in response.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for clarifying what happened in 1997—she read my facial expression correctly. I was perplexed when she told us that child benefit had been abolished. I have done a little bit of checking since she made that clarification, and it was in 1999 that family credit was replaced with the much better and stronger tax credit system. I do not know whether her family decided not to apply for that, but the introduction of working tax credits and the wider tax credit system made big progress, particularly in reducing child poverty across the country.
The hon. Lady was absolutely right to draw attention to the scale of the challenge that the country faces in the number of young people not in education, employment or training, as nearly 1 million were left behind by the previous Conservative Government. We are energetically on the case now to address that problem, which should have been addressed long ago. It is encouraging that the proportion of young people out of education, employment or training has fallen over the last year, but we do not want anybody to be left behind.
We are investing £820 million in the youth guarantee over the next three years to ensure that every single young person can access the support that they need to earn or to learn. Nearly 900,000 young people will receive intensive one-to-one support, and we are expanding youth hubs to every area in the country, creating around 300,000 additional opportunities to gain valuable workplace experience and training. Additionally, the youth guarantee will guarantee jobs for some 55,000 young people aged 18 to 21. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is a great deal to be done on this issue, and we are finally doing it. I look forward to reporting back to the House on progress as it develops.
The hon. Lady referred to the Conservative party’s reputation for being “a safe pair of hands for the economy.” Well, following the Liz Truss debacle, that reputation has sadly been destroyed, and it will take a long time to rebuild. People have a long memory, and remember the awful turbulence that the country was plunged into during that period, and that alleged reputation is sadly long gone.
The hon. Lady made the point that families have a choice about whether they can afford another child. Of course, one of the points that emerged from our debate on the two-child limit was that most families on universal credit with more than two children were not on universal credit when they had them. That was not an issue in their minds when they made that choice, so the Conservative response in that debate did not reflect the realities of what families are facing.
The hon. Lady made an interesting point about passported benefits, and I have seen the publicity on what the think-tank Onward has said on this matter. It is understandable that service providers use an existing means test to target their provision. That is what the last Government did on the cost of living payment during the pandemic, for example. I notice that the head of Onward is a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, so one would have thought that he would have had a chance to do something about this over his years in office, but it is an interesting topic. I think the arrangements we have for passported benefits make sense, but if there are proposals for alternative arrangements, we will be interested to look at them.
The hon. Lady was critical of the use of the relative poverty measure for assessing the number of children growing up in poverty, as was the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) last week. The relative poverty measure is the international standard measure; it is widely respected, and is used for all international comparisons on this metric. I think the reason why the Conservative party has always been so reluctant to refer to relative poverty is that its performance on that measure in government—I am talking about the Government who left office in 2024, but Governments before that as well—has been so consistently dreadful. During the debate on the two-child limit Bill, the point was rightly made that an important part of David Cameron’s work to bring the Conservative party up to date was embracing relative poverty as a valuable measure that ought to be taken into account. We now seem to have moved back to the pre-Cameron era in the Conservative party, and it may take some time for the party to recognise the scale of the change in its thinking that is needed if it is to reflect the country’s current situation.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for South West Devon said about her constituent who is on PIP. I would very much like to see the letter that she referred to, because she is absolutely right that PIP is an in-work benefit as well as an out-of-work benefit, and I would be extremely concerned if people were being told, “You’re in work, so you can’t have PIP any more.” There are disincentives of that kind in the system that need to be addressed, so I would love to have a look at that letter. As the hon. Lady knows, I am co-chairing a review of PIP that will conclude by the autumn of this year; she said that she did not think that the review would happen until 2027, but it will conclude by the autumn of this year.
The hon. Lady is right that we need to increase the proportion of face-to-face assessments for benefits. Face-to-face assessments are such a small proportion of total assessments at the moment because of the contracts that the Conservative Government entered into towards the end of their term in office, which contained no requirements for an adequate number of face-to-face assessments. Indeed, the Conservative Government sold off most of the premises where those assessments were undertaken, so of course it is taking some time to build up again the capacity to deliver those assessments, but we are doing so. We are putting right the mistakes that the previous Government made, and we are seeing a steady increase in the proportion of both work capability assessments and PIP assessments that are undertaken face-to-face.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Accuracy and fairness are really important, so I think the face-to-face assessments are vital. There has been talk of a 30% increase, which is a little bit less than what I would like to see. Can the Minister give this House assurances that the increase will not sit at 30%, and that the Government will strive for more face-to-face assessments? Nothing beats seeing the white of a person’s eye.
Sir Stephen Timms
We would certainly like to do so. Let us get up to the level that we have set, which will be a dramatic improvement on the situation we inherited. Once we have done so, we will learn the lessons and see what more we can do.
I very much welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who chairs the Work and Pensions Committee. I commend her and the Committee for their work. She referred to the research—published, I think, towards the end of last year—showing that children who suffer poverty and adversity in childhood are, as she said, five times more likely to be NEET as young adults. I looked at that interesting paper, and I think I am right in saying that it found that children who had grown up just below the poverty line, but without childhood adversity as well, were three times more likely to be NEET as young adults, so just poverty on its own leads to a big increase in the likelihood of being NEET. In order to tackle this big NEET problem—the shadow Minister was right to say that it needs tackling—we have to tackle child poverty, as we are doing with the scrapping of the two-child limit in universal credit.
Debbie Abrahams
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about those two figures. The fact is that more than half of the current NEET cohort—52.9%—have experienced not just child poverty, but family adversity. That is the five times more likely figure.
Sir Stephen Timms
It is an interesting paper, and I very much welcome research along those lines, as I know my hon. Friend does. She is right to make the point that spending on social security is not rocketing. It is not out of control as one sometimes reads, but is between 10% and 11% of GDP. Working-age benefits are 4% to 5% and pretty consistent. It is not changing rapidly at the moment. She makes an interesting point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), about the current depth of poverty. That is an important part of the picture that we need to address in our work.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth that the social security system has an important job to do. We cannot just freeze it for a year and under-uprate it for another year, because that inflicts harm. We have seen that harm inflicted and the consequences of it. She is also right that we need a properly functioning health service again. We also need support for good employment. I was pleased to hear from her and the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) that the Work and Pensions Committee has been listening to Sir Charlie Mayfield and his excellent “Keep Britain Working” review, from which he is continuing to develop work.
The hon. Member for Torbay rightly referred to the practice of shuffling people off the books. Too often, people have run into a health problem in the course of their work, had to take time off and then, by accident really, lost touch with work and the workplace and become unemployed and inactive. If there had just been a bit of flexibility and a bit of continuing communication, that outcome could have been avoided. I welcome the work that Sir Charlie Mayfield is doing with more than 100 vanguard employers looking at how best to put those lessons into practice.
The hon. Member for Torbay also referred to the carer’s allowance overpayments scandal. We appointed Liz Sayce OBE to conduct an independent review of how overpayments occurred, how affected carers could be supported and how to prevent future problems with overpayments arising. The review made 40 recommendations, and the Government have accepted or partially accepted 38 of them. We have taken action to raise the earnings limit in carer’s allowance by the largest amount it has ever increased by. In future, we will uprate the earnings threshold annually in line with the increase in the national living wage, so that accidental exceeding of the earnings threshold will be less common.
The hon. Member for Torbay also drew attention to the difficulties with the current cliff edge arrangements for the carer’s allowance earnings threshold. In the 2024 Budget, the Chancellor announced that we were considering the introduction of an earnings taper to replace that cliff edge, and we may well conclude that that would do a better job.
I do not think I ever expected there to be a Labour Member of Parliament for Poole, but I am delighted that my hon. Friend was successful in being elected to that role, and long may he serve there. He was right to highlight the continuing scale of the challenge of pensioner poverty. If we look at the record of the former Labour Government, we see that there were dramatic reductions in both child poverty and pensioner poverty. In respect of child poverty, those reductions were reversed under the coalition and the Conservative Government, and towards the end of the term of the Conservative Government the number of pensioners in poverty was rising again, but it rose much less dramatically than the number of children growing up below the poverty line. Our priority has therefore been to tackle child poverty, and that is the reason for the strategy that we have published and the changes to universal credit that we debated in the House last week.
However, I recognise that there are continuing challenges for pensioners as well. The Government are increasing the basic state pension and the full rate of the new state pension, in line with earnings growth, by 4.8%, meeting our commitment to the triple lock. We are increasing the pension credit standard minimum guarantee in line with earnings, by 4.8%, to support pensioners on the lowest incomes. We are increasing benefits to meet additional disability needs and carers’ benefits, in line with prices, by 3.8%. We are increasing a number of working-age benefits, statutory payments and disability benefits in line with prices by the same amount, 3.8%. The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order requires formerly contracted out occupational pension schemes to pay an increase of 3% on GMP—for the reasons I gave earlier—in payment earned between April 1988 and April 1997, to give a measure of protection against inflation for those pensioners which is paid for by their scheme.
I commend both orders to the House.
Question put and agreed to,
Resolved,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.
Social Security
Resolved,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved. —(Sir Stephen Timms.)
Social Security
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I beg to move,
That the draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.
Dan Tomlinson
The draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order sets the rates for both child benefit and guardian’s allowance, and will ensure that those benefits, for which Treasury Ministers are responsible and which are delivered by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, are uprated by inflation in April 2026. The draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2026 set the rates of certain national insurance contributions classes, and the level of certain thresholds, for the 2026-27 tax year. The regulations also make provision for a Treasury grant to be paid into the national insurance fund if required for the same tax year, through a transfer of wider Government funds to the NIF, and extend the veterans employer national insurance relief for two years, until April 2028.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome what the Minister is saying, which is positive. This is a good step for guardians, carers and veterans. Sometimes people come to me and ask me questions. They say that they cannot get any help with the changes that have come in and how they are affected. When they are given more money, sometimes they fall into a higher tax bracket. Is help available for those who receive an increase in their guardian’s allowance, carer’s allowance or veteran’s allowance? We need to make sure that somebody can help them through the process. It is almost like walking through a muddy field: they just do not know where to go next.
Dan Tomlinson
The hon. Member is right: a range of reliefs in the national insurance system help particular groups, including young people and those who have served in our military. It is right that those reliefs are there, and I am glad that the Government took the decision to extend them by two years. The Government publish guidance on the way that the reliefs can be used. We aim to ensure that the guidance supports those who seek to employ young people and people who have served in the military, so that they are able to make employment decisions. Through the tax system, we want to support particular groups to be able to be employed. I thank the hon. Member for his question.
I turn to the detail of the Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2026. As hon. Members will know, the Government are committed to delivering a welfare system that is fair for taxpayers while providing support for those who need it. These regulations ensure that the benefits for which Treasury Ministers are responsible, and which HMRC delivers, are uprated by inflation in April 2026. Child benefit and guardian’s allowance will increase by 3.8%, in line with the consumer prices index in the year to September 2025. Tax credits awards ended on 5 April 2025, so no changes to rates will be required.
I turn to the second set of regulations before us today. As announced at the Budget, the primary threshold and the lower profits limit threshold will be maintained at their current levels until April 2031. These regulations set the level for the 2026-27 tax year. Employees’ entitlement to contributory benefits, such as the state pension, is determined by their earnings being at or above the lower earnings limit. Self-employed people’s entitlement is determined by their earnings being at or above the small profits threshold.
These regulations uprate the LEL and the SPT. This is the usual process and maintains the real level of income where someone gains entitlement to contributory benefits. The upper earnings limit for employee NICs and the upper profits limit for self-employed NICs—the points at which the main rate falls to 2%—are aligned with the higher rate threshold for income tax. The thresholds will be maintained at their current levels, and these regulations set the levels for the 2026-27 tax year. As announced at the Budget last year, employer national insurance thresholds, including the secondary threshold, will also be maintained at their current levels.
We have already had a brief discussion about the employer NICs reliefs, including for under-21s, under-25 apprentices, veterans, and new employees in freeport and investment zones. The regulations that we are debating today keep the thresholds for those reliefs at their current levels. The regulations also make provision for the NICs relief for employers of veterans to be extended for two years until April 2028, during which time the Government will continue to consider the most effective way to support veterans into employment as part of the next spending review settlement.
Without these regulations, child benefit and guardian’s allowance would fall in real terms, and HMRC would be unable to collect NICs receipts. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting them today.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to debate these two statutory instruments with the Exchequer Secretary. As he stated, they are made each year, and the precedent is for them to be debated on the Floor of the House. I am glad to see that that practice continues, and I hope that the Government will keep this going for the remainder of the current premiership, however long that may last. I want to make it clear that we will not be voting against the measures before us when the debate concludes. However, I would like to comment on each SI and the wider political discourse around them.
First, the social security regulations set the rates of certain national insurance contribution classes and the level of certain thresholds for the 2026-27 tax year. Specifically, they uprate the lower earnings limit, the small profit threshold and the rates of class 2 and class 3 national insurance contributions. The increase will be 3.8%, which is the consumer prices index figure from September 2025. All other limits and thresholds that these regulations cover will remain frozen at their current level.
This highlights that the increase last year was 1.7% compared with 3.8% this year. Both these percentages represent the rate of inflation that our constituents are suffering, but the 1.7% is of course what we left the Government when they came to power, and 3.8% is the level of inflation they are now delivering for consumers. When we left office, inflation was at 2%. We had managed to get it down following a once-in-a-generation pandemic and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent energy crisis.
Since Labour has come in, inflation has risen almost every month and is now stuck at about 3.6%. Why is that? It is because the Government are relentlessly pursuing policies instead of making practical solutions—for example, the drive towards net zero. We of course want net zero and to get to the point where we clean up our carbon footprints, but by going too far they have managed to put up energy bills by £300 since they were elected. Is it any wonder that inflation is so high and shows little sign of coming down any time soon? I do not want to press the Minister on too many questions, but could he in due course let us know when the Government expect inflation to return to the target rate of 2%, which everybody agrees is where it should be?
The other point that I want to make about the statutory instrument is that it extends the employer national insurance contributions relief for veterans to 2028, which means businesses will continue to pay no employer NICs on salaries up to the veterans upper secondary threshold of £50,000 or £270 for the first year of their employment, which is a very good thing, as I think the Minister will agree. We introduced this relief in 2022, as we wanted to encourage as many employers as possible to help our veterans. These people have done a huge amount to protect our country, and it is important that we show our gratitude to them.
Mark Garnier
The Minister is nodding, and I am sure he agrees with us on this point. Therefore, we welcome the fact that the Government have committed to extending this relief for the next two years.
However, I point out that the Government said in the Budget document:
“The government will extend the employer NICs relief for employers hiring veterans in their first civilian role to April 2028, from which point support for veterans into employment will be covered through spending review settlements rather than through this tax relief.”
The Government have committed to consult on which way would be best to do that, which is positive, and I hope the Minister is open to considering continuing this relief as an option if a suitable alternative cannot be found. In due course, it would be great if he or the Government could let us know what is being planned and on what timeframe, so we may understand what will be happening for veterans.
The child benefit and guardian’s order will uprate the allowances in line with CPI for the 2026-27 tax year. Again, we welcome the increases as these benefits are an important part of our welfare system. Guardian’s allowance is designed to provide further support to people who care for someone else’s child—for example, if the child’s parents have died. When these people step as guardians, they are incredibly important in the upbringing of young children, and we have a duty to support them so that they can ensure that the children they care for have the best start in life.
Although these state benefits are important, the Government are abandoning their responsibilities to tackle the wider benefits bill. In this debate last year, the former Exchequer Secretary, who is now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said:
“the Government are committed to delivering a welfare system that is fair for taxpayers while providing support to those who need it.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 716.]
When it came down to it, however, this Government did not take the opportunity to make those savings. Instead, it appears that they caved in to their Back Benchers, and we are now in a position where the benefits bill continues to balloon. According to The Times, even the Prime Minister has vetoed plans to reform the welfare system, simply to avoid the embarrassment of yet another U-turn. That is not fair to taxpayers, or to those who need support the most. In due course, I hope the Minister will set out when the needed benefit reforms will be brought forward and what steps he is taking to ensure that taxpayers’ money goes to those who need it most.
The Conservatives will not stand in the way of any of the statutory instruments before us today, but we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say—not necessarily this afternoon, I stress—on the points I have raised.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I welcome the proposals on child benefit and guardian’s allowance. When I visit schools in Torbay, it is disturbing to hear how many children are only too alive to the cost of living crisis. They are worried about mum or dad not having enough money to put petrol in the car, and they are concerned about covering the bills. These are not big amounts of money, but we know that it all adds up and that it is helpful to the youngsters in our communities.
However, the continuation of the national insurance hikes is the most significant mis-step the Government have undertaken in this Parliament. They are effectively shooting the goose that lays the golden egg of economic growth. From my conversations with businesses across Torbay and the west of England, whether Paignton Zoo or Splashdown Waterpark, I know that limiting the threshold at which national insurance contributions are paid to £5,000 is crippling lots of seasonal businesses. The seasonality of the work means that they have to trim the opportunities for youngsters to take on summer jobs. I spoke to the owner of Splashdown only a couple of weeks ago. She talks about the people who come back in later years who are now solicitors, airline pilots or doctors, and how they learnt the trade of getting into work on time by working in the waterpark and so on.
I also want to reflect on how the national insurance hikes are hitting the hospitality industry across the west of England. Businesses have already seen massive increases in the cost of fuel. What I hear from them is their uncertainty about the Employment Rights Act 2025. I call on the Minister and the Government to ensure that, as it is rolled out, they reflect on limiting its impact. They must ensure a soft introduction, so it does not have a further devastating impact on employment. Most of all, I reflect on the impact of the national insurance hike. I ask the Minister to reflect on that, too.
Question put and agreed to.
Social Security
Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Standing Orders (Consideration of Estimates)
Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of Estimates) shall apply for the remainder of this Session as if, for the word ‘Three’ in line 1, there were substituted the word ‘Four’.—(Gen Kitchen.)
Business without Debate
Urgent care provision in Rugby
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I welcome the investment that has expanded and improved services at the Hospital of St Cross in Rugby, but my constituents want urgent treatment to improve further and to include more doctor-led services. I have raised this issue with Ministers and in the House. Locally, I have convened roundtables with stakeholders, including community health organisations, councillors and campaigners, to ensure their voices are heard by local health leaders. I have asked these leaders when their review of urgent emergency care will conclude; now I expect local health leaders to take note and, more importantly, to take action.
The petitioners therefore request that:
“the House of Commons urge the Government to work with NHS Coventry and Warwickshire Integrated Care Board to ensure that urgent care provision at the Hospital of St Cross…is retained and enhanced, to include a doctor led urgent care service.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Rugby
Declares that the continuing investment in services at the Hospital of St Cross, a much-loved local hospital at the heart of our community is welcome; further declares that, as shown by recent demonstrations, members of the community in Rugby are concerned about ensuring the continued provision of urgent treatment from this site, and that these concerns have been raised at consultation events and meetings with health leaders; and further declares that there is not yet clarity as to how the Integrated Care Board’s review of urgent care will affect the Hospital of St Cross.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with NHS Coventry and Warwickshire Integrated Care Board to ensure that urgent care provision at the Hospital of St Cross, Rugby is retained and enhanced, to include a doctor led urgent care service.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003162]
Oak Park Community Clinic
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
On behalf of Havant residents and NHS patients, I welcome this opportunity to raise urgently in Parliament the sudden and distressing removal of diagnostic services at Oak Park clinic in Havant.
Oak Park is a vital community asset that has long played an important role in local healthcare provision, providing a range of services including therapies, out-patient clinics and diagnostic checks. For residents, the clinic represents local, familiar and accessible care, particularly for sick, elderly and vulnerable people who struggle to travel. Some of the services remain, but the loss of diagnostics is a huge concern for my constituents in Havant, Langstone, Bedhampton, Emsworth, Hayling Island, Leigh Park, Purbrook, Stakes and Widley.
The withdrawal of diagnostic services at Oak Park took place suddenly, immediately before Christmas and came with no warning. In fact, there was no consultation with patients, local GPs, community groups or care providers. The local reaction to this removal of services has been both outrage and fear. This is the time of year when the NHS and its patients feel the most pressure; frankly, the timing of the withdrawal could not have been worse. My thoughts are also with the staff who provided diagnostic services at Oak Park, who, I understand, received only a month’s notice themselves that this work would be ending.
I was not notified before or even immediately after the withdrawal of services by any of the local NHS bodies or service providers. In particular, I heard nothing from the Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care board, which commissions and oversees the services at Oak Park. In fact, the first contact I had from the ICB was yesterday morning, once this debate had been confirmed. I now look forward to learning from the ICB how it intends to replace the services lost at Oak Park. I welcome the commitment it gave me yesterday to provide what it calls “a strong neighbourhood model” for delivering diagnostics services to my constituency. I hope it delivers on that commitment, and I would welcome the Minister’s support in holding the ICB accountable for delivering it.
The ICB has told me that the decision to end diagnostic services at Oak Park was taken by the NHS provider; that it was not an ICB decision. The general failure to communicate with people affected by the closure has caused widespread confusion, anger and fear. It is disappointing that, nearly two months on from the removal of diagnostic services at Oak Park, there is still no clear information in the public domain about the background behind the removal, no agreement about a way forward, and no news about whether temporary provision, for example through a mobile diagnostic unit, is feasible.
The importance of diagnostic provision in Havant cannot be overstated. Havant War Memorial hospital closed in September 2011 and, at the time, local people were assured that replacement facilities would maintain accessible healthcare in the community. It was Oak Park Community Clinic that provided the reassurance that healthcare would indeed remain close to home. The message from residents, patients, GPs and the whole community is clear: diagnostic services must be restored locally by the NHS and the ICB to a central location in the Havant constituency—either at Oak Park or at another suitable site. In the meantime, there must be interim provision in the constituency—for example, via a mobile unit or temporary facilities. Local people deserve nothing less, and my campaign to get the Government, the ICB and the NHS to deliver will continue.
As the Minister knows, diagnostics are the gateway to treatment. Oak Park offered X-ray, ultrasound and echocardiogram services. These are basic but vital services that inform clinicians quickly about the health of a patient, and allow them to decide what further tests or treatment are necessary. If these checks are delayed or unavailable, the consequences for patients can be appalling, slowing their access to treatment or even cutting it off altogether. The cumulative effect is to increase referrals into already pressured acute settings, such as the Queen Alexandra hospital in Portsmouth, and to undermine the cohesion of local NHS services.
The alternative to the facilities at Oak Park is to divert my constituents to St Mary’s community health campus in Portsmouth. This is hugely inconvenient for them, because travel into Portsmouth from communities in the Havant constituency is difficult at the best of times. St Mary’s is located on Portsea Island in the city, and there are only three roads on and off the island. The road most likely to be used by people travelling from my constituency—the Eastern Road—has been closed in one direction for several weeks for sewer repair works. It will remain closed until next month at the earliest. Traffic disruption has been appalling for anybody travelling to Portsmouth on any route, and my constituents tell me that they have been affected when travelling to and from St Mary’s
Setting aside the temporary issues caused by the closure of the Eastern Road, St Mary’s is, in any event, poorly served by public transport from any of the communities in the constituency: there is no direct bus link between my constituency and the campus; St Mary’s is more than a mile and a half from the nearest railway station; and there is no bus service from the railway station to the campus.
Residents from Hayling Island in my constituency who have to go to St Mary’s instead of Oak Park face an especially arduous journey, consisting of a minimum of three bus journeys, taking at least an hour and a half in each direction. During peak periods, given the terrible traffic conditions in Portsmouth, this is likely to take much longer and risks appointments being missed.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will not be surprised to hear that I have been contacted by GP surgeries in my constituency expressing in the strongest terms their dismay at the Oak Park situation. The Elms Practice on Hayling Island has highlighted the length and difficulty of the journey to St Mary’s, as well as the additional cost of the longer journey, which many patients simply cannot absorb. The practice highlights the risk of missed appointments and diagnoses, particularly for patients with chronic conditions. The additional stress of the longer journey for patients with already limited mobility or who are living with disabilities is intolerable.
I have heard similar concerns from the Homewell Curlew GP practice in Havant, close to the Oak Park site, whose patients now face much longer journeys. The problem was also raised with me last week in person by the manager of a care home in Havant. She told me that their patients are having to spend £50 or more on a round trip in a taxi to Portsmouth. This is an unacceptable state of affairs.
This is not just an issue for my constituents; the additional burden of more patients arriving at St Mary’s will affect people living in neighbouring constituencies who would normally use St Mary’s for diagnostic checks. The loss of capacity at Oak Park is having a considerable regional impact, and it appears the sudden withdrawal of services is not an isolated example.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) cannot speak in this debate as she also serves as Deputy Speaker, but we have discussed the loss of phlebotomy services from Romsey hospital because of a decision by the ICB. I understand that my right hon. Friend’s constituents now have to travel to Southampton or even Lymington for appointments. My right hon. Friend has characteristically spoken up for her constituents very effectively, and I know that she will continue to do so.
On wider NHS engagement, I have a good relationship with all my local NHS bodies, and I want to continue that constructive approach to improve patient outcomes. The loss of these services at Oak Park came shortly after I had a positive meeting with the new chair of Portsmouth hospitals university NHS trust, which manages Queen Alexandra hospital in Portsmouth—the general hospital that serves my constituency and people across much of south-east Hampshire. We had a good discussion about the importance of local provision of basic services. While the trust does not manage the Oak Park facility, when things go wrong with diagnosis, it is on Queen Alexandra hospital in Portsmouth that the burden mostly falls.
I successfully lobbied the previous Conservative Government to secure funding for the new emergency department at Queen Alexandra hospital, which serves my constituency. However, it is already clear that even with a new emergency department, the hospital is facing capacity challenges. Anything that gets patients into the right care pathway the first time, at the earliest opportunity, helps to ease that pressure, and diagnostic services play a key part in that. The public see the NHS as a monolithic structure, and when things go wrong in one part, as has happened with Oak Park, constituents can find it confusing and disempowering. The NHS and the ICB must put that right.
Following this debate, I hope that as well as securing the return of diagnostic facilities, we can have a broader conversation about wider health provision for my constituents. An urgent treatment centre in the constituency would further ease the pressure on both QA hospital and St Mary’s hospital.
I have always been clear that empowering patients helps them to lead healthier, longer lives, whether that is through digital transformation or being able to access basic timely care locally and in a convenient way. For that reason, I successfully campaigned for the Emsworth Victoria Cottage hospital’s building to be retained by the NHS, so that it could become the new home for the Emsworth medical practice, which is now a superb resource for all its patients. We all lead busy lives, and proximity to high-quality local healthcare services is vital. I know that the GP practices on Hayling Island need better facilities, and I have been working with them, the ICB and other NHS bodies to bring that about. But first we have to fix the Oak Park issue and bring those diagnostic services back.
In closing, I have three requests for the Minister. First, will he commit the NHS to restoring diagnostic services to a permanent setting as quickly as possible in the Havant constituency, whether at Oak Park or another site? Secondly, while the permanent restoration process continues, will he support the provision of temporary diagnostic services in the Havant constituency, for example through a mobile unit or at a temporary site? Thirdly, will he meet me to discuss how the ICB and NHS bodies can move quickly to restore these diagnostic services in Havant and learn lessons from the Oak Park situation?
I want to thank the hard-working NHS staff who provide such fantastic support for my constituents all year round. I call on the Minister to ensure that my constituents have their access to local diagnostic services in the Havant constituency restored as quickly as possible.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I note that the policy lead for this area is the Minister for Secondary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth). She is unable to be here today and sends her apologies, but I will report back to her and am sure that she will be more than happy to accept the request for a meeting to have further discussions.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak) on securing this debate on the provision of diagnostic services in Havant, specifically at Oak Park community clinic. This matter is very important to his constituents, and it resonates more broadly in communities right across our country.
Diagnostic services are a critical part of our NHS. They are crucial for helping patients to get peace of mind about their symptoms or clarity on the next stage of their care. Reducing the waiting times for diagnostic tests is critical to achieving both our elective waiting time and cancer waiting time ambitions. Prior to this debate, the Department has received correspondence from GPs working in the hon. Member’s constituency on this very issue. I therefore completely understand his concerns and those of his constituents, and I hope that I can provide a helpful update on the situation and set out the steps being taken to resolve this issue.
Until recently, a range of diagnostic services were provided at Oak Park community clinic. Services were delivered in partnership between the NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care board and an independent healthcare provider, Practice Plus Group. As the hon. Member has said, Practice Plus Group took the decision, with limited notice, to move equipment for non-obstetric ultrasound, X-ray and echocardiography away from Oak Park community clinic to St Mary’s community hospital in Portsmouth. With regard to the request to meet to discuss the circumstances of the suspension of these services at Oak Park clinic, I will ensure that a request is passed on to my colleague, the Minister for Secondary Care.
I can inform the hon. Member that the closure took place because Practice Plus Group took the view that the lease no longer represented value for money. I can fully appreciate the disruption that this is causing in the Havant area for patients who now face longer travel times and inconvenience to receive care. I am aware that the ICB has communicated with all the referring organisations affected and is working to mitigate disruption, including reviewing alternative provision to ensure continuity of diagnostic services for patients in the Havant area. In the meantime, patients can be referred to Practice Plus Group services at the St Mary’s community health campus in Portsmouth for those diagnostic tests. The Queen Alexandra hospital in Cosham is also providing diagnostic services and is of course accessible to many patients across Havant. For some, it is likely that this will be more convenient and should be offered as a location for diagnostic tests.
The hon. Member will be aware that the Oak Park community diagnostic centre is also located at the Oak Park community clinic. The non-obstetric ultrasound service at the Oak Park community clinic was, until recently, provided as part of the community diagnostic centre. X-ray and echocardiography, while provided at the same site, are separate from the CDC operations. When the community diagnostic centre was first approved, Portsmouth hospitals university NHS trust commissioned Practice Plus Group to deliver non-obstetric ultrasound activity for the centre. This arrangement would utilise Practice Plus Group’s equipment and rooms, with sonographers employed by the trust delivering the tests.
I can today confirm to the hon. Member and to the House that Portsmouth hospitals university NHS trust is preparing to recommence non-obstetric ultrasound at the Oak Park CDC this month. With financial support from NHS England’s national diagnostic programme, the trust has been able to purchase an additional scanner for this site. In the meantime, the Oak Park CDC continues to provide symptomatic mammography, ophthalmology assessment and peripheral neurophysiology assessments at the Oak Park community clinic site. The hon. Member asked about the possibility of temporary pop-up facilities to restore all services at Oak Park. I am informed that the ICB is working closely with Practice Plus Group to resolve this issue, and is looking for a solution to restore X-ray and echocardiography at the Oak Park community clinic for patients.
Community provision of diagnostic services, such as those at the Oak Park clinic, are a central plank of our plan to make the NHS fit for the future. We are committed to bringing more diagnostic services into community settings and to making healthcare more accessible to patients who might face barriers to hospital access, including those with mobility issues, caring responsibilities or limited transport options. We have committed, as part of our elective reform plan, to build up to five more CDCs as part of our £600 million capital investment for diagnostics in 2025-26.
We are also working to ensure that more CDCs are open 12 hours a day, seven days a week, to deliver more same-day tests and consultations, and an expanded range of tests. Since the Government came into office in July 2024, CDCs have delivered more than 10.9 million tests and scans. CDCs are a vital step in supporting our shift from hospital to community. They provide access to vital tests, scans and checks, closer to home, for patients with busy working lives. We are setting clear diagnostic performance expectations for NHS providers. Our medium-term planning guidance sets out the ambition for improvement in performance against the diagnostic six-week wait constitutional standard, so that, by March 2029, no more than 1% of patients wait more than six weeks from referral for a diagnostic test. We have set the interim milestone that, by March 2027, no more than 20% of patients wait over six weeks.
We recognise that significant improvements will be required in the performance of NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB. Performance is currently at 29.5%, as of November 2025, so there is clearly a long way to go. In 2025-26, NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB was allocated £49.3 million of capital funding from the constitutional standards recovery fund announced by the Chancellor at the spending review, with the aim of supporting NHS performance across secondary and emergency care, including by supporting new capacity and productivity improvements in diagnostic services. It is part of over £6 billion of additional capital investment over five years across new diagnostic, elective and urgent care capacity, to deliver the improvements to the NHS that patients need and deserve, so that the NHS is there for them when they need it.
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate.
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
Independent Water Commission: Final Report
(1 day, 4 hours 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
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Independent Water Commission Final Report.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, and my co-sponsors across the House and the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution, of which I am an officer, for their support in securing this important debate. West Dorset is home to the world-famous Jurassic coast, a UNESCO world heritage site, as well as three of Britain’s unique chalk streams. Few issues matter more to me or the people of West Dorset than the state of our water.
This debate was originally intended to take place before the publication of the Government’s water White Paper, so that Parliament could scrutinise the findings of the Independent Water Commission and assess what steps the Government intended to take in response. Instead, we find ourselves in a position where we are able to examine the commission’s final report and the White Paper together to see where they align, diverge and, most importantly, fall short of what the public expect, and to see the scale of the crisis that the response demands.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
If people in Torbay check the Surfers Against Sewage app today as I did, they will see that eight sites are monitored where there could be overflows of sewage. Six overflows have occurred so far this year at six of those sites, with two ongoing. We have also suffered a cryptosporidium outbreak in the past 18 months. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to stop tinkering with the system and have systemic reform to tackle such challenges?
Edward Morello
During my speech, I will outline some such recommendations. This is a good opportunity to thank Surfers Against Sewage for all its hard work. Like my hon. Friend, I use the app regularly before deciding whether to swim at my favourite beaches.
It is an understatement to say that the public’s confidence in the water sector has been damaged; it has been eroded by years of sewage pollution, repeated flooding, poor decision making, too little regulation, scattered legislation and a business model that has too often rewarded failure. This debate is more important than ever in the light of recent flooding, not just in West Dorset but across the south-west and the country as a whole.
Following Storm Chandra, communities again saw the devastating consequence of a system that has reached breaking point and that can react only after failure, rather than preventing it in the first place. Emergency services, whom I pay tribute to, have done an outstanding job, but residents were left dealing with sewage in their homes, damaged property and uncertainty about when it will happen again. In West Dorset alone, 84 homes in Yetminster experienced raw sewage flooding their properties. In Maiden Newton, one family has been flooded repeatedly since 2024, including just days after finally returning home following 15 months of repairs after the previous flood.
As the climate continues to change and extreme weather events become more frequent, that will only become a more common occurrence. Our infrastructure must become more resilient to deal with today’s problems and tomorrow’s.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am chair of the APPG for sustainable flood and drought management, and of the all-party parliamentary water group. On the White Paper, there is 25-year strategic planning, which is absolutely brilliant; regional knowledge and tactical interventions, which are absolutely brilliant; putting engineering capability at the heart of that strategic decision making; and a regulator that brings the economy and the environment together as one for the first time, which I think is important. Does he agree, however, that this is an opportunity to ensure that we do not miss out the maintenance of existing assets, as well as putting new ones in the ground with the extreme amount of investment that will go in over the next five, 10, 15 or 20 years? Does he also agree that we therefore need some sort of resilience standards to provide knowledge for the people applying such investment in the future?
Edward Morello
We as the Liberal Democrats always try to be a constructive Opposition, so I absolutely will identify where the White Paper makes steps in the right direction. I hope that the hon. Member will agree with some of our recommendations for where it can be improved.
The Independent Water Commission’s final report was a major and long-awaited milestone. It reflected unprecedented public engagement with more than 30,000 submissions from a public who are angry, frustrated and rightly demanding change. The report contains important proposals embedding public health into law, improving regional planning, strengthening monitoring, and replacing Ofwat with a new, integrated regulator. Those are steps in the right direction.
I want to put on record my thanks to the commissioners and the countless campaigners and volunteers, such as the River Lim Action group, Surfers Against Sewage and River Action, who have fought for cleaner rivers and seas for years. The report exists because of their continued pressure.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
My hon. Friend mentions the River Lim Action group that works on the boundary between his West Dorset constituency and mine. The group has identified that the sewage treatment works at Uplyme cannot cope with the amount of sewage that occurs during high rainfall. Does he agree that South West Water needs to put in more storage for sewage during periods of heavy rain?
Edward Morello
My hon. Friend works tirelessly on River Lim issues. I agree there are essential works throughout the system that need to be done if we are to reduce sewage release, but we need to do them in a way that does not pass the cost on to residents and consumers.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. He itemised those that do an excellent job, such as Surfers Against Sewage and others, and there is also Feargal Sharkey from my city of Londonderry who has campaigned on and championed these issues for many years. All these people are doing a magnificent job, but we need to see a strategic response from the Government to deliver what we all want to see.
Edward Morello
The hon. Member is right to highlight the work of Feargal Sharkey and the many campaigners around the UK who give up their free time to raise awareness of the issues in their local areas.
The central question for this House is whether the commission’s recommendations and the White Paper that followed go far enough to meet the scale of the challenge we face.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for his perseverance and dedication to the subject matter. I also pay tribute to his party’s members who always turn up and do their bit. The Independent Water Commission’s final report refers to a “fundamental reset” to address failing regulations that have negatively affected customers and the environment. Does the hon. Member agree that Government, and particularly the Minister, must be prepared to take the helm to ensure that the reset actually takes place and is not simply a change in name?
Edward Morello
The hon. Member is absolutely right. I shall come on to some of the recommendations that we believe are necessary to make it more than just a reset in name only.
Let me start with the reality in my constituency. In 2024, West Dorset recorded 4,200 sewage spills and the discharging of raw sewage for nearly 49,000 hours from 90 storm overflows. I have no doubt that other Members can cite similar, if not worse, statistics for their constituency. Only 11% of our monitored river sites reach “good” ecological status. The River Lim is categorised as ecologically dead. Rare chalk streams such as the River Frome, Wraxall brook and West Compton stream are under severe pressure, as are Atlantic salmon populations.
Tourism in West Dorset, worth over £322 million a year and supporting more than 5,000 jobs, is threatened by our poor water quality. My constituents, their children, the visitors who support our communities, and families, including my own, love our beautiful world-famous waterways, but no one should have to check an app on their phone to see whether it is safe to swim that day. The final report continually underlines the lack of public trust. To change this, reforms must be visible, transparent and public facing. If people are to believe that things are changing, they need to see progress, understand the standards and know that failure has consequences.
We need blue flag-style standards for rivers and chalk streams. Clear standards, mandatory testing and visible ratings would help rebuild trust. Where standards are met, confidence grows. Where they are not, communities can hold companies and regulators to account. Recommendation 3 of the report proposes a comprehensive systems planning framework, with regional water authorities responsible for integrated planning, funding, setting objectives, monitoring and convening stakeholders. That approach recognises that water does not respect administrative boundaries and neither should planning. Housing growth, agriculture, flood risk, river health and water supply must be considered together across Government Departments. The bodies must be statutory, democratically accountable and empowered to make binding decisions. Without that authority, we would risk repeating the mistakes of the past: endless consultation without delivery.
When I have previously argued that water companies should be made statutory consultees in the planning system, the Government have resisted that change. The water White Paper now states that Ministers
“will also consider the role of water and sewerage companies in relation to planning applications”
as part of the reforms to statutory consultees. That is a welcome change, but simply considering it is no longer enough. Making water companies and national landscapes statutory consultees for major developments would be a preventive, low-cost reform that aligns planning decisions with environmental reality, reducing flood risk.
The commission is also right to highlight the importance of pre-pipe solutions. Recommendation 10 calls for legislative changes to expand pre-pipe solutions, so that we can stop pollutants and rainwater entering the system in the first place. In too many places, combined sewers are overwhelmed by rainfall that mixes with raw sewage and triggers spills. That is not sustainable in a changing climate.
We need a long-term national rainwater management strategy, with sustainable drainage systems being mandatory in all new developments, and a serious programme of retrofitting in existing communities. Rainwater harvesting should become the norm. We must bring ourselves in line with modern housing standards and our European neighbours, just as minimum solar requirements are being made mandatory, thanks to the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). Those are low-carbon, cost-effective and resilient solutions. They would reduce pressure on sewers, lower flood risk and protect rivers, but the White Paper only gestures vaguely in that direction. Without clear, consistent standards and funding, progress will remain slow.
On regulation, the commission calls to replace Ofwat with a new integrated regulator, which is welcome and overdue. The Liberal Democrats have called for exactly that since 2022. Ofwat’s primary duty to ensure reasonable returns has shaped a culture that has tolerated pollution, debt loading and under-investment. A regulator with explicit duties to protect public health and the environment is a step forward.
I am glad that the White Paper has stated that the Government will commit to a new regulator by abolishing Ofwat and bringing together the relevant water system functions from existing regulators—Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the Environment Agency and Natural England—into one new body. But again, that alone is not enough. That body must have teeth: it must be properly resourced, independent and willing to enforce the law.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Public Accounts Committee recently had a hearing on environmental regulation with the Environment Agency and Natural England. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the transition to a new regulator is a huge undertaking and that there is a risk while it is being set up? We must not take our eyes off the enforcement and regulation of water companies to ensure that we reduce the amount of their pollution in the meantime.
Edward Morello
I 100% share the hon. Lady’s concerns that water companies will exploit this moment in time. The public are calling out for firmer action, so the speed of the transition is vital.
Existing legislation already requires sewage to be treated effectively, and allows storm overflows only in exceptional circumstances, but the Government have admitted that overflows are being used far beyond their original purpose. Investigations have shown illegal discharge even on dry days. The Office for Environmental Protection has concluded that regulators have failed to comply with existing environmental law. The first task of the new regulator must be to enforce what is already on the statute book and to review permits across the system.
The commission also highlights the need for stronger customer protection. Recommendation 41 proposes strengthening the C-MeX—customer measure of experience—incentive and moving to a supervisory approach. That reflects the reality that customer experience has not improved, despite financial incentives. People paying their bills expect reliable service, timely responses and basic competence—not call centres that do not answer and complaints that disappear into the void.
That brings me to the question of accountability and ownership. The White Paper recognises the unsustainable debt levels created by the current model, and talks about attracting long-term, low-risk investors. It also introduces new performance improvement regimes. But there is a real risk of tinkering around the edges while leaving a fundamentally broken model intact. As long as water companies exist primarily to generate profit, decisions will be shaped by that motive alone.
Alternative models across Europe deliver lower bills, higher investment relative to debt, and fewer discharges. Both the commission and the White Paper fail to engage seriously with those models. In West Dorset, we are served by Wessex Water and in a small part by South West Water. My constituents see a pattern of rewarding failure across the water system that is impossible to justify during a cost of living crisis.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Last year, bosses of Wessex Water received £50,000 in extra pay—more than many people in Yeovil earn in a year—from the parent company, while constituents in Ilminster report that they cannot swim in their rivers without risking getting sick. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must now ensure that sewage dumping at bathing sites ends by 2030 and that water bosses get no extra pay until sewage spills stop?
Edward Morello
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the issues in his constituency. At a time when people are paying higher and higher water bills, there is understandably a sense of frustration with the outlandish bonuses being paid to executive bosses overseeing this failure.
Between 2020 and 2021, water company executives paid themselves £51 million in remuneration, including £30.6 million in bonuses. I am glad that the Government have started to take action on this behaviour in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, but it is not enough. In 2022 alone, water and sewage companies paid out £1.4 billion in dividends, nearly three times as much as the year before, while household bills rose and families were forced to make difficult decisions. All the time, sewage continued to be pumped into our rivers and beaches.
We need a proactive, evidence-based assessment of alternative ownership models before the water reform Bill is finalised. Water companies should be redesigned with public benefit and environmental protection as their core purpose. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a new ownership model, with water companies mutually owned by customers and professionally managed. The special administration regime exists to protect customers and the environment when companies fail. Thames Water is the clearest example of a company that has failed financially, operationally and environmentally. We need transparent criteria for when the SAR will be triggered and a clear plan for using it to transition companies to public benefit models where necessary.
Affordability must also be central to reform. It was not mentioned enough in the final commission report. Families are already under intense pressure from the cost of living crisis. Environmental improvement cannot be paid for on the backs of those least able to afford it. It must be paid for by those who caused the problem. Bills must be fair, and investment must be efficient, long-term and low-risk. Financial penalties must be ringfenced for infrastructure upgrades and nature-based solutions, not absorbed as a cost of doing business.
The commission’s call to end operator self-monitoring is welcome, as is the move towards open monitoring and near-real-time data. The speeding ticket-style fines previously introduced by this Government should also be welcomed. However, credibility depends on independent testing, frequent inspections and proper funding for regulators. Data must be accessible, understandable and trusted by the public.
We cannot clean up our rivers by focusing on sewage alone. Agriculture accounts for pollution in about 40% of water bodies. Farmers are essential partners, but are struggling in our current system of underfunding. The system must support prevention at source by supporting our farmers and helping them to tackle water pollution through better funding and guidance.
This is a huge opportunity for cross-party consensus, legislative reform and long-term thinking and change. The support across the House for it is a testament to the scale of the problem, but also to people’s willingness to collaborate on the future. The Independent Water Commission has laid important foundations, and the White Paper moves the conversation forward, but neither goes far enough on its own. Change must be public-facing, rooted in public benefit and focused on prevention rather than clean-up. It must restore trust—trust that politics can deliver change, that regulators will enforce the law, that legislation passed in this House will make a difference and can change the sector, and that water companies will finally put people and the environment before profit.
Communities such as mine in West Dorset cannot afford another decade of half-measures. Our rivers, our coastlines, our communities, our health and our homes are at risk. I hope we can seize this moment to deliver the transformational reform that the public rightly want.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I remind all Members who wish to speak that they need to continue to bob throughout the debate, so that we know. If everyone sticks to about five minutes, we should get everybody in comfortably.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this important debate.
My constituents in Shipley, with the lovely River Wharfe and River Aire flowing through, have been outraged at the levels of water pollution in them. They face high bills, while leaking infrastructure causes damage to roads and homes. Companies such as Yorkshire Water have been failing us for years now. We suffered last year from a failure to invest in new reservoirs, with an almost year-long drought starting in the spring.
I very much welcome the fact that this Labour Government have come in with a determination to tackle those issues. I was pleased to vote for and support the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which made sure we took immediate action to clamp down on the obscene bosses’ bonuses, including those that the chief exec of Yorkshire Water was receiving. Very sadly, the Kelda holdings company, which owns Yorkshire Water, also paid her a sort of behind-the-scenes £1.3 million extra payment, which I and others have been urging her to donate or give back. I hope that in future the companies meet the spirit of the legislation.
I welcome the work of Sir Jon Cunliffe in bringing forward the Independent Water Commission. I put in a submission to the review, setting out some actions that I felt were necessary for fundamental reform of the water industry, so that it works better in the interests of customers and the public by clamping down on the illegal discharges of sewage, which are all too frequent. I am pleased to see that the Government have addressed quite a number of those issues in the water White Paper. I put on record my thanks to the People’s Water Commission, a group of campaigners, researchers and experts who came together to engage the public on their views about water. I particularly thank Becky Malby, a local resident who is involved in the Ilkley Clean River Group.
I sit on the Public Accounts Committee; I do not know whether that is part of my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Committee has recently undertaken two reports, the first on water regulation and the second, not yet published, on environmental regulation. I will briefly quote findings from the first report:
“Ofwat has failed to prevent companies taking excessive dividends, increasing levels of debt and setting up complex company structures, all of which have reduced their financial resilience. The sector’s risk profile has risen and customers must now pay investors higher returns as a result.”
To illustrate the point, my own Yorkshire Water bill shows that 23% is just to finance debt, while 17% is spent on infrastructure investment. How can that be? Unfortunately, there is no end in sight for the bill payers being made to pay that debt. I urge the Minister to say how she will change the gearing of those companies that are so indebted. Despite the figures of £104 billion in investment and, for Yorkshire Water, £8.3 billion, it does not seem as if the shareholders are actually putting their hands in their pocket. It is the customers who will have to pay for the infrastructure upgrade and for the past failure of companies to invest.
I would like to draw attention to a couple of other points on which I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance. I warmly welcome the creation of a new regulator, as the Public Accounts Committee has recommended. How will we ensure that it has the right skills and resources? The previous Government cut funding to the Environment Agency, which meant that it failed to do its job of prosecuting some incidents; I am pleased that under this Government we now have many cases in hand. The regulator needs skills to take action on the finances, given the complex structures.
How will we ensure that customers’ money is going where they want? How will the regulator take action on pollution and work with the Environment Agency on how farmers, who face many regulations, can play their part in cleaning up our rivers and seas? I urge the Minister to take all the actions in the water White Paper to make sure that companies such as Yorkshire Water are properly held to account in future.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this debate. He shares my passion for tackling water pollution, which is why we work together on the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution, which I set up when I joined this place to represent the interests of my constituents and citizens across the country who are passionate about the issue. I did so in recognition of the fact that, unfortunately, the all-party parliamentary water group has a secretariat run by the water industry. It was therefore vital to get citizens’ voices into Parliament on this issue.
Lee Pitcher
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary water group. It is managed in-house; it was all brought in-house, so there is absolutely no external body. That is why we did it: because we wanted the APPG to be totally independent.
Dr Chowns
I thank the hon. Member for that clarification, and I am delighted to hear that in this Parliament that has been changed. Historically, it was run by the water industry, which is why it was necessary to set up a new group.
I will confine my comments today to the two elephants in the room: ownership and agriculture. They are effectively missing from the Independent Water Commission. They are effectively missing from the water White Paper. That is frankly extraordinary. Why did the Government prevent the Cunliffe commission from looking at those two crucial issues? Without addressing them, we cannot tackle the problems in the water sector.
Privatisation of water has comprehensively failed. Privatised water companies have paid £85 billion in dividends to shareholders since privatisation, and they have racked up debts of £65 billion. All the while, leaks have been proliferating, infrastructure has been crumbling, there has been a failure to build reservoirs, and customers have been paying hand over fist for poorer and poorer service. It is completely unacceptable.
Nearly every river in England is polluted. England’s bathing water quality is the fifth worst in Europe. England’s surface water quality is the seventh worst in Europe. Over 1 trillion litres of water were leaked in 2024. I have already mentioned the £85 billion paid to shareholders and the £65 billion of debt. Privatisation will cost customers a further £22 billion over the next five years, because that is the return on capital that has been set by Ofwat. Around a third of customer bills now service corporate debt, and Ofwat allowed bills to go up by 26% this financial year alone—an average of £123 per household.
That is a failing water system. No other country in the democratic world has privatised its water system to the degree that we have in this country. It is clear that a market-based approach to the water sector simply does not work. Water is a natural monopoly. Customers have absolutely zero choice. Water is a public good and should be in public hands, so that it works for public benefit. Why did the Government prevent the Independent Water Commission from even looking at that question?
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The Rye brook in Ashtead, which runs past local schools, has suffered loads of raw sewage leaks. It feeds into the River Mole, which has seen 3,000 hours of storm overflows in January 2026. The run-off pollutes local chalk streams as well. The hon. Lady might be interested to know that, while the report also ignored reforming water companies, it mentioned chalk streams only twice. Does she agree that privatisation is not working and that we need to bring water companies into mutually owned public benefit companies and end the sewage scandal for good?
Dr Chowns
We need to bring water companies into public ownership, because only by running water for public good will we tackle the scandal that has been caused by privatisation in recent decades. Some 82% of the British public want water to be in public ownership. That is more than the percentage who want the railways to be in public ownership, so why are the Government so opposed to it? They are very fond of citing completely imaginary figures about the supposed cost of doing so, but Thames Water, for example, apparently has a market value of £4 billion, judging by the last market offer, and faces a repair bill of £23 billion, so in effect its value is nil. We could take it into public ownership at zero cost and run water for public benefit.
The second lacuna in the work of the Independent Water Commission and the water White Paper is agriculture. Why did the Government prevent the Independent Water Commission from looking at agricultural pollution? We know that diffuse agricultural pollution is half the problem, so we cannot ignore it. It is another elephant in the room, and we have to focus on addressing it, together with farmers, who are crying out for support to do that.
To give the Independent Water Commission some credit, it did actually look at the issue and mentioned it in its conclusions. It says on page 20 of the final report that
“agriculture has the most significant environmental impact on water bodies in England and Wales.”
In fact, almost the very next sentence cited the River Wye in my North Herefordshire constituency, where problems relating to diffuse agricultural pollution have led to huge economic, social and environmental problems.
A few pages later, the Independent Water Commission said that the Government’s water strategy
“should be cross-sectoral, setting out in one place the requirements on all the sectors impacting on or interacting with the water environment…including agriculture”.
Yet on only one of its 50 pages did the Government’s White Paper talk about agriculture. That is not a comprehensive, joined-up strategy.
As the Independent Water Commission pointed out,
“achieving a future environmental target for water…will depend more and more upon reducing the contribution of agricultural pollution.”
We must work with our farmers—the stewards of our land—to tackle this problem. It is more than half the issue, and the Government can no longer ignore it. I beg the Minister to please give it the same attention that we rightly give to the water and sewage companies. Without a comprehensive approach, we will simply fail to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I gently remind Members that if they cannot stick to five minutes or less, those at the end of the list will get a lot less.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy.
I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this important and timely debate on the Independent Water Commission’s final report and the Government’s White Paper, which will move forward with many of the commission’s recommendations. I put on the record my thanks to and respect for the Minister for setting up the commission. I also thank Sir Jon Cunliffe and his team for their forensic assessment of our water industry—many recognise its fundamentally flawed, if not completely broken, state.
Since being elected, I have heard from constituents about flooding, sewage discharges and water infrastructure failures. I have heard from families worried about river pollution, from businesses concerned about the resilience of supply, and from residents frustrated that the problems they see locally are addressed so slowly. For too long, the sector has been characterised by fragmented planning, overlapping regulation and ageing infrastructure, so the proposal to establish a single integrated regulator, alongside setting out a clearer long-term strategic vision for the sector, is an important step forward in restoring public trust and delivering the resilient water system our country desperately needs.
As a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I am particularly conscious that reform has to be judged not only on its intent but on delivery. As Sir Jon did, the White Paper is right to identify the historical lack of joined-up, long-term planning as a central weakness. About 60% of water mains were built before 1981, and a significant proportion are now more than a century old. I have seen the effects of that in my village of Norton Canes, and in Rugeley, where water companies have struggled even to work out who owns the broken pipes.
Public confidence in the sector continues to be shaped by the visible impact of pollution and sewage discharge. My constituency is served by Severn Trent and South Staffs Water, and performance across the sector demonstrates both areas of progress and ongoing public concern. Although Severn Trent has achieved long-term strong performance ratings in some operational areas, data shows that in 2024 there were more than 450,000 hours of discharge in its area alone. That contrast illustrates why stronger transparency, oversight and accountability are essential if reforms are to rebuild public confidence. I therefore welcome proposals to move towards open monitoring, to ensure that companies are no longer effectively marking their own homework.
As has been said, agricultural run-off contributes significantly to water pollution in some catchments. That has to be part of any long-term strategy if we are serious about improving river health and water quality, but it needs to be tackled in partnership with farmers, rather than characterising them as wilful polluters of the waterways that they rely on. The move towards integrated regional water planning could be a significant step forward in that respect. In constituencies like mine, effective co-ordination when it comes to flood prevention, agricultural practice, environmental regulation, planning and economic growth is essential. Regional planning could deliver more preventive and nature-based solutions, but it will require clarity about governance, accountability and its relationship with water company investment decisions.
On accountability, as a member of the Co-operative party I was glad that the Government make powerful customer panels a key plank of last year’s reforms. For too long, customers have felt completely disempowered, but with the incredible work of citizen scientists, and the action taken by the Government, that is starting to change. I note that the commission’s final report was lukewarm about the mutual model for water companies, because of a perceived risk to customers, but I hope the Minister will continue to look at ways we could incorporate co-operative principles into reforms to the sector, up to and including mutual ownership if that would resolve some of the issues.
Before I conclude, I cannot speak on this topic without referring to executive bonuses, given the galling payments we have seen for senior figures in failing water companies, despite the action taken by the Government in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. It is shameful that we have got to a point with the water industry where the Government cannot trust bosses to follow the spirit of the law, and instead have to take further action because bosses who would not earn performance-related bonuses would rather spend their time cooking up creative ways of re-labelling bonuses with their legal teams, or re-routing bonuses with their accountants, than spend their time cleaning up the filth that our constituents are paying through the nose for. If they will flout the spirit of the law, the letter of the law will have to change. I am glad we have a Government who are decisive about the need to do that.
The Independent Water Commission has provided a clear diagnosis of the challenges facing our water system. The Government’s White Paper sets out an ambitious pathway for reform in many areas, and I welcome its focus on long-term planning, stronger regulation and improved environmental outcomes. Clearly, the task ahead is to ensure that reforms translate into real-world improvements that our constituents can see and feel.
Lee Pitcher
It is important to put on the record that lots of the people who work for the water companies and lots of farmers out there are feeling the reputational hit from what is going on. Accountability needs to be held at the decision-making level. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to recognise the people who are out there on the frontline day in, day out, and in the offices, making sure that pollution incidents do not occur and that leaks are fixed, and that it is not their fault at all? They are working really hard, including by leaving their families late at night, to try to make things better.
Josh Newbury
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has often heard from water company bosses that the criticisms of their companies are impacting morale on the frontline, but we point out that if any bonuses are available to people on the frontline, they are certainly not of the order of those the bosses are receiving. I absolutely agree that we need to respect those people and make sure their voices are heard as we reform the sector.
As I was saying, we need to see safer waterways, more reliable infrastructure and a water system that is fit for the future. I am grateful for the opportunity to have spoken in the debate.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing the debate. I also thank my many constituents who, quite rightly, have grave concerns about this matter and have written to me about it.
My party has made its dissatisfaction with the White Paper clear, and my colleagues are making the case strongly again today. We have been leading the charge in calling for a comprehensive approach to tackling what is nothing short of a crisis in the water sector. The Government made tackling this crisis an important pillar of their election campaign, so it is deeply disappointing that the reforms set out in the water White Paper fall far short of what the situation demands. The system is in dire straits and requires a complete overhaul, but instead the Government offer only the lightest of plans that fail to beef up regulations in a meaningful manner or provide funding provision for enforcement. Although the abolition of Ofwat is welcome, the uncertainty around its replacement is unhelpful.
Farmers need proper support to tackle agricultural run-off, which accounts for around 40% of water pollution. As stewards of the land, they are inevitably stewards of our water as well. How can it be that we have allowed corporate greed to run rampant, and allowed these companies to have presided over the routine pumping of filth into the waterways of this land? It is quite remarkable. All the while, the good people of the west country have seen their bills soar, some by as much as threefold. The Government offer only the lightest of plans: weak regulation, no meaningful enforcement and no funding to ensure compliance.
As my constituency straddles the Somerset-Devon border, we are in the unenviable position of having two water companies: Wessex Water and South West Water. I think it is fair to say that I have made my views on South West Water clear before, and I will once again direct my ire at South West Water, because its behaviour, inertia and refusal to acknowledge the gravity of situations of its own making has been pitiful. Just a week ago, I raised the matter of my poor constituents at Bawdens bakery in Bampton, who have been forced to close and sell up because their property has flooded so many times. I had a most unhelpful meeting with the director of South West Water, who showed only his complete complacence and, I have to say, arrogance, to such an extent that I had to ask him and his staff to leave.
The public health implications are grave. I have heard horror stories from constituents whose children have fallen seriously ill after swimming in local rivers. The beaches at Dunster and Blue Anchor now carry the dreaded brown flag status. It is a shameful state of affairs. Is it really too much for the British public to expect clean water as a basic right?
At the risk of being blunt and somewhat crude, suffice it to say that the Tiverton sewage works absolutely reek every time it rains—and anyone familiar with the west country will know how often that is. It is inexcusable and utterly foul. It is a stench and a situation more in character with the 12th century, certainly not the 21st. I could be more colourful with my description, but I will spare colleagues and preserve my own sanity.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
With noble exception of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), we have not been entirely successful at sticking to five minutes. I must ask those remaining to keep to below four minutes so that we can try to get everybody in.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing the debate. We inherited the most dysfunctional water system imaginable. The governance was not there and there was no accountability in the system. Labour came in to put that right. Although we have gone so far on that journey, and I congratulate the Minister on the legislation we have passed and the legislation to come, there is clearly so much to do.
My city of York is based on two rivers that flood and, with all the pollutants in the water, it is a crisis when that occurs. In 2023, there were 16,357 hours of sewage releases on the River Ouse and another 3,254 hours on the Foss. We now know that the Foss has the worst levels of pharmaceutical pollutants—which we have not heard about in this debate—of any river in Europe. I draw the Minister’s attention to the work being undertaken by the University of York in its Ecomix project, which is looking at 1,000 different chemicals—whether from agriculture, pharmaceuticals, cleaning products, personal care products or things like tyre additives—in order to raise standards. We have to know what is in our rivers so that we can address the issues.
Although we have come so far with the excellent report by Sir Jon Cunliffe, there is clearly more to do. I again draw the Minister’s attention to the work of the University of York—it is such a leader in the field—and its action for quality aquatic environments project, which is drawing citizens into the science project to detect chemical and biological pollutants in order to put things right in the future. That mass community research enables communities not only to own their rivers but to press for change. They pressed me to take part in this debate, and I am grateful for that.
We must move forward. This country had the reputation of being the “dirty man of Europe”. That changed, particularly under the last Labour Government, and yet standards have slipped back so much over the last 14 years that we are getting that reputation again. It is important that we maintain those standards, and we should be adopting the principles of European legislation—the urban wastewater treatment directive—into our legislation, ensuring that we close that gap on pollutants and move forward so our water can be safe again. We must also move to ban the dangerous forever chemicals that are finding their way into our waterways. There is too much flexibility about the chemicals that people have been using, and keeping our waterways safe is really important.
I want to raise the issue of our infrastructure and modernising our sewerage system, which is predominantly still based on the Victorian infrastructure of the past and does not segregate rainwater from sewage. That is causing so many problems. We need those investments to come at pace. We need to ensure that, locally, we are measuring and reporting the scourge of what is happening in our waterways.
As has already been mentioned, Yorkshire Water has failed. Bills have gone up and accountability has gone down, and the chief executive is taking eye-watering sums of funding. We need better governance and, with all these failing contracts, we need to move water into public ownership again.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for introducing this important debate—I have to say, it feels like the nth debate that we have had on this issue. I am getting a very strong sense of déjà vu from standing here and in the Chamber and speaking about water. Sadly, I suspect I will stand here and speak on this subject many more times over the coming years.
I know the Minister is passionate about this subject. There are some aspects of the White Paper that I welcome, but I feel that it does not go far enough. I will come on to specifics in a moment, but right now I want to share a mental image. In my constituency, at least 16 sewage outflows are spewing sewage into our rivers—just picture that. With the current stuck weather system and more rain expected, that is set to continue. I find that really distressing and I am sure that everybody here does too.
The central problem is that the water system is now built around profit. The privatised model has failed. That is a serious market failure, and it needs to be remedied. I am not here to defend Margaret Thatcher’s vision—far from it—which was that we would go from being a nation of shopkeepers to a country of shareholders. The somewhat foreseeable consequence of that was that people—individuals and private share owners—would sell their shares, and so we have ended up with big institutions owning our water companies and exploiting them as vehicles purely for profit. That profit motive does not sit well with a vital public utility.
I will point out four recurring failures in the Government’s approach, on this issue and possibly on others: they lack the courage to truly grasp the nettle on failing systems; they are overlooking nature-based solutions, despite strong evidence that they work; they are misunderstanding farming, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) referenced, and ignoring the dual role that farmers play as part of the problem and as a big part of the solution; and they are failing to unleash people power.
Nature-based solutions are still being treated as an afterthought, despite evidence that constructed wetlands can remove 60% to 90% of nitrates and phosphates. Nature can be a great ally in this, and there is no downside to using nature-based solutions. The approach on agriculture is piecemeal and inadequate. Agriculture accounts for about 40% of water pollution in English rivers, but the proposed action is seriously underpowered. We need environmental land management funding to be better targeted at water outcomes, and we need to include farmers to unleash what they know about their land. To restore faith in the water industry we need transparency and accountability. We could unleash the power of citizen science to monitor water, as residents are the people most motivated to track water quality.
Finally, I return to the fundamental issue of water company ownership. The Liberal Democrats are calling for Thames Water to be converted into a public benefit company, or possibly a mutual company owned by its customers. Changing ownership of Thames Water is the only way to solve this problem for the long term. I thank the Government for where they have gone, but I beg them to go so much further.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for giving us this opportunity to speak about water today.
My constituents have written to me pretty consistently since I came to this place about the water industry with concerns about sewage discharges, bonuses paid to water bosses, flooding and their bills. I do feel that their concerns—in emails and conversations through casework, surgeries and a specific roundtable—have been heard and fed into this this consultation. Our White Paper, published as a response to the Independent Water Commission’s final report, will tackle some of these issues head-on, by bringing forward, strengthening and streamlining regulation.
I will focus my speech on sewage discharges and flooding, and the impact they have on my constituency. Leicestershire has again had significant rainfall, and a flood warning is still in place today on the northern edge of my constituency. Coupled with that, sewage has poured into our waterways in North West Leicestershire for 15,000 hours. That is not just physically, but mentally challenging for my constituents.
I have spoken about residents in Whitwick before, but today I will speak about another set of residents who were flooded just before Christmas. The desperation that people experience when sewage water enters their property is really difficult for them to bear; indeed, it is visible on their faces. We must do better for them, and the water industry really needs to clean up its act. I visited Mary, who has a smallholding in Donington le Heath. She became so frustrated by the outflow release on her smallholding that she collected a bag of sewer debris from a recent release and popped it on the table during a meeting we had with representatives from Severn Trent Water. They were left with no doubt about her feeling that the company consistently drops sewage on to her land. Such is the frustration of local people.
Sir Jon Cunliffe’s report recommends a review into key legislation about urban waste water treatment, reducing pollutants and tackling sewage releases that went unaddressed for 15 long years under the previous Government. My constituents will be reassured that our White Paper will set out ambitions to tackle sewage misuse, prevent sewer blockages, help maximise sewer capacity, and reduce pollution incidents and therefore sewage flooding. That is a core example of constituents raising concerns, a direct report being commissioned to find solutions, and a Government listening to people.
On a separate note, it is encouraging to see water companies finally investing in ageing infrastructure. However, constituents are often frustrated by their water bills going up and about how, for example, the long-awaited improvements in Coalville, which could address the issue in Donington le Heath, are still four years away. I would welcome the Minister firmly reassuring my constituents that they will see improvements, and the necessary re-establishing of trust between consumers and water companies off the back of the final report.
Since being elected, I have engaged whenever and wherever possible with efforts to strengthen the water sector, and I was proud to sit on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee. Building on our work here in Parliament, I was pleased to see the Environment Secretary confirm that the water White Paper will be followed by a transition plan and a water reform Bill, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks on that.
I also thank Sir Jon Cunliffe. I do not think anybody could be as passionate about the water sector as he is. It is quite clear from the things he has said, and from the way that he has addressed this real problem for the UK, that he has a passion and indeed a vision for change, which matches our Government’s ambition. I will just take this opportunity to thank Sir Jon for his work.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this debate, which is timely and very important. The Cunliffe report is seriously flawed, in that it did not consider public ownership of the industry or agriculture, which is a major polluter, as other colleagues have already pointed out.
Privatisation of water has been an absolute disaster from the very beginning, when many of us at the time warned against it. It has resulted in £72 billion being taken out of the industry in dividends and profits, and fantastic levels of executive pay. It has left behind pollution and flooding, with the cost of the pollution, flooding and foul water being borne by the public—our constituents—who are increasingly angry about it.
By any standard, river quality is appalling right across the country and is one of the worst anywhere in Europe. That is caused by the mixing of rainwater with sewage waste, and by agricultural run-offs that have a devastating effect. The River Wye is just one example of how awful the rivers can become, because of agricultural waste run-offs—hon. Members who drew attention to that are absolutely right. The waste of water from leaks is a huge problem, and I think I am right that the totality of leaks across the whole country would fill the whole of Loch Ness every year.
Therefore, instead of calling for new reservoirs to be built, should we not look at much better water management, rainwater retention and water distribution across the country? In England, the biggest water consumers are in London and the south-east, which is, broadly speaking, the driest part of the country. The wettest part of the country is the midlands and the north-west. Clearly, moving water from one part to the other makes a lot of sense. Can we not have some sense surrounding the organisation of water distribution?
Anna Dixon
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that under the previous Government, light-touch regulation left our infrastructure crumbling? It is right that there will be asset mapping under the new proposals, so that we can finally know the state of the infrastructure and whether these investments are actually fixing the leaks.
Jeremy Corbyn
Absolutely. The state of the infrastructure does need to be examined. Like many Members, my constituents have endless complaints about that. Thames Water is one of the most frequent visitors to my constituency; it digs up the roads frequently. With the resulting road closures—which are absurd—Thames Water is much better at traffic management than Transport for London, actually.
I would also ask that we look much more seriously at river basin management. I remember visiting York with the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) during the flooding at that time. We had a long discussion with the Environment Agency about planning for flooding, which would involve restoring peatlands, upland planting, reintroducing beavers and others into rivers—that has an effect on a small scale, with lots of rivers and streams—and restoring floodplains. Those sorts of things are some of the most important things we can do.
Water should be taken back into public ownership—not old-style public ownership, with a board of governors or directors appointed by the Government, but a popular form of public ownership that would involve the brilliant workforce in all those companies, and their knowledge. The directors would come from them, and from local communities, businesses, local authorities and unions, so we would have a locally and popular-based water industry in our society. We could do it. Why don’t we try that?
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I call Charlie Maynard, but the bad news is that I can only give him three minutes.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello).
I am going to move very quickly. I thank Sir Jon Cunliffe and all the campaigners in my constituency. I note that Blake primary school had to close on Friday because of sewage—the fourth time in the last two and a half months. Bills have gone up: we are paying 9.75% interest with Thames Water. I thank Alex Lipp and Jonny Dawe for putting together sewagemap.co.uk—a fantastic website that tracks what is going on and where.
The “ultimate controller” definition is mentioned 16 times in the Independent Water Commission’s final report. I welcome the proposal in paragraph 700, which would allow an enforceable undertaking against ultimate controllers. However, that will work only if Ofwat is doing its job properly and recognising companies as ultimate controllers. As the Minister knows, the equity of Thames Water is now zero, with most of the investors having written down their equity investment in full, and some having taken away their board representation nearly two years ago. That leaves the debt holders—the class A creditors—holding the majority of the company’s debt. They have now set up the London & Valley Water consortium to co-ordinate their interests.
The water sector is a regulated sector, with the ultimate controller designation being critical. To meet that definition, an entity only has to
“materially influence the policy or affairs”
of Thames Water. There is no limit on how many entities meet that criterion or whether there are equity or debt holders. Clearly, the consortium more than meets that definition as it is, in effect, the only significant party left standing across either Thames Water’s debt or equity structure.
As per the regulation, Thames Water must inform Ofwat even of potential changes in its ultimate controllers. Ofwat then requires water companies to obtain legally enforceable undertakings from each of their ultimate controllers. That has not happened in the case of the class A creditors, and I believe this is a rig-up between the Treasury, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Ofwat, Thames Water and the class A creditors. That is not good enough. It is in contravention of our regulations.
I have repeatedly asked Ministers to explain, in the main Chamber, in the Business and Trade Committee, in this Chamber and in the press, why they believe that the class A creditor consortium does not meet the ultimate controller test. I have received either no answer— most recently from the Minister three weeks ago, when she refused point-blank to give me an answer in the main Chamber—or obfuscation. Please, will the Minister now answer the question? Does she consider the London & Valley Water consortium to meet the ultimate controller test with regard to its material influence over Thames Water, and if not, why not?
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to all Back-Bench colleagues for their co-operation. We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, beginning with that of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Sir Jeremy. I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate so far, which has been interesting and thoughtful, but especially my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing another really important debate on this broad issue.
As a party, we made this issue the centrepiece of our campaign in the 2024 general election, so all of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches feel that we are here with a mandate to fight for change. It is a joy and a pleasure to work alongside others from all parties in trying to achieve that. It was an honour to meet and present evidence to Sir Jon Cunliffe as he put together his report, and to work with the Minister and others, whom I enjoyed spending time with on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee—I suspect a sequel to come, and we all look forward to it.
We all agree that—as the Independent Water Commission’s final report correctly identifies—the system is very badly broken, not only in the performance of water companies but in the basic, deep injustice of a water industry that seems to be self-serving, not serving the community. In 2024, 3.6 million hours of sewage dumping took place in our lakes, rivers and seas. At the same time, Ofwat failed to enforce a single fine over a four-year period.
Water companies are getting collective bonuses worth £20 million in the last full year of data, and yet those are not rewards for success, because only 14% of our rivers are meeting a healthy standard, with more than half a million sewage spills into our waterways just last year. Bills are rising and yet, as we have heard from others, in so many cases a massive chunk of those bills—11% if people live in the United Utilities area in the north-west of England, in my constituency—is going to pay off service debt. In the Thames region, people pay more than 30% of their bill just to service the debt.
While the Government have often taken action to try to ban bonuses, the water companies shamelessly shimmy their way around that. We have heard a couple of examples today already: Southern Water’s chief executive had his pay double to £1.4 million, largely through a two-year, long-term incentive plan; and we heard the outrageous story of the chief executive of Yorkshire Water, paid £1.3 million through the company’s holding company. That is breaking the ban in spirit, and surely in reality, too—certainly in the eyes of our constituents.
In my communities of Westmorland, water matters massively. We are home to Windermere, Ullswater, Coniston, Grasmere and Rydal Water, and to many rivers, but from the Eea to the Eden, from the Crake to the Kent, last year alone we had 5,000 sewage discharge incidents and 55,000 hours of raw sewage pumped into our rivers, lakes and coastal areas. The commission has mostly been on the money, so to speak, when it has assessed the problem. This is an industry that performs appallingly on the pollution of our waterways, and it behaves appallingly in response to its own failure.
We agree with much of what is in the final report. We agree with having a single regulator, for which the Liberal Democrats have been calling for years. We should merge Ofwat, the regulatory parts of the Environment Agency, and others to create a powerful regulator that the water companies will actually be afraid of, and that the public respect. We would call it the clean water authority. We hope that the Government will copy our homework further.
Some failures and submissions, however, we are deeply concerned about. The Government fail to grasp that while stronger regulation is really important, ownership is also important. The failure of Thames Water, a cause which my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) champions—as do many others—is an outrage, but it is also a massive opportunity for the Government to use the special administration regime and move that company into a mutual form of ownership, so that it is owned by its customers. That could create a new model of ownership for the whole industry—one that leverages capital investment to ensure that environmental and social concerns, and clean water, are absolutely at the pinnacle of the purpose of those companies, not rapacious profiteering.
Such a model would provide the opportunity for water campaigners and environmental groups to find their way on to those boards. In my community, there is the Save Windermere campaign, the Clean River Kent campaign, the Eden Rivers Trust and the South Cumbria Rivers Trust, but citizens, societies and volunteers across all of our constituencies would have a part to play in those new, mutually-owned water companies. That would make a difference.
The Government have made no attempt, either in the White Paper or through the report, to look at the problem with volume that we are all concerned about. We often talk about the number of hours of discharge into our lakes, rivers and seas, and that is an important measurement, but the reason we mention that and not volume is because we are not allowed to know the volume. The Liberal Democrats believe passionately that volume should also be measured, but the water companies do not want that, which is a reason to ensure that we force it to happen.
On bathing waters, the Government should have a mandate to end the sewage dumping in bathing sites by 2030, and we should be testing them throughout the year and more regularly—not just the often inaccurate snapshots that we have at the moment. On bonuses, we call for the law to be strengthened further, so that water company bosses cannot carry on dodging losing their bonuses via the back door.
The commission’s final report rightly identifies many of the problems that our constituents believe are serious and need to be addressed. However, while it contains many worthwhile proposals, such as a united regulator, it does not face up to the desperate and obvious need for a transformation of the ownership model, for deeper and stronger regulations, and for a bonus ban that actually bans bonuses.
When Water UK, the industry body that represents the water companies, comes out as it did to endorse the Government’s approach to water reform, that is all the proof we need that this Government’s approach continues to be, I am afraid, a bit wet. We need a plan for a radical transformation of the water industry, but so far, I am sad to say, this is not it.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, on my first outing on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this important debate, and I join Members who have welcomed the work of Sir Jon Cunliffe. I thank local action groups across England that are campaigning hard and cleaning up our waterways, and the employees in our water industry working hard, day in, day out, to make a difference within the framework that they operate in.
I took note of the rivers that were mentioned during the debate: the River Lim in West Dorset, plus two chalk streams that I am afraid I missed; the Rivers Wharfe and Aire in Shipley; the River Wye in North Herefordshire; and the Rivers Ouse and Foss in York. We are all agreed that they need to be cleaned up. Ensuring that we have a plentiful supply of clean water and waterways across England matters to us all, including my constituents in Mid Bedfordshire. Like many places across England, Mid Bedfordshire is having to adapt to a growing population, dry summers and increasingly wet winters, all with ageing infrastructure.
Having grown up spending many an hour playing in my local river, a tributary of the River Test in Hampshire, I enjoyed a childhood that many simply cannot enjoy today, with the latest assessments showing that no rivers in England are in good or high overall health. Nature is also in grave danger. Freshwater habitats cover less than 1% of the earth’s surface but support more than 10% of global species. Since the 1970s, freshwater species have declined by 85%, far outpacing declines in terrestrial and marine systems.
England’s globally significant chalk streams, which make up 85% of the world’s total, are among the habitats most affected by pollution and abstraction, and I was pleased to hear many passionate advocates for our chalk streams in this debate. But what did this Government do when Opposition Members tabled amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to restore and protect those habitats? The amendments were ignored, citing care for our environment and countryside as blockers against so-called progressive builders. That all illustrates, in the first 18 months in government, a level of arrogance that will do absolutely nothing to secure our future and clean up our waterways.
The problems with the water sector have been known for a long time and are well reported. The Environmental Audit Committee’s report, “Water quality in rivers” dating back to January 2022 provides a clear picture of the concerns, and the previous Government went on to help to identify the scale of the problem. When Labour left power in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were being monitored; by 2023 it was 100%. That unveiled the severity of the situation facing the water industry, with water company storm overflows spilling into England’s rivers, lakes and seas for a record 3.61 million hours in 2024—although I take the point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about us needing to understand the volume, not just the hours. There is much more to do.
The previous Government’s plan for water introduced the water restoration fund, which channelled environmental fines and penalties into projects that improve the water environment. Ministers in the previous Government also took action to ban water company bosses’ bonuses for illegal action. Sir Jon Cunliffe’s independent review was a serious undertaking, running to 460 pages and 88 recommendations, much of which His Majesty’s official Opposition have cautiously welcomed. For example, we know that, as it stands, the regulators are not working as they should, and that creating a single joined-up regulator is a sensible recommendation. However, I am concerned at both the speed at which the Government are moving and some of the proposals in their White Paper, which may see bills rise for families. Can the Minister confirm how many of Sir Jon’s 88 recommendations were accepted by the Government and included in the water White Paper?
On water bills, what assessment has the Minister made of how smart metering may impact the average family’s water bills? Secondly, after the benefits of water metering, what additional hit to disposable income does the Minister expect that increasing bills will have on families, coming, as it will, on the back of record tax rises by this Government? Thirdly, can the Minister tell us how much taxpayer and bill-payer money has been allocated to their White Paper, and over what timeframe those taxes and bills will be used to pay for the work in it?
To reduce the root causes of pollution, the Government have announced that they intend to implement pre-pipe solutions—which have been discussed in this debate—but have not yet provided any examples of how those will be implemented. Can the Minister provide further details on the implementation, and particularly how it will be integrated into the planning system? The Minister knows that since being elected, I have been calling for schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to be enacted, first in my Adjournment debate on flooding in Bedfordshire, and also through the Environmental Audit Committee, which recently recommended doing so. The Minister at first seemed sympathetic to the arguments, but now seems to consider that there are other ways to achieve the same outcome. Could the Minister highlight what those other ways are?
Our infrastructure is ageing and needs investment. That is abundantly clear to communities in the south-east now suffering repeated and unacceptable supply disruptions. How will the Minister make sure that the infrastructure is upgraded to ensure that those catastrophic failures, such as those seen under South East Water in the last two months, do not happen again? A glaring gap in the Government’s rhetoric on water is conserving and ensuring water security. That means improving supply. How and when will the Government improve water security?
It is important that in the efforts to reform the water sector, all stakeholders are engaged in the process. That includes farmers, and I was pleased to hear hon. Members today talk about the importance of engaging with farmers. Early last year those farmers had the rug pulled from under their feet when the Government suddenly halted applications to the sustainable farming incentive scheme. The SFI scheme rewarded farmers for adapting land management practices to reduce pollution, manage water flow and improve water quality. We are almost a year on from the closure of the SFI, and the Government—despite promising details on a new scheme last summer—only announced in January this year that a new scheme would open in June. Does the Minister not appreciate that farming is an occupation that requires long-term planning and certainty, particularly when so many other aspects, such as the weather, are left to chance?
In another potential blow to farmers, the Government have confirmed that they are considering whether environmental permitting should be extended to cattle farming, when this was not included as a direct recommendation in the independent review. As National Farmers Union vice-president Rachel Hallos said:
“Such a change would have a direct impact on farm business growth”.
The beef sector is already struggling with increasing costs and higher taxes imposed on them by the Chancellor, so how does the Minister intend to ensure that it does not face another new cost pressure? Is she engaging with it to listen to its concerns?
Many of my constituents care deeply about water quality and security. They are quite simply fed up that their water bills are increasing while water companies are failing to clear up their waterways. Given the Government’s habit of missing their own deadlines in the first 18 months of this Parliament, will the Minister give an iron-clad commitment that the transition plan will be published in parliamentary time this year? Will she clarify how long the transition will take? As she knows, and may well repeat to me, people voted for change and expect it, especially in our water sector. They demand that the Government move faster.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this debate, and I am grateful to everybody who has spoken in it. I welcome the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) to his place. I enjoyed listening to his first contribution from the Front Bench.
Before I get into the debate about water, I want to say a few words about flooding. There is obviously still a major incident classification in Somerset—I am going there after this debate—and that remains a concern. There are reports of flooding to about 300 properties, mostly in Somerset, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall. The Environment Agency flood defences have helped to protect about 16,200 properties from flooding, but it is still a difficult situation. There is still heavy rain across England, and it has continued in the south and south-west. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Environment Agency, the emergency services and everybody else, and I give my absolute sympathy and support to anybody impacted by the flooding.
As a trade unionist, I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher). The anger that the public feel towards water companies must never be directed at the people working for those companies, who are often the ones out there fixing the broken pipes and dealing with the sewer overflow. I remain concerned by reports from the unions about how they have been treated by some. Anger at the industry should never be directed at the people working for it.
I am delighted to say that we have set out our vision for water through the White Paper, which was published last month. It outlines how we will work together with water companies, communities and the environment to transform our water sector and ensure a sustainable water system for future generations. It will drive forward the transformatory change that we need.
I pay tribute to the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) on this topic. She lobbies me not only publicly, but over coffee in the Tea Room and in the corridors, too. She is genuinely committed to this, and I thank her for her work. She is right to say that we have banned £4 million of bonuses, and she spoke about the Public Accounts Committee’s report, which highlighted regulatory failure. The White Paper mentions sustainable debt and what that might mean. The regulator is bringing the economic environment together. My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the need for skills; we are looking at how to appoint the people we need. She is right that statutorily those organisations need to continue to do their job and hold companies to account, but we need to create a shadow organisation working at the same time. Until we actually change the law, those organisations will still have all the powers.
I look forward to meeting the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) to talk about the River Wye. I will come on to talk a little more about the environment.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for his work on the EFRA Committee. He is right that we need more of a joined-up approach. Asset health is a massive issue, as people in Tunbridge Wells know only too well. I was shocked when I came into this role and was told that companies do not even know where some of their assets are. That is absolutely basic.
The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase talked about environmental pollution, which is a huge issue. On 27 January, I met members of DEFRA’s Addressing Pollution from Agriculture programme, which I have mentioned in this Chamber before. They include representatives from farming, environmental groups and water companies. My idea was to bring everybody together so that they could hear from one another—the environmentalists from the farmers, and the farmers from the water companies—on the question of how we are going to address the challenge of environmental pollution.
For some farmers, I think there is a question around education and understanding the right way to do things. I do not think they go out there to cause pollution deliberately. The question is, how do we work with them to solve this issue? On 27 January, I met them side by side with the Farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), to talk to them about this issue. Every four weeks until the summer, they will meet to say, “What can we do about agricultural pollution as one of the main sources of pollution?” Rather than me talking to the environmentalists and the Farming Minister talking to the farmers, we prefer the collaborative approach of having everyone talking to one another about how we solve the problem. That is the approach we have taken. When there is more to say on the outcomes of the group, I will report that back to the House.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) is passionate about this issue. In fact, my very first visit as Minister was to see the River Foss barrier. I am so pleased that she mentioned the issues around chemicals and the increasing awareness of PFAS—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—what is happening with chemicals and the need to look at the thresholds for levels of chemicals in the water. I will definitely ask the University of York to send me information on its Ecomix work and its AQuA project to see how it is doing that.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) brought to life horrific experiences of flooding and how devastating flooding is for people’s mental health. We need to look at what can be improved. Obviously, if there are any concerns about water companies not giving her the information on what will be improved in her area and where, I am more than willing to follow up on that.
People who know me know that I get very excited about regional planning, and this Chamber is the place to be excited about regional planning. The White Paper talks a bit about what we are going to do, but I will give Members a heads up on what I am doing tomorrow: I have the first meeting of the steering group looking at regional planning. The group comprises catchment partnerships, the Environment Agency, local authorities, Ofwat, National Highways—of course, one of the concerns with water pollution is run-off from our highways—the NFU, Wildlife and Countryside Link, water companies, the Rivers Trust, Blueprint for Water and internal drainage boards. I have probably missed one.
We are bringing everybody together to determine where around the country we will have the early roll-out of out some of these measures. We want to determine how Sir Jon Cunliffe’s regional planning model will apply to different catchments, depending on whether they are coastal and whether they include rivers, and how this will work in practice. I cannot remember which Member it was, but someone said that we do not seem to be in favour of nature-based solutions. Clearly, they have never heard me talk about my passion for nature-based solutions, because that is simply not true. The idea is that we are looking at the pre-pipe stuff—the nature-based solutions—in regional areas. In different areas around the country, those boards will have slightly different compositions, depending on the type of catchment.
Anna Dixon
Will the Minister assure the House that the regional planning for water catchments will have a strong citizen voice embedded in it, as well as drawing on evidence and expertise?
Emma Hardy
Absolutely—evidence and expertise. We are yet to work this out. As I said, the composition will depend on the catchment. In the White Paper, we referred to “community voices”, which we want to represent.
Emma Hardy
With respect to the hon. Lady, I do not believe that she was in this debate from the start.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the Minister. It is of course up to the Minister to give way to whoever she wishes to, but she is perfectly right. The hon. Member was not here for the vast majority of the debate, and it is not courteous to the House, to this Chamber or to those who have participated in the entirety of the debate for her to seek to intervene at this late stage.
Emma Hardy
I turn now to regulation and the case for establishing a new single water regulator. As mentioned, that has to go alongside continuing what we have at the moment. Fundamental reform of water regulation is required, bringing together the economic and environmental planning, and looking at a singular accountable improvement body and enabling a whole-firm view of water company performance. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), called it phase 2 or round 2 —I am not sure what the right phrase is, but we will be back with further legislation. This is absolutely what we need. We are looking at a chief engineer being embedded in the new regulator, ensuring companies focus on fixing crumbling pipes, treatment works and on engineering expertise—it is shocking that we have not had engineering expertise. We are looking at greater stability, transparency and protection for customers.
Until then, existing regulators must retain their full legal powers and responsibility. However, the Government are determined to ensure that the future regulator does not inherit the problems of the past. Leadership appointments for the new regulator, including a chair designate, will therefore be made at the earliest opportunity, and they will drive the design and direction of the new regulator to support a smooth transition. Before that, early steps are now being taken to look at joining up regulatory activity, particularly between Ofwat and the Environment Agency, until the new regulator is established.
Charlie Maynard
We have four minutes to go, including a wind-up speech. I wonder whether the Minister is going to get to my point.
Emma Hardy
I will, but I would like to say— I hope this is felt by all Members across the House—that I am extremely accessible as a Minister and always willing to meet people, so I do not like having my integrity questioned. The hon. Gentleman should know that I responded to a letter from him on that very issue on 12 January. If he has not received it, he is welcome to come and see me, but to imply that I have ignored his request is false.
Emma Hardy
Thank you. Where was I? We are putting customers first. We want to end the steep, huge hikes that we have seen in bills and make sure that that never happens again. We have introduced our customer panels. We have just seen the first of those happening in South West Water, and they are being run by the Consumer Council for Water. We are listening to customer voices and making sure that they are at the heart of water companies. We need to do more. The water ombudsman will help to restore the balance, but fundamentally, we want customers to feel that they are listened to, are at the heart of this and are important. Having the customer panels and strengthening the ombudsman will make the processes around customers’ experiences much better.
On bills, we are about to respond to our consultation on WaterSure. How do we make water more affordable for people with disabilities, with large families, and for people who have a health need and therefore need to use more water? We are doubling the social tariff support and holding companies to the commitment to end water poverty by 2030.
Water meters were mentioned, and they can help huge numbers of people save money. I encourage everybody to talk to their constituents about that. I remember speaking to an elderly lady who was on her own, and she told me that she was really worried that her bill would go up with a water meter. I said, “How many bedrooms do you have?” She said, “Three. It is a family home, but the kids have moved out.” I told her that her bill would be less if she got a water meter. The great thing about water meters is that they can not only save money, but help us think about our water use, and they can support the environment.
There is a section in the White Paper on water security—it is an important issue for us—that looks at making sure we deal with the growing demands being placed on our system. How much water do we need for the homes that we want to build and for businesses and growth? How much water do we have? How do we address the gap? There are exciting things around thinking about sustainable urban drainage, water use, building regulations and how we use grey water harvesting. All these things must inform our thinking. In fact, tomorrow I am talking to the Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee about drought, and water management is one thing that is related.
This Government are committed to delivering lasting change, restoring confidence and ensuring resilient, sustainable water systems that work for customers, the environment and future generations.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I call Edward Morello, who has less than one minute.
Edward Morello
Thank you, Sir Jeremy, for your excellent chairing of this debate. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken today—too many to name in the time that I have. It is clear that everybody is echoing the same thoughts: the public anger at the dividends and bonuses, anger at the lack of investment and anger at the high water bills. Everybody has raised the ownership structure, which needs reform, and additional support for farmers. I thank the Minister for her response and for going straight from here to Somerset. I again extend an offer for her to visit West Dorset at her earliest convenience.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Independent Water Commission Final Report.
Young Children’s Screen Time
(1 day, 4 hours 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
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I will call Luke Charters to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister; they may, of course, intervene, if either is prepared to take an intervention. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for these shorter debates.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of screen time on young children.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy; thank you for your time this morning.
I have always said that I am a dad first and an MP second. My son Robin is three; he is kind, and he is happiest when he is outside playing. I am proud of him every single day. My youngest, Louis, is seven months old, and he is already curious about the world, watching and taking everything in. When this job takes me away from them, it hurts. One thing is very clear: when I am at home, I need to be a properly present dad.
I want to be honest with the House: there were weeks when my phone told me I was spending more than six hours a day on it. Even on weekends, when family time should be protected, it was four or five hours. When kids are young, we never get that time back, and every hour counts. Smartphones, though, are a feat of human engineering and have been deliberately designed to take our attention, quiet and relentlessly. I had to make a deliberate change for my two boys: cutting my screen time down, choosing to be on the floor building Brio—even making a Duplo Parliament—rather than being half present and half scrolling. Present fatherhood starts with all of us putting the phone down.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. From the persona that he presents in the Chamber, I have no doubt that he is a good dad, and very responsive to his children. What is undoubted is that, when used correctly, digital technology has positive effects, but use near bedtime or overuse is leading teachers to highlight that pupils are coming to school “wrecked” or tired, and excessive use is linked to lower academic performance. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must help parents and carers find a balance in the use of screen time? I made that very request in the press today.
Mr Charters
Parents do need a bit of support when it comes to guidance and advice around what is excessive, particularly when it comes to unsupervised screen time.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend—my actual friend—is giving a brilliant speech. I pay tribute to him: he is a brilliant advocate for our generation of parents and also a wonderful dad. Does he agree that parents today are in desperate need of such guidance? I recently met Jonathan Haidt, the author of “The Anxious Generation”, and I asked him straight out, “What do we do about screens?”. He told me that watching long-form narrative content with our children is fine, but that letting them watch short-form content by themselves is a problem. We need a kind of five-a-day public health campaign from the Government. I hope that the Minister will address that.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Before the hon. Gentleman replies, the hon. Lady is perfectly right that long-form content is better in some contexts, but not here.
Mr Charters
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. Briefly, my hon. Friend is a fantastic mum herself and an advocate for the great parents of Britain. Parents need advice about unsupervised screen time, particularly on smartphones, which is totally different from sitting down at a laptop doing homework. I will touch on adaptive technologies later.
Every time a child looks up and finds a parent looking down at a phone, a lesson is quietly taught about what deserves their attention. That truth was reinforced when I spoke to Zack George, known to many as Steel from “Gladiators” and now an ambassador for Smartphone Free Childhood. Zack’s message to young people is stark and powerful:
“Don’t let your phone steal your power.”
He has dedicated his life to inspiring kids and talked with thousands of schoolchildren in more than 400 school visits. Through his brand, Zactiv, he is sending a clear message to children: if you want to grow up happy and healthy, stop scrolling and keep it IRL.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to Born in Bradford, an internationally recognised research cohort study. It has just launched the “In Real Life” trial with children in Bradford aged 12 to 15 to test whether reducing their social media use will reduce anxiety and improve their sleep and their relationship with their parents. Does my hon. Friend agree that such research and evidence will be essential to understanding the harmful impacts of social media on our young people?
Mr Charters
I thank my hon. Friend for citing that study. We can draw real lessons from what is happening in Australia. Hon. Members may not be aware that some bookshops in Australia are seeing a resurgence from new young readers who are putting their phones down in favour of novels.
I have recently watched content from Dr Rangan Chatterjee, who has consistently warned about the dangers of excessive screen time, and in preparation for this speech I also gathered insights from the Youth Sport Trust and BookTrust. Each of those voices highlights similar concerns. Staying with voices from the education sector, I spoke with teacher Lee Parkinson, aka Mr P—my wife, a primary school teacher herself, can often be seen scrolling through his content on Instagram. He made a really important point that I would like all hon. Members to take away: not all screen time is created equal. Used well and supervised, technology can support learning—for a child with dyslexia, speech-to-text software can remove barriers and build confidence—but unsupervised access to personal smartphones and tablets is entirely different.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
As someone who is dyslexic and has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, I used my phone quite a lot at school. I was also bullied quite badly, and my phone was a release. Unfortunately, the Conservatives cut the youth services in Somerset that saved my life by 100%. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government should invest more in youth services in rural communities to help young people to thrive?
Mr Charters
I thank the hon. Member for sharing his personal experience with us. I completely agree that young people need support in their real life, whether through youth services or physical activity.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend not just for securing this debate, but for speaking powerfully as a parent about why this is so important. We must be honest: guidance is great, but it can often miss the mark when it comes to answering the questions that parents are actually asking. I am holding a forum later in February to speak to local parents about exactly what they are looking for from the guidance. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the guidance, when we deliver it, is not only evidence-based, but grounded in the questions and experiences of parents right across Britain today?
Mr Charters
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he is doing through the Labour group for men and boys. It is refreshing that this Government, and particularly the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, are carefully considering this with a lot of deep thought. The consultation will not look just for one silver bullet; it will look at a variety of options.
Children are spending hours a day on platforms designed to maximise engagement and deliver constant dopamine hits through short-form video content and infinite scroll loops. The evidence increasingly shows that that is affecting attention, behaviour in schools, sleep and emotional regulation.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I am at the other end of my parenting journey—my little girl is 24 today. She is a paediatric nurse and has drawn my attention to the “Cocomelon” channel on YouTube, which is a sensory overload. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about not just the length of time, but the content—and sometimes the garish audio and colour of that content?
Mr Charters
I wish my hon. Friend’s daughter a happy birthday and thank her for the work she is doing as a paediatric nurse. “Cocomelon” has been described as “visual fentanyl” for young children. What is much more appropriate, particularly at a younger age, is more hand-drawn types of content, like “Peppa Pig”. Perhaps we all ought to go for a bit more Peppa and a bit less JJ.
You need not take my word for it, Sir Jeremy: research published by the Department for Education showed that nearly 98% of children under the age of two engage with screens every day. A University College London study in 2026 has found that toddlers now average about two hours of screen time daily—far more than my little lad is allowed. Analysis from the Centre for Social Justice estimates that, very sadly, nearly 800,000 under-fives are now using social media. Ofcom data from 2024 reveals that one third of five to seven-year-olds are using social media without any supervision. That scares the living daylights out of me as a parent.
Such data is stark, but it is just part of the story. Somewhat ironically, I turned to social media to ask my constituents about their own experiences with their young children, and they expressed concern about more than the quantity of screen time that children have. Parents responded that they were even more worried about the type of content to which children are exposed. One teacher shared with me feedback from NASUWT’s “Better Deal on Behaviour” report, with a year 1 teacher describing how children were beginning to mimic inappropriate behaviour that they had seen online, despite being far too young to understand it. Another raised the idea of digital diets. They made the point that screen time can range from something as harmless as using Google Maps to find the local library, to accessing inappropriate material. To go back to the words of Mr P, not all screen time is created equal.
On this point, it feels timely to mention that I am pleased the Government have this week launched a new campaign, “You Won’t Know until You Ask”, to address harmful content. That follows the finding from YouGov that half of British parents admit to never speaking to their children about toxic content. Encouraging parents to sit down with their children and talk about online harms helps to break down barriers. It is a healthy step in the right direction.
Lola McEvoy
As I said, my hon. Friend is giving a brilliant speech. Does he share my concern that relying solely on parental intervention in relation to this huge swathe of technological advances is not enough? We do not want children to start hiding things from their parents; we want to ensure that they are not exposed to it in the first place.
Mr Charters
I think, particularly when it comes to things like YouTube shorts, that Members of this House would never want to see a ban on YouTube, but when it comes to the user experience on those platforms, there should be things like firebreaks or rest breaks—akin to when we drive—to try to give children a pause so that they do not end up in an infinite scroll loop.
Actually, I think we should view screen time as a public health issue, not just a parenting dilemma. Health visitors meet parents at a very early stage in a child’s life. I think they should be able to talk explicitly about screen time to parents from the very start. Early guidance at that point is critical, as habits form early. As children grow older, they absorb the behaviours they see all around them, and if adults are constantly on their phones, children will almost absorb that by osmosis. The more parents are aware of that from the start, the better the outcomes can be.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The hon. Member is giving a brilliant speech, and I am so pleased that he opened his remarks with, and spoke again just now about, the role of parents and parents’ use of mobile phones. I have recently met paediatricians, GPs and headteachers, who all say that they are observing bad use of phones in parents, which then impacts the children. Does the hon. Member agree that it has a detrimental consequence for children when parents are on screens too much?
Mr Charters
I thank the hon. Member for making that eloquent point. I would say that we should learn the lessons from Australia. Back in 2015, it established the eSafety Commissioner, whose work on screen time was all about linking parents and children together as part of a collective dialogue. I think we must keep young people safe by looking at age-appropriate digital spaces. So often the debate is focused on banning social media, but we would never talk about banning young people from driving; we talk about an age-appropriate limit, so that they can start driving at the age of 17.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his fantastic speech so far. He has talked about banning social media, and I completely agree with him. Does he agree with me that we are seeing a correlation between excessive screen time and poor mental health, and that social media companies need to be more accountable for what they are allowing the next generation to see, because there are some horrific things out there on social media?
Mr Charters
I thank my hon. Friend for making that excellent point. I have spoken openly in this House about my own mental health struggles in the past. When it comes to AI tools in particular, we must ensure that they point people to the right and proper advice that is specific to the UK and the NHS, and to charities such as Samaritans.
I also believe that schools should be transparent with parents about the nature of screen use in the classroom. It is a welcome move that, thanks to the Government, Ofsted will check schools’ mobile phone policies during every inspection, with schools expected to be phone-free by default. Many schools already have thoughtful policies on tablet and laptop use, too. Although technology can absolutely be a force for good, transparency is essential so that parents can be clear about how screens are being used in school and can reinforce consistent habits at home. We cannot have a situation where the approach to screens at school is different from at home. When schools and families are aligned, children will develop clearer boundaries and healthier habits online.
The reality is that we cannot simply say, “Less smartphone screen time” and leave it at that; we also have to create positive and fulfilling alternatives. My son Robin loves charging through what we call the swamp on his balance bike, usually straight through the muddiest bit and always at maximum speed. As a parent, those magical moments with muddy knees, fresh air and real laughter are more precious than an hour in front of the telly.
We should all make better use of the things that are set by schools and already out there. Events such as sports days and World Book Days are perfect opportunities to get kids outdoors, active and reading together. That all fits with the sentiment of Zack George, aka Steel, that I referred to earlier: the less time scrolling and more time socialising, the better. In Australia, as I touched on earlier, bookshops are welcoming more young readers, libraries are seeing a renewed interest and community sports clubs are attracting younger members in record numbers. These are the positive alternatives that we must build.
Of course, none of this is as simple or straightforward as it might seem, but I am very glad that we are having a conversation about it. I like to think of myself as one of the most pro-tech MPs in this place, given my previous career. However, as the youngest parent in Parliament and a proud dad, I believe that we owe it to families to take the more harmful types of screen time seriously. After all, childhood only happens once, and if we are honest with ourselves, too much of it is now unfolding behind a screen.
At the heart of the issue is balance, because not all screen time is created equal. There is nothing wrong with children using BBC Bitesize on an iPad, learning a language on Duolingo, or even watching an episode of “Bluey”, which, as some Members will know, has an incredibly catchy theme tune. There is, of course, a balance to be struck—and if we are honest, this epidemic is affecting not just children, but adults.
To conclude, I am deeply concerned about children becoming trapped in a system that they did not design. Children did not build this digital world—it was created by forces far beyond their control—yet they are being drawn deliberately and persistently into addictive digital environments long before they have the tools to recognise or resist them. If we fail to act, it will be children who live with the consequences, not those who designed the system.
Yesterday, I met the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to talk about the Government’s forthcoming consultation. I really welcomed her saying that many of the issues I have raised today, regarding how we prevent excessive and unsupervised screen time harming young children, will be considered. I know that she cares deeply about this matter and is considering it carefully. I thank hon. Members for joining this debate today and I hope that their points will also be considered in the consultation.
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for his really powerful and heartfelt speech.
So much of what my hon. Friend set out today really resonated with me as the mum of a two-year-old. It can be a struggle to stay off the phone, and I would not really like to consider my own screen time, so it was brave of him to do so. He also spoke about the need to be present, the importance of messy outdoor play and the need for children to have protected childhoods, as well as how difficult it is to navigate this whole new world and, as a parent, to find the best advice and the right thing to do for our children. That is why debates such as this are so important, and why his leadership as a parent in this place is so critical. As he said, we want to harness the benefits of technology for education, but we want to protect children from harm.
Before I go into questions on screen time, I want to reflect on what my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) said about opportunities in childhood—the need to have good youth services and opportunities for children to play, to be in sports activities and to perform. That is why, as the Minister for School Standards, I am focused on the enrichment opportunities around school, such as outdoor learning, music performance, the opportunity to be in a sports team—those are the things that give joy to the school experience and to young people’s childhoods.
Anna Dixon
I am sure that the Minister is aware that it is the National Year of Reading. On the wider opportunities to get our kids off their screens, would she commend the work of the National Literacy Trust in trying to restore the joy of reading, and perhaps share her favourite childhood book with us? Mine was “The Very Hungry Caterpillar”.
Georgia Gould
My next sentence was going to be about the National Year of Reading. I have been travelling around the country visiting schools and it has been wonderful to see how they are embracing it. I have been hearing about schools putting on pyjama parties for parents and children to read together, and I have been at schools when parents have come in to read with children. That brings the joy of reading to life, and I hope that we will see a similar experience to Australia with bookshops full of children embracing reading. At the moment, my son is obsessed with the “Mog” series, so all we do in my house is talk about Mog.
I recognise the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer raised about the impact of screen time on young children. Early childhood is developmentally critical and screen time can displace healthy behaviours such as physical activity and adequate sleep, which have complex interactions with mental health and wellbeing.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I recently did a survey with local schools. Perhaps the children were more willing to put on the survey how much screen time they had when they were not supervised by their parents, but I was enthused about the things that they said they would do if they were not on social media, including spending far more time outdoors and reading, as has already been mentioned. Does the Minister agree that we need evidence, so we are not doing just what is simple but what is right?
Georgia Gould
Absolutely. Evidence is so important because this is a struggle. It is not about judging parents, but about giving them the best evidence and the tools that they need to make decisions to support their children.
Adam Dance
I thank the Minister, as always, for replying to me. Only 18% of dyslexics have access to assistive technology. I know that she is passionate about getting that changed, so are we on the right road to get more assistive technology into our education system for dyslexics?
Georgia Gould
Absolutely. We are really committed to supporting assistive technology. We have introduced new lending libraries, as the hon. Member is aware, and we recently announced a £200 million investment into teacher training. As part of that training, we want to look at how we can best use assistive technology in the classroom, as well as what we are doing around edtech and how we are growing its use in the classroom. That shows that technology can be helpful when it is supporting learning, and it is important to take a nuanced approach.
From recent Government research, we know that the children with the highest screen use—of around five hours daily—at age two can say significantly fewer words than those with lower use. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer referred to research that said that 98% of two-year-olds watch a screen daily. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) set out, it is critical that parents have the right information to be able to support their children.
That is why we announced in January the first ever Government guidance for parents on screen use for under-fives, which aims to provide practical, non-judgmental advice to help parents balance screen use with activities that support children’s development such as playing, speaking and reading. Parents want that guidance. Parents in this Chamber want it, and polling from Kindred shows that 40% of parents say that reducing screen time would help ensure their child is ready for reception, underlining the demand for practical, trusted guidance in the early years.
I, therefore, recognise the significance of the issue and the responsibility to get it right. For that reason, we have set up the early years screen time advisory group, a new expert panel chaired by Professor Russell Viner—former chief scientific adviser to the Department for Education, leading paediatrician and expert in children’s health—and Dame Rachel de Souza, the Children’s Commissioner for England.
The early years screen time advisory group will review the current evidence and existing advice on early years screen use to help inform the new guidance for parents. That group is holding its second meeting as we speak, which shows the urgency and seriousness with which the work is being taken forward. We want to hear directly from those with relevant knowledge and experience. We launched a two-week call for evidence on 2 February to ensure that the guidance is firmly grounded in evidence and expertise. I encourage hon. Members to share their evidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned work being done in Bradford, which I encourage her to share.
Lola McEvoy
The Minister is giving a brilliant speech to sum up this important debate. Will the work she mentions consider the link between the need for more speech and language therapy for early years and screen time pre-school?
Georgia Gould
We want to look at the evidence, including any impact on speech and language. We are seeing a far greater need for speech and language support, which is why we are investing in new early years support around speech and language. That is surely one of the areas that the evidence will address.
Engagement sessions with parents, children, early years practitioners and stakeholders are taking place across England, allowing them to share what works in real family life, and what support they need from guidance. The guidance will be published in April and made available to parents through the Best Start in Life website, giving the clarity and support they are asking for to navigate screen time with their youngest children.
More broadly, my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) raised the issue of protecting children from harmful content. The Online Safety Act 2023 requires providers specifically to consider, as part of their risk assessment, how algorithms could impact children’s exposure to illegal content and content that is harmful to children on their service. Services that are assessed as easily accessed by children must put in place measures to prevent algorithms from pushing harmful content to children.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, there is a wider consultation—a national conversation—that will look at some of the broader issues. The Department for Education is committed to strengthening the evidence base on the impact of screen use and screen time on child development. Our set of longitudinal studies already gathers data on children’s screen and social media use, and will interrogate their relationship with mental health and cognitive development. We are funding a programme of research to better understand the impact of digital technologies on children.
We are in strong agreement with the overwhelming message from today: we cannot wait to act in this space. We have to look to protect and enhance our children’s lives online. It is right to continue to look at further action that could be taken, so I welcome today’s important debate. We will set out guidance, but it is important to have the national conversation, without blaming parents, to make sure that they have the information they need. When they want to get out and enjoy time with their children, we should provide the right activities and support to enable them to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding
(1 day, 4 hours 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
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered funding for local authorities in inner London.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Murrison. My constituency includes part of the London borough of Lambeth and part of the London borough of Southwark. Before I was elected to this House, I spent five years as a local ward councillor in Southwark. I just managed not to overlap with the Minister, who was also a councillor on Southwark council and stepped down in 2010 as I was being elected.
Being a councillor is deeply rewarding, with a responsibility for delivering services in a way that makes a direct difference to people’s daily lives. From recycling to street cleaning, adult services, children’s social care, roads, parks, playgrounds and council housing, our councils are responsible for important aspects of the fabric of everyday life. They affect people’s quality of life and, in doing so, play a vital role in building trust and confidence in politics, the Government and public services.
I am proud that, as a councillor, I helped turn around a local primary school in a deprived area of my ward from being one of the worst in the borough to one of the best. I am proud that we delivered road safety improvements at a number of dangerous junctions in the ward. I am proud of the work that we did through tenants and residents associations and local community organisations to bring people together and build community. I am also proud that, despite more than a decade of Conservative and Lib Dem austerity, Southwark continued to keep the borough clean and open new libraries. It was one of the first councils to fund universal free school meals for primary-age children and it is a borough of sanctuary that supports the refugees and asylum seekers who are part of our diverse community.
I remember very clearly the Labour group meeting in 2010 in which we were briefed on the coalition Government’s local government funding settlement for Southwark. There was a stony silence in the room as the newly elected cabinet member for finance told us how big the cuts were and the services and investment that the council would no longer be able to deliver as a result.
We had no idea how much worse the cuts would get over the coming years such that, a decade on from the 2010 election, our councils were receiving 60% less in grant funding from central Government, and the capital grant for new council homes had been decimated. That marked a huge shift in local authority funding away from the certainty of grant funding and towards retained business rates, the new homes bonus and endless small, short-term pots of funding, often requiring resourcing for a bidding process.
At the same time, our councils saw rising need. Our ageing population has meant an increasing need for adult social care, and the erosion of support for families has resulted in more children being taken into care and the cost of expensive placements increasing. The rising numbers of children with special educational needs and disabilities has increased the costs of school placements and home-to-school transport.
That is all before we get to housing. Inner-London boroughs are at the epicentre of our national housing crisis. Spiralling rents and a lack of security in the private rented sector mean that more and more families have turned to their council for support with housing, while the lack of investment in new social housing and the loss of council homes under the right to buy has meant that they have had to be housed in temporary accommodation, which is very expensive and often the worst-quality accommodation. London councils are currently spending £5 million a day on temporary accommodation—that is £5 million a day into the pockets of some of the worst landlords, and at times paying for damp, mouldy, overcrowded homes, often far from a family’s home, neighbourhood, community and their children’s school.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I always try to be helpful to the hon. Lady and all hon. Members. We have many brownfield sites in my constituency and there are many in London where the hon. Lady refers to there being a housing crisis. Does she feel that there should be a focus on trying to use those sites for social housing and improve the housing problems that London clearly has?
Helen Hayes
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. I will come on to talk about those sites in my constituency that have planning permission but currently are not funded to build the social homes that could be on those sites. I think that is an important part of how we solve these challenges.
The Conservatives’ interventions to reduce social housing rents have also been disastrous for the ability of our councils to fund the maintenance of social housing and to fund new social homes. Southwark council calculated that Conservative-imposed rent cuts and freezes will cost the council’s housing revenue account £1 billion over 30 years. What is a very small saving for tenants has had a really big impact on the ability of councils to keep up with the maintenance needs of their social housing stock.
The Conservatives were happy to cut our councils’ budgets to the core and did not worry about the erosion of services that inevitably followed. Reform imagined that our councils were full of waste and profligacy, only to find that they are lean organisations that have constantly innovated in the face of austerity but that, over time, have become stretched, sometimes to breaking point.
A budget settlement based on a definition of deprivation that did not include housing costs, as was originally proposed, would have had absolutely dire consequences for inner-London councils. The reality is this: if rent eats up so much of someone’s income every month that they cannot afford the bare essentials, or if the only property they can afford to rent is so bad that it causes them and their family to become ill, then they are deprived and they face exactly the same consequences of that deprivation as anyone else anywhere in the country who simply does not have enough money to get by.
Helen Hayes
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend, my constituency neighbour, for making such an impassioned and powerful speech. I declare an interest in that my constituency also covers both Lambeth and Southwark. She is talking about housing costs, which we know are so expensive in London. We have seen housing costs rise over 15 years, pushing more people into homelessness and temporary accommodation. Does she agree that the Government should look at the subsidy paid for temporary accommodation, which has been frozen since 2011? In real terms, rents have continued to go up in our constituencies.
Helen Hayes
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The maths on temporary accommodation costs simply does not add up at the moment. I have more to say on that a bit later in my speech.
Dawn Butler
I thank my hon. Friend for her important speech today. Brent council, which covers my constituency, spends £100,000 a day on temporary housing. We have around 40,000 people on the housing waiting list. It is impossible to match that need, but it is also important to understand that councils, as my hon. Friend has said, are trying to innovate. Housing costs in inner London need to be taken into consideration with any calculations.
Helen Hayes
My hon. Friend makes the point very well. It is the reality of people’s lives. People come to all of us who represent constituencies at the heart of the housing crisis in the most desperate of circumstances—in circumstances that everybody would agree are completely unacceptable—and there is no relief for them, because the options that are on the table are simply unaffordable, and what is affordable is unacceptable.
I am grateful to the Government for listening and for changing the deprivation criteria to include housing costs. I also completely recognise the very deep poverty and deprivation that affect other parts of the country. I grew up in the north-west and before I was elected to Parliament, I worked with communities all over the country. This should be about not pitting different areas of our country against each other, but resourcing and empowering local authorities right across our country to meet the needs of their communities. Some of those needs are universal, and some are specific.
While I welcome the changes made to the formulae in recent weeks, inner-London councils will still remain in a very difficult financial situation as a consequence of the settlement that was finalised yesterday.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I welcome the tone of the hon. Member’s comment at the end there. I will use the examples of Lambeth and Southwark. When we pull out the contributions from council tax and look only at the money that is coming from central Government, over the next three years, Lambeth residents will have £75 per capita removed from their support from central Government, and Southwark residents will have £75 per resident removed. Does she agree that that is not good enough from a Labour Government?
Helen Hayes
There are different ways of looking at the analysis and I am sure that the Minister will speak in detail on the way that the Government have apportioned funding based on the formula. The reality of the settlement as finalised yesterday is undoubtedly that our councils are in a very stretching situation indeed, and that could lead to difficult situations ahead. One of the areas where the Government could really help our councils is by looking at the costs that they have to bear as well as the resources that they have to meet those costs. I will come on to make some of those points in a moment.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour in Lambeth is making an excellent speech. The arbitrary cap, which I believe was initially created in the fair funding review, created the unintended consequence of leaving Lambeth missing out on the funding that it would have otherwise received. That means that Lambeth has lost out on £47.5 million over three years. As she knows, that money is urgently needed to protect our local services. Although, like me, I am sure that she welcomes the uplift to the recovery grant that was announced yesterday, does she agree that it is not enough to meet the needs of our constituents and our local authority with its ever-growing costs?
Helen Hayes
My hon. Friend makes the point about the recovery grant very well. I will come on to some practical suggestions for what the Government could do to alleviate that situation in the short term.
Council tax equalisation, such that the grant is now based on each area’s share of the national tax base and not actual local tax levels, penalises low tax base, high-needs areas like Lambeth and Southwark. The business rates reset will wipe out historical strong growth in some inner-London boroughs, and falling numbers of children will also have an impact through the children’s formula, even though need is growing and increasingly complex.
The risk is that our councils are left in an increasingly precarious situation and are forced to make impossibly hard choices about local services in the face of increasing need. Having agreed the final funding settlement—it is welcome that it is for three years, which gives our councils more certainty—there is more for the Government to do to help councils bring down their costs and reduce need, so that service delivery is manageable within the resources that are available.
On behalf of my councils of Lambeth and Southwark, I have a number of asks of the Minister. Our councils desperately need help with the costs of temporary accommodation. The average cost of temporary accommodation in London has risen by 75% over the last five years, and the number of people seeking help with their housing has also increased dramatically, yet the amount that the Government pay councils to subsidise temporary accommodation has been frozen since 2011. Will the Government work towards increasing the subsidy so that it is closer to the actual housing costs that our councils face?
Temporary accommodation is the least stable form of housing and it has terrible consequences for residents. I have known many constituents to get up at 5 am to travel long distances by bus to keep their children in the same school and give them some stability. Those costs could be saved if more residents could afford to rent privately, yet the freezing of the local housing allowance has made that increasingly impossible. Will the Minister work with her counterparts in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury to increase the rate of local housing allowance to stop private renters from needing temporary accommodation? Some of the £5 million that is spent every day by London local authorities on temporary accommodation would be much better deployed keeping residents in stable homes through the local housing allowance than propping up the most awful situations in temporary accommodation.
With the application of the £35 million cap, councils in receipt of the recovery grant currently face a cliff edge. For Lambeth council that will mean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said, a loss of £47.5 million over the next three years. If the cap was removed for just next year, it would give the council an additional £11 million to reduce the savings that it is currently having to plan for. Will the Minister consider that?
Councils have expressed concern to me about the Government’s assumptions about the level of council tax receipts. Will the Minister work with councils to ensure that the assumed level of council tax receipts closely matches actual council tax collections? The social housing crisis requires that new social homes are delivered at pace. In my constituency, we have council and housing association-owned sites with planning permission that are not currently being delivered because the soaring inflation caused by the Liz Truss mini-budget priced them out of viability.
The Government’s commitment to invest £39 billion in social housing is very welcome, but will the Minister ensure some of that funding is urgently made available to London boroughs that have sites that are ready to build? We urgently need that.
The overnight accommodation levy is very good news for London but it must be apportioned to where it is most needed. Will the Government mandate that at least 50% of the funds raised by the levy are retained locally by London boroughs to cover the costs incurred by services affected by tourism and to support local growth?
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The Government are looking at how the overnight stay levy might be used, and there is some really welcome potential, for example where major events in London happen in one local authority but impact many. I completely agree with my hon. Friend on the 50:50 split. Does she agree that that could help to smooth out some of the longer-term funding issues coming out of the settlement, by providing additional capital that councils could use, for example, on public realm and public safety works?
Helen Hayes
I agree completely. The levy is a really important source of additional revenue into London, and it is so important that it is spent where it is needed. That does mean allowing councils to retain some of the receipts—I would say 50%, as London Councils is calling for—in order for them to do exactly that.
Exceptional financial support was designed to be a temporary intervention to support councils with acute financial pressures, but the consequence has been a growing number of councils running structural deficits. Will the Minister set out in greater detail how the Government intend to support councils to exit EFS so they are not held back by growing deficits?
Finally, the announcement yesterday on SEND deficits is very welcome. It is a clear recognition that the current costs of SEND provision are totally unsustainable. Writing off 90% of SEND deficits will only help if the forthcoming SEND reforms are properly funded and designed such that they are financially sustainable. What is the Minister doing with the Department for Education and the Treasury to make sure that councils’ statutory SEND responsibilities are properly funded when the schools White Paper is published?
Our councils and councillors are a crucial part of the bond of trust between local residents and the politicians and governments that serve them. We cannot leave our councils in the position in which the Conservatives were happy to leave them, with no answer to the needs of their local populations because they do not have the resources to deliver. Our local residents need and deserve clean streets, well-kept parks and open spaces, good-quality road services, good adult social care and effective children’s services, good-quality homes in the social rented sector, and proper support for children with SEND. They deserve nothing less, so that they can trust that government is there to deliver for them. We owe it to our dedicated, hard-working colleagues in local government to support them.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this important debate.
Let me start by expressing my agreement with colleagues from outer London. Local authorities are in a perilous position, and have been for some time, due to Governments of all stripes. As a former council deputy leader and cabinet member for children’s services, I really do understand. I also believe that Members from inner London will benefit from an enhanced appreciation of the specific struggles those of us in outer London face.
I want especially to raise the devastating impact of unfair funding on my borough of Bromley. Bromley has the third lowest settlement funding per head among London boroughs. As a result of the Government’s provisional settlement, Bromley will see funding reductions of £6.5 million in 2026-27, rising to £22.2 million per annum by 2028-29. That equates to over £30 million per year in real-terms funding reductions by 2028-29. If the Government’s funding were fair, Bromley would instead be receiving a funding increase. Indeed, if Bromley received the average London core grant funding in 2026-27, it would gain about £112 million extra—an enormous figure.
Any cuts to our funding are felt more keenly than by other councils, too. Bromley maintains the lowest net expenditure per head in London while delivering efficient services for its residents, limiting our ability to realise significant savings compared with other, high-cost authorities. Effectively, the Government are punishing Bromley for being an efficient, well-run council, while Government after Government bail out failing councils. Bromley deserves better.
Bromley is no stranger to being targeted. The mayor’s precept currently stands at just over £490 for a band D property—a more than 77% increase since Sadiq Khan became Mayor of London. Before anybody highlights inflation, a rise in line with inflation would have brought the precept to just over £380, an increase of 39% rather than the 77% that has been inflicted on us.
What do people in the inner-London boroughs get? A regular and extensive bus service and a tube network to their doorstep. What do the people of Bromley get? Poor transport infrastructure and a mayor who keeps coming back to siphon more and more money from our borough, close our 24-hour police desk and fleece motorists with increased congestion charges and an expanded ultra low emission zone charge. Outer London is subsidising inner London’s transport network, while Bromley is served by only two direct bus routes into central London, both of which only run after midnight.
If we are going to have to continue to pay into the mayor’s coffers, will he or she at least ensure that the Superloop is extended a mere 2 miles to run from Bromley North via Plaistow Green, and can we please keep our 24-hour police desk? The situation in which Bromley and the rest of outer London is simply ignored by the Government and this mayor cannot continue. We deserve fairer funding. Bromley council wants to work with the Government, but the Government need to listen so that we see a truly fair and sustainable settlement that does not punish boroughs like Bromley.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing this important debate at an opportune time.
“The streets of London are paved with gold”—or so the saying from the tale of Dick Whittington goes. But of course the point of that saying was to remind us that he did not, in fact, encounter riches and utopia when he got to London. That has been inner London’s story for centuries: portrayed as pampered by the rest of the nation while its people grapple with some of the biggest challenges imaginable.
I am a proud Londoner, I am an MP and a still councillor in London, I am my party’s spokesperson for London, and I know vividly how drastic the challenge is across London. I have knocked on doors across the city and heard directly from residents about their challenges, their fury at the last Conservative Government and now their disappointment with the Labour Government. London is a city where 2.3 million people—that is twice the population of Birmingham, and one in four people in the city—live in poverty. According to data from the Trust for London, that figure rises to 38% for non-white households and 53% for single-parent households. It is a city where SEND deficits and adult social care deficits have thrown council finances into uncertainty for more than a decade. It is a city where, perhaps most shockingly of all, a teacher in every school can walk into their classroom in the morning knowing that, on average, at least one of their pupils at any given time is likely to be living in temporary accommodation.
Year after year councils in London have been asked to do more with less. Reform of the system is long overdue, with the current formula not having been properly updated in more than a decade—not to mention the fundamental unfairness of the council tax system to raise money for local services. We were told by the Government that there would not be a return to austerity on their watch. It was a claim that most of us could believe, not just because they are a Labour Government with a social democratic tradition, but because they are a Government full of former councillors and council leaders who have seen at first hand that the reality of austerity is often most severe in local government. It is therefore outrageous that they have presented a funding review that simply doubles down on the disastrous cuts.
Over the next three years, per capita funding, when council tax contributions are removed, will reduce by £109 in Camden, by £79 in Lambeth, by £75 in Southwark, by £37 in Lewisham, by £180 in Wandsworth, by £54 in Greenwich, by £220 in Hammersmith and Fulham, by £86 in Islington, and by £247 in Westminster and in Kensington and Chelsea. What is that if not Labour austerity?
The current formula makes use of the index of multiple deprivation as the central measure of poverty but, as has been said many times, the IMD as currently designed does not properly reflect housing costs, housing poverty and what it means to be poor in a city where rent alone can swallow well over a half of a working person’s income. If we build a funding formula that ignores housing costs, we build one that blatantly ignores inner London.
I am an engineer and know bad maths when I see it, and the proof that the Government’s latest announcements, published just this week, are smoke and mirrors is right there in the forecasted effects. Two thirds of the purported increase in total funding in London comes from the assumed council tax increases. When we account for that fact, we see that over the three-year settlement period, only two of the 12 inner-London boroughs—Hackney and Tower Hamlets—receive a real-terms funding increase per capita from the Government. Government Members like to talk about the austerity during the coalition period, but perhaps they would like to reflect on those figures for per-capita funding when council tax contributions are removed, which are a result of this Labour Government, and the effect on their inner-London residents.
I have lots of data, which I am sure the Government know to be true, but a person does not have to be expert to know that the Government’s numbers do not add up—they just have to walk a few miles away from this place. I thought Labour Members were supposed to be in tune with and sensitive to inequality, yet here we are in a palace that is increasingly a boundary to their views while just a few minutes away, in Lambeth, Southwark, north Kensington and Chelsea Riverside, people are suffering because their councils are choked of the funds that they need to protect them. The support that this Government promised to deliver never materialised. Those working people have already been hit by inflation, the cost of living and rising transport fares. They now face not just lesser services but the prospect of huge council tax hikes because of this mess, which Labour might not have made but is doubling down on.
Londoners are sick of being utterly let down while being told that they have never had it so good, or that they have a Government and a mayor who are on their side. I do not doubt that Labour Members’ intentions are good, that they got into politics for the right reasons, or that they have had incredible achievements as councillors—I am proud to have done that myself—but I sincerely ask them to please get their house in order and provide what London needs. With the devil in the detail of their unfair funding review, they are proposing the exact opposite. They have just a couple of months to get their act together before the local elections, but I suspect that for most Londoners the die is already cast against Labour because of its lack of care.
This is not a sustainable foundation for any public service system. It is not fair funding; it is the accelerated starvation of a vital part of the public realm, masked by cosmetic changes. The Minister has heard it from around the Chamber; it is not just me ploughing a single furrow. If the Government are casting about trying to understand why people are not warming to their efforts—perhaps more so this week than ever before—they should remember that although they can mask an unfair funding formula under snappy headlines and public relations gloss, they cannot make it function as a good policy just by wishing it so. That is government by magical thinking.
I am racking my brain trying to imagine why Members on the Government Benches cannot see the wood for the trees on this topic. I can only guess that they simply do not grasp the true value of well-funded, well-functioning and truly independent local government. I know that that is not true for some of the Members in this Chamber, who have come from local councils in inner and outer London. However, they are unwilling to challenge the dangerous idea that local government is a derivative of central Government, and the fact that the mayor’s powers are being used as a convenient shield by a Labour Government who are quietly keeping London in their back pocket for whenever they need someone else to carry the pain—because that is what the fairer funding review amounts to. It is hard to see it as anything other than a plan for managed decline of our cities, with inner-London boroughs first in the firing line.
This can only be justified by misunderstanding the aphorism that I began with and not grasping that London’s streets are considered to be paved with gold only when it suits those who wish to ignore its many challenges. I invite the Minister to explain more clearly how a reduction in per-capita funding over the next three years for residents in 10 of the 12 inner-London boroughs that are the subject of this debate will result in better services for those residents.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a parliamentary vice-president of London Councils and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I would like to thank those organisations for the excellent research that they have supplied to Members to help us prepare for today’s debate.
While I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing the debate, listening to her story of being a councillor—one that is reflected, I think, by a good number of Members who were present this afternoon—made me think about where it sits in the context of what is happening with the local government funding formula overall and the particular impact that it is having on our inner-London boroughs.
We know that London’s funding formula has always, to an extent, created a city of two halves. There are the inner-London boroughs, with a relatively generous settlement from that funding formula and, historically, generally lower council taxes. Then there is a doughnut of outer-London boroughs, in which my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) are found, with a funding level broadly in line with the surrounding county and district authorities.
For a long time, it has been a source of concern among London authorities that there needs to be some levelling out to ensure consistency across council tax and funding. To address the longer-term funding issues, however, the Government clearly need to address the nature, scope and purpose of many of the statutory duties that exist across all those authorities, in order to enable us all to live within our means and to set levels of taxation that are reasonable for our constituents to pay.
Sadly, we are not seeing that happening. Instead, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) described, we have a Government who came to office saying that they were the cavalry coming over the hill, and that they could be trusted to inject additional resources into inner London, outer London and other parts of the country that were concerned about funding. In their first Budget, however, local government was left £1.5 billion net worse off through the jobs tax—the national insurance rise—alone.
The consistent feedback from councillors across London is that they feel a sense of shock and surprise at just how fast things have got so much worse. There are also particular significant dynamics in inner London. As several hon. Members have said, in the local government finance settlement, more than two thirds of the additional resources announced by the Government would come from the maximum possible council tax rise being imposed across the board. That is not additional Government funding, it is simply councils being required, as a minimum, to use their maximum possible tax-raising powers on the household budgets of all their local residents.
We also see the impacts of exceptional financial support, a policy that has existed under Governments of all stripes under different names for a long time. It is essentially a measure to allow a council to borrow to get it through temporary financial difficulties. It is a way of avoiding the issuance of a section 114 notice, which is the equivalent of a bankruptcy notice, by the statutory finance officers in that local authority. On an almost weekly basis, this Government make written ministerial statements on local government best value interventions, and on agreeing exceptional financial support to the extent that it is no longer exceptional. It is clearly simply a method of sustaining local authorities to avoid bad headlines, rather than addressing the nature, scope and purpose of statutory duties, which need to be addressed to get budgets back into balance.
Acute pressure has been created by an explosion in rough sleeping and homelessness in inner London since this Government took office. We need to be clear: London has always had a challenge around rough sleeping. Although my constituency does not cover Heathrow, it is a significant factor in my local authority’s activities. The number of people who find their way to an airport that is open 24/7, with showers, toilets and security, means that there are a disproportionately large number of rough sleepers in my local authority’s area.
As we heard, there has been a 27% increase in street homelessness since this Government took office. That contributes to the sharply rising pressure on temporary accommodation that London Councils, on behalf of the capital’s local authorities, has highlighted as the biggest single factor driving inner-London councils to seek exceptional financial support and to look at significant reductions across the capital in the services that our constituents expect local authorities to provide, such as libraries, parks and clean streets. At the same time, according to a recent report by Savills, two thirds of London boroughs report reaching net zero: not net zero in the traditional sense of an environmental target, but net zero new housing starts. In two thirds of our capital’s boroughs, no new homes are being added to the housing stock at a time when the Government have an increasingly unattainable target of 1.5 million new homes. To hear hon. Members from throughout the Chamber talk about the acute pressure from housing need, at a time when housing delivery in the capital has absolutely collapsed, demonstrates that things are not going in the right direction.
We are due to consider the local government finance settlement in the main Chamber tomorrow. More two thirds of local authorities have reported, having crunched the numbers on that funding formula, that they will be left worse off under it. Two thirds of councils in the country are worse off under the funding settlement being introduced by this Labour Government.
There is another significant factor. This week we heard that the SEND White Paper is to be delayed further. It will address the significant long-term structural and demographic concern driven by the increasing numbers of children with more acute needs for whom local authorities have a statutory duty—another duty over which they have no discretion. Although the statutory accounting override—to which Ministers have referred in the past—goes some way to avoiding that becoming an acute problem, we see acute pressure building up across the country, not just in inner London.
All that amounts to a situation where residents in inner London face extraordinarily significant increases in their taxes. The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea has reported potential increases of council tax of up to £500 a year. Earlier, I met with one of the Conservative councillors from the London borough of Barnet, traditionally one of the less affected outer London boroughs, who reported that a £200 million funding gap is opening up as a result of the changes that this Government are making. Even for those of us in outer London boroughs, where council tax rates are broadly similar to those in the surrounding county and district areas, the combination of the rises in the mayoral precept, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill, and those acute pressures, mean that in many cases council tax will already be at or well in excess of the £2,000 benchmark that Ministers have set out for council tax across the country.
In conclusion, we see a consistent message from across the sector. The leaders of inner-London boroughs—Labour and Conservative—talk of acute pressures getting much worse much faster than they had expected, and shortfalls in this funding settlement so excessive that no level of cuts could lead to boroughs achieving them and meeting their statutory duties. When she speaks on the local government finance settlement tomorrow, will the Minister announce a more fundamental rethink? Local authorities have a huge range of statutory duties, with more than 800 different services delivered by a typical local authority. The rise in national insurance alone has significantly driven up the cost of those activities.
We do not simply need more sticking plasters. Our residents, hearing a message from the Labour Government that there is more money in the system, find that money is coming straight out of their pockets and wallets, through massive increases in council tax. We need a fundamental rethink about how we deliver local government in the capital, so that it is affordable, deliverable and sustainable for the future.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing the debate, in which hon. Members have raised some important issues. She posed some questions that I will come to in my response. She mentioned that I served on the London borough of Southwark just before she was first elected to the best borough in London. She is right that a bit of my heart will be forever in Camberwell.
I learned a lot during those years, but local government has changed in the 20 years since I was first elected. Poverty in London has also changed, along with the services that boroughs try to provide. In a moment of shock and surprise, I find myself in agreement with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). He rightly characterises a situation faced by councils where costs are spiking, often because of policy failure not of their making, whether those are the costs of homelessness, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, or the costs associated with SEND mentioned by many hon. Members, to which I would add adult and children’s care.
We have fundamental issues to tackle and many of the policy levers lie in this place, not in town halls. We all need to own our responsibilities on that front. We continually need to rethink how we approach this issue. It is a shame in many ways that I could not introduce some of my colleagues in other parts of the country to this discussion. Hon. Members will have seen in the press that I have been variously accused of robbing the north to send money to the south, and now robbing London to send money somewhere else—the north or the midlands, I do not know.
In fact, the consistent theme in the funding settlement is the Government’s attempt to reconnect council funding with deprivation. I will come to the detail of that, because we are committed to making long-overdue changes to council funding. This is the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade, which, as Members have mentioned, will make a huge difference.
Alison McGovern
I will make some progress. Yesterday’s announcement keeps our promise of a multi-year settlement, because local communities in London and elsewhere deserved better than the out-of-date funding allocations not aligned with need, which meant poorer public services and slower growth, particularly for those dealing with the consequences of poverty.
We are making changes to how councils are funded. Many of these are changes that the public, local government partners and Parliament have long called for. We consulted four times on these changes, and we are grateful for the engagement from all corners, including from hon. Members in this debate. The engagement has informed our approach at every stage. The settlement confirms multi-year funding, our pledge to realign funding with need, and our commitment to end wasteful competitive bidding and to simplify funding.
The Government have an important role as an equaliser for local government income, and we are directing funding towards the places that are less able to meet their needs through locally raised income, which will enable all local authorities to provide similar levels of services to their residents. However, that is true notwithstanding the major differences in spiking demands around the country.
Following the provisional settlement consultation, the Government have announced an additional £740 million in grant funding as part of the final settlement, including a £440 million uplift to the recovery grant, bringing total investment over the multi-year settlement to £2.6 billion. Of that £2.6 billion, £400 million is supporting places in London that suffered the most from historical funding cuts, and there is an additional £272 million to bring the total investment in homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years to £3.5 billion—including over £800 million in London as part of our national plan to end homelessness.
That is a significant investment in the capital’s homelessness services, which is much needed, as has been mentioned by Members from across the House. It takes the total new grant funding delivered through the annual settlements for 2026-27 to 2028-29 to over £4 billion. Since coming to power, we have pledged a 24.2% increase in core spending power by 2028-29 when compared with 2024-25, worth over £16.6 billion. It is a significant uplift in the spending power of councils.
According to analysis by the Department, as a result of our reforms, nine in 10 councils will receive funding that broadly matches their assessed need by the end of the multi-year settlement, up from around one third before our reforms. In 2028-29, the most deprived places will receive 45% more funding per head than the least deprived.
Alison McGovern
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) first.
Joe Powell
As the Minister knows, where we have pockets of high deprivation in London, one concern is protecting those communities. When the settlement was announced, it was very clear that the Government’s expectation was that things like council tax support should not be the first thing that councils looked to. Does the Minister agree that the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea cutting £441,000 of council tax support to our lowest income families as its first decision is not the right way to go about building a sustainable budget for the future?
Alison McGovern
I agree, and my hon. Friend makes that case very well. I imagine that his local authority could have made other choices than that one.
Peter Fortune
I thank the Minister for the objective way that she is tackling this debate, but the reality for the London borough of Bromley is a £22 million cut over the next three-year period. Thinking about the deprivation and the challenges that we have, including the second-highest number of education, health and care plans in London, the cut will have a significant impact on our residents, despite pushing council tax as high as we can.
Alison McGovern
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Our challenge is to understand how we can best use our resources to support all our children. We could try to increase funding again and again, without any changes to the system, but we would not necessarily get better outcomes, and costs would keep going up, not least because councils have issues with how they are able to provide some of the support that children need. We need to get to a more stable financial position and take responsibility in this place to change the policy failures that caused the cost spikes that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Compared with 2024-25, by 2028-29 London will see an increase in core spending power of more than £3 billion. The vast majority of councils in London will see a real-terms increase between 2024-25 and 2028-29 and a fairer system that addresses issues that matter in London—and across England—including recognising the additional strain that commuters and tourists can place on service provision, taking into account need in specific high-demand service areas such as temporary accommodation and crucially, using the most up-to-date data, including the 2025 indices of multiple deprivation. That has been the subject of some feedback to the Department. It is a statement of the obvious that we would use the most up-to-date data, and it so happens that that data can better account for the impact of housing costs on poverty. That was always the intention, and we would always have done that, whatever noise I have picked up on this topic.
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
I will allow Munira Wilson to intervene—at a stretch, because she arrived late to the debate.
Munira Wilson
I apologise, Dr Murrison. The debate moved more quickly than I had anticipated. I thank the Minister for giving way despite my late arrival. I have a lot of sympathy with the Government’s aims; we all want to tackle deprivation and poverty. In my borough, the London borough of Richmond, we are going to see £29 million of cuts over the next three years, which will stretch to £46 million by year 4. That means a huge cliff edge, and at the moment the Government are refusing to provide any transitional protection. I recognise that Richmond is largely a wealthy borough, but we have significant pockets of deprivation and very needy residents, particularly young and older vulnerable residents. Despite a maximum council tax hike and efficiency savings, we will see cuts to the most vulnerable.
Will the Minister finally agree to meet with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the leader of our council to talk about how we can put transitional provisions in place? She has refused to do that so far. [Interruption.] She seems perplexed, but her latest letter refused a meeting with us, so I am asking her again, in the spirit of cross-party working, if she will meet us to discuss this.
Alison McGovern
The reason for my perplexed state is that during the period of consultation with Members of this House, I met 140 Members of Parliament on the settlement. I am sorry if the hon. Member has had the message that I will not meet her, because my office door has literally been open to Members over the recent period. We can discuss this at any point. The fact is that the London borough of Richmond is in the least deprived decile. While she rightly stands up for her borough, when I look at some parts of the country that have been forgotten for far too long, I feel that it is right that we have taken the decision through the settlement to reconnect funding with deprivation. But I can discuss that with her in detail in the future.
I want to make some points about cost. Local governments are still under pressure, and despite the increase of nearly 25% that I mentioned, that pressure will remain because of the costs that they are facing. That is why we are taking action now to support local authorities as we move towards a reformed special educational needs and disabilities system. The first phase of support will address historic deficits accrued, as was mentioned by the shadow Minister. All local authorities will receive a grant covering 90% of their high needs dedicated schools grant deficit, subject to the approval of a local change plan.
We are also fixing social care services, on which many people, including in London, rely. We are changing children’s social care in a generation by rolling out the Families First Partnership programme, backed by more than £2.4 billion of investment across this multi-year settlement. We are providing about £4.6 billion of additional funding, available for adult social care, by 2028-29, compared with ’25-26. When it comes to children’s care, the issue is not only that the costs are unsustainable, but that we are failing in our duty to so many children, and that is why we must change.
It is important to recognise that some places, including some inner-London boroughs, benefited disproportionately from the old system. However, we are supporting those places to plan for changes with transitional arrangements, including by protecting their income and providing additional flexibilities. For London, we are providing more than £550 million for income protection over the multi-year settlement.
Luke Taylor
The Minister mentions additional flexibility. Within that does she include allowing what I think are five inner-London boroughs, including Wandsworth, to increase their council tax by up to 10% without a referendum? Is that the additional flexibility that she mentions?
Alison McGovern
We set out that flexibility when we made the provisional statement, and there will be more details of that in the Chamber tomorrow. I am at the slight disadvantage of speaking between the publication of the settlement and the full debate in the House of Commons tomorrow. There will be more detail tomorrow for the hon. Gentleman.
The council tax bill for a house worth £5 million in central London can be less than the bill for an ordinary family home in places such as Blackpool and Darlington. It is not fair that properties worth so much more pay less council tax and receive comparatively better services than elsewhere, because of Government subsidy. Removing referendum principles for the six councils, as we have said, will allocate more than £250 million more funding for places with higher need, instead of subsidising very low bills for 500,000 households under those councils.
I want to turn to the direct questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, who led the debate. She raised the issue of the costs of temporary accommodation, and she was absolutely correct to do so. I refer her to the homelessness strategy, which I published just before Christmas. The problems in temporary accommodation are very geographically concentrated. I am anxious to work with London councils, including her councils, to get children and families out of poor-quality, expensive temporary accommodation and into better-quality temporary accommodation that will be more reasonably priced for local authorities—even if it is still temporary, because some of what we are paying for is very poor value.
My hon. Friend mentioned LHA rates and asked whether I will work with the DWP and Treasury. I can tell her that I am doing so. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), also raised that with me in another setting. I will happily update the House as we go. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood mentioned a stalled site in her borough, which sounds like a dreadful waste. I will alert the Housing Minister and the Secretary of State to that. They were anxious to bring forward their plan for London with the Mayor of London for this very reason, but I will refer them to this debate. She asked about a visitor levy, which other Members mentioned too. I will take those comments as input to the consultation on a visitor levy.
My hon. Friend and the shadow Minister mentioned EFS. Again, shockingly, I found myself agreeing with the shadow Minister: that system should have been used sparingly and for exceptional circumstances. It is becoming less exceptional, and we have to get to the heart of why councils are in this position. Some of that is about costs, as we have said, but there are also other things, like reintroducing local audit, that I believe will help to defend the system and make it more sustainable as we go. My hon. Friend also asked about SEND deficits, which I have mentioned.
We are making changes that we believe are necessary to change public services and get local government back on its feet. By realigning funding with need and reforming services that put pressure on local government, we will empower local leaders to deliver for communities in London and across the country. Unlike many people, I firmly believe that it does not matter whether someone lives in a northern town or city, in the midlands, the south-west, Scotland, Wales or London—poverty is poverty, and we should respond to it all.
Helen Hayes
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate today, particularly the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), who is a great champion for his constituents and his borough of Bromley, and to my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for their interventions and for speaking up for their boroughs. I am grateful to the Minister for her response.
I believe I am 10 years older than the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), so I would say very gently to him that perhaps my memory goes back a bit further. When I was elected to Southwark council, it coincided with the arrival of the coalition Government and the beginning, presided over by the Liberal Democrats in government, of some of the deepest cuts to local government funding that we have ever seen.
Helen Hayes
I am not going to give way during this very short summing-up. [Interruption.] I would say to him that listening to his impassioned pleas on behalf of inner-London boroughs does sound a little bit like the arsonist complaining that the fire brigade is not putting out the fire quickly enough. [Interruption.]
Helen Hayes
I urge the hon. Member to reflect with a bit of humility on what his party did to local government funding when it was in power.
Helen Hayes
I am not taking an intervention; I have been really clear about that.
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I fully appreciate the challenging situation that she is in, the complexity of her brief and the pressures that she is facing from colleagues and from councils all across the country. I appreciate deeply her commitment to local government, and her deep understanding of its workings and the challenges that our council colleagues face. I am encouraged by her assurances on local housing allowance in particular, and on the costs of temporary accommodation. I look forward to seeing progress on those points and will certainly remain engaged on those issues. I would be hugely grateful for anything that the Minister can do to unlock the stalled sites. We have three in my constituency—two of them are council-owned and one is owned by a housing association. Between them, they have the capacity to deliver quite a good number of council and social homes. We would really like to see those come forward quickly.
I believe that the Minister has good intentions in the settlement that has been announced today. I support her in her aim of reconnecting local government funding with deprivation and ensuring that funding is fairly distributed, but the challenges that our councils face will remain. There is further work to do, and I hope to be able to engage with her further on behalf of my boroughs as we seek to repair the damage that has been done over a long period of time, and get things back on a better footing so that our councils can deliver for our communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered funding for local authorities in inner London.
Sherwood Forest: Tourism
(1 day, 4 hours 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
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered tourism in Sherwood Forest.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. It is an absolute honour to represent the constituency of Sherwood Forest, the home of beautiful countryside, communities, villages, towns and farms. No matter where in the world we go, people know about the wonder of Sherwood Forest. It is one of the most recognisable places in the world. Sherwood Forest has often been associated with Robin Hood, a legendary heroic outlaw known for his highly skilled archery.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
On Robin Hood, would my hon. Friend join me in celebrating the legacy of former Mansfield Woodhouse resident Major Hayman Rooke, who discovered and is associated with the Major Oak tree in Sherwood Forest? I am sure my hon. Friend is also aware that the tree, which was named in Major Hayman Rooke’s honour, is believed to have been the legendary hiding place of Robin Hood and his merry men.
Michelle Welsh
I welcome my hon. Friend’s contribution. I know he will be involved in Sherwood Forest Day on 20 February, which, actually, is on that day exactly because of that. Without showing my age too much, I remember a time when we could climb on the Major Oak—now you cannot get within 20 feet of it.
The magic of Sherwood Forest is not lost on Hollywood. From Disney to Kevin Costner, many blockbuster films have been made about the legendary figure of Robin Hood and the historic forest he lives in. Yet this magic has been lost somehow in Nottinghamshire, or at least partly forgotten.
Children growing up in Nottinghamshire are surrounded by the magic, the tales and the powerful stories of courage, fairness and community that have been growing there for centuries. I remember distinctively going as a family, on school trips and with youth clubs to areas across Nottinghamshire, including Sherwood Forest. From Robin Hood to today’s volunteers, Sherwood Forest has always stood up for what is right, yet I fear we are beginning to lose exactly what it is we stand for. Over the last 14 years, communities in Sherwood Forest have been left behind. Communities that once served their country and contributed to the industrial strength of the UK have been left with deteriorating health and economic outcomes. It is time to say: no more.
In just over a week’s time, on 20 February, we will celebrate the second truly special Sherwood Forest Day. This is a day to honour our world-famous historic forest, its ancient oaks and the legacy of courage, fairness and community. Across Nottinghamshire, a number of events will take place to celebrate the day, including a business breakfast in the heart of Sherwood Forest to bring together the fantastic businesses across Sherwood Forest, numerous plaque unveilings to mark key areas, and tree planting to continue the legacy of the ancient forest.
This is an opportunity to celebrate our great history and local culture. It is about taking pride in our communities and working together to build a better future. I have heard that some of the trees being planted are even descended from ancient oaks themselves.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am probably the oldest person in this Chamber; I can well remember seeing “The Adventures of Robin Hood” on TV in black and white—that was not yesterday. I am impressed by the hon. Lady’s discussion of her beautiful constituency; I hail from Strangford, which I think has unparalleled beauty. Does the hon. Lady agree that for tourism to take off, funding is needed for promotion? The Minister—who is a very sympathetic Minister, by the way—and the Government can and must do more to put money into getting visitors across the threshold of the United Kingdom, knowing that if they come once, they will come back again. Surely that has to be a good policy to follow.
Michelle Welsh
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution.
Sherwood Forest Day is an opportunity for communities across Nottinghamshire to reflect on our heritage and celebrate what brings us together. I want to give a huge thank you to the Sherwood Forest Trust and Richard Townsley, the medieval sheriff of Nottingham, for all the work they are doing for Sherwood Forest Day and for our community as a whole. At the heart of all we are doing for Sherwood Forest Day are communities such as Ollerton, Edwinstowe, Blidworth, Rainworth and Clipstone—putting them back on the map and encouraging those from all over the world to visit and marvel at what we have to offer. We cannot do it alone, however. Celebrating our culture and history should not be left to only one day of the year; they should be honoured every single day.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. As she knows, the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, has put the visitor economy at the heart of her vision for the east midlands region. My hon. Friend may be aware that the Centre of it All marketing campaign was launched last week. Does she agree that Sherwood Forest and the Trent sports quarter, which would be based in my constituency of Rushcliffe, have the opportunity to grow our visitor economy to the £1 billion target that Claire Ward has set?
Michelle Welsh
My hon. Friend is right: the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, is forever supportive of our tourism. Like us, she knows that there is still a lot more work to be done.
Many factors contribute to supporting a thriving tourism economy. Most notable for rural areas such as Sherwood Forest are adequate transport, support for business and community investment. Transport in rural areas such as parts of Sherwood Forest, including the more historic parts, is inadequate. Often, public transport is inconsistent: buses do not run in the evening or sometimes not at all. There is even a railway line named after Robin Hood that does not serve the majority of historic Sherwood Forest. How can we expect people to visit that historic land if they cannot access it—not only people coming from far and wide, but those who have it on their doorstep?
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
Our green space is vital, not just for our environment and mental health but for the economic benefits that it brings to our communities. Having rail access to our communities is very important.
My constituency of North West Leicestershire is not far away from Sherwood Forest. It is home to the national forest. It is easily accessible, like Sherwood, to about 10 million people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the east midlands must capitalise on the tourism potential of all its forests, including in Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire?
Michelle Welsh
Yes, exactly. I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. That is, of course, very important, and it is important that as MPs across the east midlands, we continue to work together on that. I am interested in hearing from the Minister what work has been done in partnership with the Department for Transport and the East Midlands combined authority to ensure that places of heritage and importance are connected and accessible.
When talking about the community of Sherwood Forest, it is important to mention the bond of coalmining that for so long was the lifeblood of our economy. From Hucknall colliery in the south to Ollerton colliery in the north, the roots of mining are deep in Sherwood Forest. That is why I am so proud that this Government stuck to their promise to release funds from the mineworkers’ pension scheme to its members, and that they went further and did the same for the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. That rightful release of funds means a combined additional £11 million a year that is being spent in our towns and villages, in our local shops and pubs.
The current magic of Sherwood Forest is being wielded by local businesses such as Robin’s Den in Edwinstowe, which fight day in, day out to keep the stories alive while facing the challenges of being a small business. I believe that if we can shine a light on the history of Sherwood Forest and encourage more young people to learn about the stories, they will be inspired to add their own twists. If we invest in our local businesses for tourism, young people across Sherwood Forest will benefit by believing in the magic and having access to more work opportunities in their own communities.
Finally, with regard to community investment, I am proud that the Government are investing in communities that were neglected by the previous Conservative Government. We are making real changes to people’s lives by funding more breakfast clubs and new schools, and expanding healthcare into communities. The Government, in partnership with the Labour mayor, Claire Ward, have provided more than £31 million to fund the A614 improvements project, to create a corridor of hope where our past meets our future. That is as well as £30 million for the regeneration of Ollerton town centre, which has been achieved through working with Labour councillors and the Labour-run Newark and Sherwood district council.
Pride in where people live is not always guaranteed; it comes when everyone is investing their time and money into improving their community. I hope that what we do on Sherwood Forest Day will be an opportunity for people in Nottinghamshire to be really proud. I would also like to see more investment into the parts of communities that are often seen as a nice to have, and not as key infrastructure or central to people living happy lives. Sherwood Forest would not be what it is today if it were not for our local small businesses—the village pubs and farms that are a key part of our rural economy, providing opportunities and enjoyment to our people.
Sherwood Forest is the home not only of Robin Hood but of numerous historic sites such as Whyburn farm, which once inspired Lord Byron’s work; Thoresby park, a beautiful country estate; and Rufford abbey country park, which recently reopened following a conservation project. I was honoured to visit the site on Saturday and learn more about the work to preserve that park, which was so important to me growing up in Nottinghamshire.
Investment into landmarks such as those is an investment into the whole community, as it creates more job opportunities, supports local shops and restaurants, and helps us to conserve our heritage assets. With cultural heritage sites such as Newstead abbey and Clumber park, and modern attractions such as Center Parcs, Sherwood Pines and—who could forget my son’s favourite place to go—Wheelgate and White Post farm, Sherwood Forest really is the place to visit.
I know that I do not have to tell the Minister about the importance of culture and heritage to communities, but could she expand on what the Government are doing to protect and invest in our cultural assets, particularly in Sherwood Forest? As we approach Sherwood Forest Day, I would like to take this opportunity to urge everyone, whether they live locally or are visiting for the first time, to join us in Nottinghamshire—a jewel in our nation’s crown—to celebrate our history, help us to protect our future and be part of Sherwood Forest Day or every day after. The people of Sherwood Forest have a proud history of standing up for what is right and for each other. Despite the attempts of some to divide us, it is truer now than it has ever been: we have more in common than what divides us.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this important debate and the phenomenal leadership that she has shown in establishing Sherwood Forest Day. It is a brilliant initiative that celebrates not just a place but a shared history that continues to shape our communities.
Sherwood Forest is rightly famous around the world but it is sometimes forgotten how many of our towns and villages once formed part of the great forest. In Gedling, communities such as Arnold and Carlton, and those beyond, were historically within the bounds of Sherwood Forest. They are places with deep roots in that story, and places where history is not locked in the past but woven into everyday life. From medieval woodland rights to the enduring legend of Robin Hood, such communities help to shape the folklore and identity of our great county of Nottinghamshire.
The tales of Robin Hood and his band are not just stories for tourists; they speak to ideas of fairness, justice and standing up for the common good. Those are values that still resonate strongly with the people who I represent in Gedling. That is why I am delighted that on Sherwood Forest Day I will join the Mayor of Gedling—my husband, Councillor Kyle Robinson-Payne—to unveil plaques to recognise the communities that were once part of the historic forest.
I am especially pleased that two such plaques will be erected on excellent local pubs owned by the Lincoln Green brewery: the Brickyard in Carlton and one of my own locals, the much loved and aptly named Robin Hood and Little John, which is in Arnold. I place on record my thanks to Anthony Hughes, the founder and owner of Lincoln Green brewery—which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest—for his generous support of the Sherwood Forest Day initiative, and his commitment to celebrating local heritage.
Remembering and preserving our local history and heritage is vital. In Gedling, we are blessed to have brilliant local history groups that do just that. My thanks go to the Lambley historical society, the Burton Joyce and Bulcote local history society, the Gedling Village local history and preservation society, and the Arnold local history group for their outstanding work in preserving our rich and interesting local history. I give a special thanks to my good friend Bob Massey for all he does to champion and celebrate our proud history in and around Arnold.
Tourism rooted in history and heritage strengthens local pride, supports local businesses and tells the world that Gedling’s story is inseparable from the story of Sherwood Forest. I look forward to seeing Sherwood Forest Day go from strength to strength and to playing my part in ensuring that Gedling’s place in that story is rightly recognised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this debate and on the powerful way in which she spoke about her constituency, its history and its people.
The fact that this debate has been so well attended by local Members shows what strong representation the area is blessed with. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) mentioned the well-known Major Oak, which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris) mentioned to me on the way to the debate. We have also had contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne), who mentioned so many of his outstanding local groups. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, made a good point about attracting more international visitors, a subject that I will touch on.
Before I come to the substance of the debate, I want to acknowledge the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest about the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. As the MP for Barnsley East and then for Barnsley South, I was proud to lead that campaign in Parliament over a number of years. It means that our constituents are between £30 and £100 a week better off, thanks to this Labour Government. It is not just a transformational figure for local areas; it is absolutely the right thing to do. It means that many of our constituents can spend money in the local economy, taking part in day trips and so on.
The debate has underlined a point that the Government are very clear about: tourism is not a peripheral issue. It is a major economic sector, a significant employer and a powerful driver of growth across every nation and region of the UK. Nationally, tourism supports 1.3 million jobs and contributes more than £64 billion in gross value added to the economy. Beyond the numbers, the visitor economy plays a vital role in shaping how the UK is seen around the world, through our landscapes, our heritage, our creativity and our culture. It supports town centres, sustains rural economies, creates opportunities for young people and builds pride in place.
My hon. Friend asked what the Government are doing to protect cultural assets. The Government have announced a £1.5 billion package to restore national pride, investing in cultural organisations over a five-year period and turning the corner on a decade of underfunding. That long-term commitment recognises that culture and heritage are not simply nice to have; they are essential infrastructure for thriving communities and a strong visitor economy. That is why the Government are committed to providing long-term strategic support for the visitor economy.
Our ambition is for the UK to remain a world-class destination, attracting 50 million international visitors annually by 2030. Crucially, we are encouraging those visitors to travel more widely, stay longer and contribute to local economies across the country. That ambition will be set out in our forthcoming visitor economy growth strategy, which will focus on unlocking investment, supporting jobs and ensuring that tourism growth is competitive, sustainable and inclusive.
I turn to the regional picture. The east midlands is a strong example of how tourism is being placed at the heart of growth and regeneration. The visitor economy is recognised as a core growth sector within the east midlands local growth plan. This reflects robust regional evidence showing that the visitor economy has the potential to generate at least £1 billion in additional economic growth. To drive delivery, partners across the region have established Visit East Midlands, providing strategic leadership and co-ordination across the local visitor economy partnerships and destination management organisations.
I recognise the leadership of Mayor Claire Ward, who is championing the visitor economy as a central pillar of the region’s growth ambitions and ensuring that it receives the focus and visibility it deserves, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe rightly outlined. That regional leadership is already translating into action. The East Midlands combined county authority recently launched the Centre of it All campaign, showcasing the region’s diverse visitor offer and reinforcing its position at the heart of the country. The campaign is being delivered in close co-operation with local visitor economy partnerships and destination organisations, ensuring a coherent and compelling offer to both domestic and international audiences. Those regional connections and that work, which my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire spoke about, are so important.
The region is also strengthening its position through major events and sports tourism. Nottingham will host the European archery championships in 2028, an event that will not only bring significant economic benefits but connect powerfully to the Robin Hood story that defines Sherwood Forest. Through that work, the region is realising the full potential of the Robin Hood brand, developing regional and pan-regional itineraries and targeting key international markets, particularly the United States.
Against that backdrop, Sherwood Forest stands out as a place of extraordinary national and international significance. Centuries in the making, the legend of Sherwood Forest continues to grow, with every generation adding to its legacy. Today, it is a remarkable destination, home to ancient woodland, rich biodiversity and one of the most enduring cultural narratives in the world.
Some 350,000 people visit Sherwood Forest each year, drawn by its natural beauty, heritage and cultural power. Within the national nature reserve, 375 hectares of ancient woodland support hundreds of species—birds, insects, mammals and plants. Protecting this precious environment while ensuring it is accessible is exactly the balance that this Government want to support.
I pay tribute to the Sherwood Forest Trust for its stewardship of this unique landscape, demonstrating how conservation, community engagement and tourism can reinforce one another. Its work closely aligns with VisitEngland’s regenerative tourism framework, which focuses on protecting natural assets while delivering lasting benefits for local communities.
I am also very pleased to recognise Sherwood Forest Day on 20 February, which celebrates this world-famous historic forest and its global cultural significance. Moments like this strengthen local pride while shining a light on places of international importance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest outlined, particularly with the business breakfast and the events on 20 February. I wish those involved the very best of luck.
As my hon. Friend highlighted, Sherwood’s story also contributes to the UK’s soft power. The legend of Robin Hood remains one of our most recognisable cultural exports, resonating through literature, film and television. Through VisitBritain’s “Starring GREAT Britain” campaign, we are using screen tourism to encourage visitors to explore more of the UK, and Sherwood Forest is a natural fit for that approach.
My hon. Friend rightly raised the practical challenges facing the area and made a particular point about connectivity. Access matters for visitors, local residents and businesses. On her point about transport, the Government are introducing our integrated national transport strategy, which will place strong emphasis on connecting people to places of opportunity, heritage and culture, ensuring that transport investment supports regional growth, rural access and the visitor economy alongside commuting needs.
We are working closely with the Department for Transport, the East Midlands combined authority and local partners to improve connectivity so that destinations such as Sherwood Forest are accessible both for those travelling further afield and for the communities on its doorstep. Supporting local businesses is equally critical. Tourism works best when it creates opportunities for people to live, work and build futures in their own communities. That is why we are addressing skills shortages, promoting apprenticeships and improving recruitment and retention across the sector, ensuring that young people can see tourism as a viable and rewarding career.
Sherwood Forest is not just a place of extraordinary heritage. It is a living, evolving destination that contributes to regional growth, national identity and Britain’s global story. With continued partnership, investment and strategic support, it can continue to thrive for generations to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Place-based Employment Support Programmes
(1 day, 4 hours 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
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered place-based employment support programmes.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am very pleased to have secured this debate. Discussions of employment policy can sometimes feel very abstract in this place; we talk about things like rates, targets and programmes, but for the people we represent, employment can be intensely personal. It is about confidence, dignity, routine and feeling that they have something to contribute.
I know all that from personal experience. The depression that I fell into in the mid-’90s, at the end of the Tories’ previous disastrous spell in government when I could not get a job, had a long-lasting effect on my life. Growing up in what was then and by many measures still is one of the poorest boroughs in the country, the pressure to find a job—any job, to be honest—was immense, but the availability of jobs did not match that pressure. The local factory had closed down in 1991. My home town had barely any industry left to speak of, and most of the low-paid, temporary jobs I could find were in the next town along. It was almost a two-hour walk away for a lad who wanted to work but could not afford the bus fare to get to the factory. That is why I want to make the case today for place-based employment support—support that is rooted in communities, shaped by local need and delivered by people who understand the realities of the lives that they are working with.
In my Southport constituency, I see it time and again: the people furthest from the labour market are not those who do not want to work, but people with caring responsibilities, health issues or gaps in their work history, or people who, for whatever reason, just cannot get a break. In my local authority area alone, that equates to over 26,000 people. What they need is not another box-ticking exercise, but someone who knows their area and knows what the local jobs are, and has the time to treat them as a person.
I want to put on the record my thanks for the work of several place-based employment support programmes across the north of England. The Big Onion in Southport does things differently, and that is precisely why it is effective. Its work is rooted in trust. It helps people to rebuild confidence, develop skills and, in many cases, explore things such as self-employment or community enterprise as a route back into work. It does not rush people. Its approach recognises that, for many people, the first step towards employment is simply believing that they have something to offer. That kind of progress does not always show up immediately in headline figures, but it is essential if we want to make sustainable outcomes for the long term.
Zink is a charity based in Buxton that started out as a food bank but, once it investigated the drivers of local food bank demand, soon branched out into offering employment support and debt advice. Its most innovative programme, microjobs, offers small, paid roles tailored to people who are far from the jobs market—often people who have been affected by homelessness or past substance abuse. Three quarters of those with a microjob subsequently move into part-time or full-time work within six months.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that place-based employment schemes are a vital way of converting local strengths into local jobs, and that sector-specific initiatives can and should be tailored to the circumstances of individual constituencies? In North Down, there is particular potential in tourism, hospitality and the wider marine and coastal economy.
Patrick Hurley
That is one in a long line of things that place-based employment initiatives can do well, so I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
The Recruitment Junction, which works up in the north-east, mainly in Newcastle, places people with criminal convictions into paid work. It works with local employers to identify skills shortages and then identifies suitable candidates, meets them and helps them to renew their qualifications, write their CVs and prepare for interviews. So far, it has placed almost 900 people with criminal convictions into paid work, with a 66% retention rate. Fewer than 5% of those that it places reoffend, compared with around 24% nationally.
I also want to commend the work of Transform Lives Company. Its model deliberately breaks away from what many people expect employment support to look like. It is welcoming, informal and feels safe, and for many participants in its schemes, that alone is transformative. People who go to Transform Lives Company are supported not just with job search, but with things like confidence, wellbeing and life skills. They are listened to, rather than lectured at. As a result, people who would never normally engage with employment services do so willingly. I think that should make us stop and think about how our national system is experienced on the ground.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I am reminded of the JobsPlus scheme that is being run on one of our council estates in Leyton, where L&Q has been going out and actively knocking on doors. We have seen not only the young people who were the target of the scheme coming back into the work environment, but their parents. Does my hon. Friend agree that that type of scheme needs to continue to be funded, and to be extended, so that other people can be brought back into the working environment?
Patrick Hurley
Indeed. I promise Members that I did not give my hon. Friend advance sight of my speech, but I will be talking about JobsPlus in due course. It is an amazing system and an amazing scheme.
I have touched on some of my own experiences as a young man, but it is worth going back to them, because I want to put Members in the shoes of someone who would have really benefited from one of these schemes, had they been running back when I was in my late teens and early 20s. Many families have funny anecdotes about things that children have said, and mine is no different. Perhaps unwisely, I am going to share the funny anecdote that my family tell about something that they say I said back in around 1982, when I was four or five years old—of course, they teased me about it for years afterwards.
Apparently, I asked my parents one day why they watched the news on the telly. In my childhood brain, this made no sense at all. My mum was a dinner lady and my dad worked nights in the local car factory 6 or 7 miles away. I had got it into my head as a little kid that the TV news was only for people who did not have jobs, but my mum and dad had jobs, so what were they doing watching the TV news? It was only about 20 years later that it dawned on me that it was not that TV news in the early 1980s was not for people who did not have jobs, but that it felt like it was only about people who did not have jobs.
Every night on the 6 o’clock news, the headlines were about the unemployment figures—the latest round of lay-offs in some critical industry or other, the factory closures, the countless thousands being put on the sick as a way of keeping the official number of jobseekers off the balance sheet. I grew up in that context in Knowsley, a local authority area that had been drawn up a decade earlier in such a way as to exclude all sixth-form provision. This was an area that was being written off. I was a poorly qualified, unskilled lad in his late teens, living in a town with few opportunities, and suffering with my mental health because I could not see a way out.
By way of contrast, these days my city region is benefiting from the award-winning Cradle to Career scheme, which provides holistic mental health and wellbeing support and focuses on the underlying causes of youth crime and antisocial behaviour. Just as important as the metrics of success that make the headlines in the press are the testimonies of the people whose lives have been turned around.
To return to my broader point, many of the approaches that I have described echo the work done in recent years on fundamentally rethinking employment support. That work has made a compelling case for a more wraparound employment service that links employment with skills, health, housing and local economic conditions, and gives frontline staff the flexibility to respond to individual circumstances.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) said, we have seen that in things such as JobsPlus, which has demonstrated that embedding employment support directly in social housing communities can reach people who have been economically inactive for years. Early evidence shows people do not just move into work, but gain improvements in their confidence, wellbeing, readiness and resilience—the things that actually make employment sustainable for people.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very sincere speech, and I am listening to it with great interest. He talks about youngsters’ confidence. One of the great industries that was run down during the Conservatives’ years of rule was the nuclear industry, but I believe it will be great again one day. Dounreay in my constituency still has an apprenticeship scheme, which gives youngsters great confidence. I hope it will be carbon copied by many industries as we revive the fortunes of what we are good at in this country.
Patrick Hurley
That pinpoints exactly why place-based schemes are so important. What is useful and necessary for my part of the country will not be useful elsewhere. That difference can have a positive impact on local people’s lives.
I have talked about the good things that JobsPlus can do, but despite that evidence, too many of the programmes that I have mentioned today exist in a state of uncertainty. Short-term funding and delayed decisions are forcing providers to plan for winding down even when their outcomes are improving. That is not a sensible way to run employment policy, and we risk losing exactly the sort of expertise and relationships that we should be encouraging and building on.
If we are serious about increasing employment and tackling inactivity, we also need to be serious about how the support that is needed is delivered. Central systems have their place, but they cannot do everything; we also need long-term backing for place-based approaches and proper partnership with community organisations. Collectively, we need the confidence to move away from one-size-fits-all solutions.
More than 9 million working-age people in the UK are economically inactive, and long-term sickness is the single largest driver of inactivity among 16 to 64-year-olds. In Southport and across the country, organisations such as The Big Onion and Transform Lives Company, and schemes such as Cradle to Career, are already doing the work that we say we want to see. The question is whether national policy is willing to learn from them and support them properly.
Mr Calvin Bailey
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about place-based intervention. Last week, I welcomed the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), to Build Academy in Wanstead, an incredible scheme that is providing accessible training in construction skills to local people. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) was making the point that we need to focus on these fantastic young learners to ensure that they are site ready and capable of going directly into full-time local employment or apprenticeships. Does he agree that such learning programmes need to be shared, so that they can permanently address the issues that he raises and be scaled up and rolled out around the country?
Patrick Hurley
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Not only can we scale and roll out those programmes, but we can do peer-to-peer learning, so that the best of what works in one part of the country might be applied elsewhere.
I hope the Minister will reflect on some of what I have mentioned this afternoon and on how future employment policy can better embed place-based delivery of these schemes, giving local providers the certainty they need and ensuring that employment support is something people feel genuinely helped by, not just processed through.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Order. I am going to begin calling the Front Benchers at 5.08 pm—do the maths.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for securing this important debate.
In my constituency, the scale of youth unemployment is stark and deeply concerning. We are among the worst-affected areas in the country, with one in every six eligible adults—16.1%—currently not working. Those are not just statistics; they represent thousands of young people whose talents are being wasted and whose futures are being put on hold. Across the west midlands, around 29,000 young people are classed as unemployed, with youth unemployment rates in parts of Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Walsall running at double the national average. The sheer scale of the challenge facing our region underlines the urgent need for growth and genuine job creation.
Young people are not short of ambition or willingness to work; what they are short of is real opportunities, secure jobs, quality training, and pathways into employment that offer dignity and progression. Too many are stuck in a cycle of rejection or short-term work, or being shut out altogether. I hope the Minister will detail how young people are being actively supported into large infrastructure projects such as HS2 and the large housing programmes. As the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), said:
“To get Britain growing, we need to get Britain working again.”
I wholly agree with that sentiment, but I cannot agree with the Government’s approach of removing universal credit from young people if they do not take up a job—there could be a whole host of reasons why they cannot do so. Punitive policies do not create jobs or address the structural barriers that young people face, and they risk pushing already vulnerable people into further hardship.
Young people are struggling to get jobs, a struggle intensified by wider changes in the economy. New research suggests that the UK is now losing more jobs than it is creating because of artificial intelligence, and that Britain is being hit harder than any other major economy. According to a recent study by Morgan Stanley, British companies reported that AI had resulted in net job losses over the past 12 months, with employment down by 8%—the worst performance among comparable economies, including the United States, Japan, Germany and Australia. That performance matters, because it means that young people are entering a labour market that is shrinking, not expanding. Getting Britain working again does not require sanctions; we need investment, collaboration with local employers, properly funded skills programmes and an economy that works for every region, not just a few.
I commend the excellent work of the West Midlands combined authority under Mayor Richard Parker, which is building up skills and training our young people in areas such as construction, the arts, tech, life sciences and clean energy. However, I urge more support from central Government to ensure this is happening across the midlands and the wider economy. If we are truly serious about growth, we must be serious about our young people. That means backing them, not blaming them; it means opportunity, not punishment; and it means ensuring that places such as Birmingham Perry Barr are not left behind, but are at the heart of our national recovery.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for bringing forward what I consider to be a truly vital discussion. Colleagues will not be surprised to hear me talk about towns today—I am the proud product of one, and I proudly represent two towns, Stafford and Eccleshall. It is important to be in this Chamber today discussing them, because I want to use this debate to make a simple but important point about place.
Far too often, towns such as Stafford are described in relation to somewhere else. We are labelled a commuter town because we have excellent rail connections—and we do: a person can get to London, Birmingham or Manchester really quickly from Stafford, but Stafford should not be defined by its neighbouring cities, and a child growing up in Stafford should not be told, “Just go to a city to access better employment opportunities.” If our policy only sees us as part of someone else’s labour market, it will misunderstand us and the brilliant talent that we have in my constituency.
Our young people deserve to build happy, successful lives in the town they call home, and there is so much potential for that. We are home to GE Vernova, whose Stafford site produces the only high-voltage direct current transformers manufactured in this country, which are absolutely key to our national energy security. We have Bostik’s UK headquarters, where world-leading adhesives are made. We have Arco Professional Safety Services keeping those working in risky roles safe, including on Big Ben—or the Elizabeth Tower, I should say—and we have so many wonderful small and medium enterprises. We are supported by Stafford college, widely acknowledged to be the best college in the country, with back-to-back outstanding Ofsted ratings, which works closely with local employers to build the technical and vocational skills that our industries require.
Stafford is a county town where people are proud to live, but people feel its potential is not yet being fulfilled. Research from the University of Southampton shows that that is a pattern repeated across the country, and a pattern that we must address as a Government. We must provide the tools for every community to ensure that their town flourishes. Let us be frank: there is no one-size-fits-all approach to this. When we talk about designing employment programmes around place, we are talking about a massive opportunity for promoting our towns, and building secure jobs and futures for residents that cater to our national diversity.
The economy of places including Stafford should not be trickle-down cities. We must recognise the strengths of towns such as Stafford, particularly in manufacturing and energy infrastructure. We must directly align skills provision with local employer demand, rather than assume that opportunity sits elsewhere. It is also time that we stop telling our talented young people to move away to London or Manchester, and start recognising the potential that our towns have as economic engines in their own right.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady. In Northern Ireland, we are doing a collaborative, localised model through the Ards community network. We have done there what the hon. Lady is referring to in Stafford: identifying job opportunities. HGV training is one—it costs about £3,500 to do that—and there is also security training. The local Ards community network, the Government in the Northern Ireland Assembly and others have come together to ensure that those job opportunities are available for people in my constituency. Many of those people are now driving HGV lorries, and lots of them are in security jobs and training. That inspires people from deprived areas, and I think that is what she was talking about in Stafford.
Leigh Ingham
I completely agree with the hon. Member. Recognising the talent that we have in our towns, and making sure that all our Government programmes are working to support that, is integral. I welcome the Government’s investment in growth and opportunity, and we are seeing a revised investment in towns. Pride in Place and town of culture are really good examples; those are not necessarily employment programmes, but they lay the foundations of our commitment to regeneration across the country. The upcoming high street strategy also has a lot of potential to help with that investment.
Although investment into UK cities is undoubtedly important, it is vital to remember that most of our population live in towns, and many of those people are feeling left behind, frustrated by the decline on their high streets under the Conservative Government and sceptical that politicians in Westminster understand them or the places that they call home. This is a chance to show that we do, and that is exactly what Labour Governments do better than anyone else. Time and again, we see that working with communities and using their local knowledge and experience is how we can best regenerate our areas.
I ask the Minister what conversations she is having with colleagues to ensure that towns have a voice in designing their local employment strategies, and what steps the Government are taking to ensure that young people who grow up in towns including Stafford can secure well paid jobs in the towns they call home. Towns such as Stafford are central to our Government’s plan for growth, and I welcome employment programmes that recognise that reality.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for giving us the opportunity to speak in this debate. In my career before being elected, I was involved in a number of successful place-based employment schemes, including having direct responsibility for delivering some of this work within a housing association. I am therefore a strong advocate for the approach, and I will come on to that later in my speech.
As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I visited Durham last week to speak to participants and employers on the Connect to Work programme run by DurhamEnable and Triage. It offers voluntary supported employment initiatives designed to help people with learning disabilities, autism, health conditions and complex barriers to employment to find and sustain meaningful work. Such programmes offer a great example of why and how place-based employment really works.
Durham uses the supported employment model, “place, train, maintain”, which focuses on finding the right job first, and then offering training and ongoing support, and I will break that down a little further. Stage one is place: finding the right job for an individual and emphasising that employers are key to delivery and engaging with future employees. Working with the person, as well as the local job market, to discover who they are is a key principle.
Stage two is training. DurhamEnable ensures that future employees are benefiting from the right support. It was also clear that that support inspired confidence. One person we spoke to had recently been made redundant from a long-term job. DurhamEnable had helped them to navigate the more complicated process nowadays of job applications that they had never needed to do before. Stage three is maintain, which includes offering ongoing support to participants and employers to navigate reasonable adjustments in the workplace while applying for such things as Access to Work.
I will briefly mention JobsPlus, which has already been mentioned, and information from the Learning and Work Institute. The latter found that in 2003, social housing tenants were nearly twice as likely to be out of work and more than twice as likely to be disabled. When in work, social housing tenants are twice as likely to be in lower skilled work on average and are paid a third less than people who live in other housing tenures.
JobsPlus, which is being piloted in 10 sites across England, is a key initiative. It brings together tenants, landlords and key agencies to provide targeted support to those who need it. It works because of that joint commitment and the targeted support that is provided. In fact, it is the simplicity of the scheme that works overall. The non-reliance on system-based referrals sets JobsPlus apart from most other employment programmes. All the programme needs to know is where somebody lives, and then it simply helps them.
It will be no surprise to Members that as a long-standing housing professional, I advocate the work done by housing associations. East Midlands Housing, based in North West Leicestershire, is not only a great local employer, but part of the Placeshapers initiative, which is about creating place. That is another important part of employer-based support, because it means putting support right at the centre of the community. Above all, it is the community that knows how best to boost engagement and to support one another.
I conclude by emphasising that the key point to take away from today is that we do not need to reinvent the wheel to be successful; we just need to look at what is being done already. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southport about limited contracting. My experience over two decades is that we have great schemes, but they are often reinvented, which means we then lack consistency. Consistency develops our communities and the long-term commitment from employers that we need to see real change in place-based support. When schemes come and go, momentum is lost. Can the Minister tell us how we will breed that consistency to ensure that place-based schemes have a seat at the employment support table for the long term, and not just the short term?
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for securing this important debate on place-based employment schemes. Local jobs, local skills and local employment support, rooted in communities, will change individuals’ lives as well as boosting local economies. My residents in Wolverhampton North East will understand that deeply.
In previous debates on young people not in education, employment or training, I have said that the challenge cannot be solved by a single national programme or by one-size-fits-all policies from Whitehall. Instead, we need local solutions, rooted in local labour markets and built around developing and building people, skills and aspirations. That is the approach that I am calling for and I welcome the Labour Government to continue to work closely with our Mayor, Richard Parker, and also with local councils. In Wolverhampton, through the Wolves at Work employment hub at the i10, residents are not handed generic advice; instead, time is invested in individuals to support them as needed. More than 1,800 residents have had employment advice and successful job matching, with more than 40% of those supported aged under 25. That is place-based employment support that is rooted in local partnerships and focused on real outcomes.
The open door programme does literally that. It opens up opportunities by giving paid work experience to those who might otherwise never get that first chance. Labour’s support for sector-based work academy programmes, a practical route into work, and for the youth guarantee trailblazer, part of the Get Britain Working plan, shows how this Government are focused on tailored, targeted support that will meet local needs. The major funding package for youth employment, benefiting about a million young people, is a sign of Labour’s commitment to tackling the long-term issue of young people not in education, employment or training.
Behind every statistic on NEETs is a young person who needs a guided pathway, with support for their specific needs. In Wolverhampton, we know that 2.6% of young people aged 16 to 17 were NEET in 2025. Although I appreciate that is lower than the national average, it is still hundreds of young people who deserve the opportunity to see themselves in a good quality job and a career suited to them.
For too long under previous Governments, employment support, skills funding and local growth strategies have operated in silos and we have seen inconsistencies, but this Labour Government are doing things differently. We are aligning skills with jobs, investing in local employment hubs for the long term, and backing councils and mayoral combined authorities to shape programmes that work for their places.
How will the Minister address the challenge of scaling up that success, so that where someone grows up no longer determines whether they can get on in life? I call on the Minister to fully back place-based employment schemes to connect people to jobs for hope, ambition and action.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I also thank the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for shining a light on this important issue.
The Liberal Democrats strongly support the principles of devolution and localism so we welcome the Government’s stated ambition to expand place-based employment support. Employment conditions vary so much across the country that a purely national strategy could never work. However, local delivery is only half the story. A succession of Governments have been adept at passing on new responsibilities to local government but not necessarily the budget to match. The Liberal Democrats will not support reforms that simply shift costs and risks on to councils without the funding systems and accountability to make them work. What extra powers or funding flexibility will the Government give local and combined authorities so that they can design and deliver place-based employment strategies that genuinely reflect their local labour markets?
Improving employment prospects is also about removing barriers. Estimates suggest that hundreds of thousands of people are economically inactive due to long-term sickness linked to NHS waiting lists. More than 600,000 people have reduced their working hours while waiting for treatment. Too much existing work support consists of generic help with CV writing and basic qualifications such as maths and English. Although important, that does not go far enough to answer individual needs, especially for people with specific health conditions. The current system seems to work best when providing adjustments for people already in work, who then become disabled, but fails those who are trying to get a job in the first place. The practical adjustments through Access to Work are frequently agreed only after the job offer and that is too late in the process.
The case of one of my constituents from Horsham, Amanda, illustrates what can go wrong when systems do not join up. Amanda is deaf; she got a job and needed an interpreter funded through Access to Work, but a basic administrative breakdown between her employer and the Department for Work and Pensions resulted in her support being refused. Long delays in making awards are causing real trouble; I believe the waiting list has increased by four times in just a few years. The current system seems unable to respond to individual circumstances.
The Liberal Democrats argue that devolution must be matched with stable funding and enough resources to support implementation. There is a journey to go on and, as we embark on it, we need to be honest about a legacy of negative culture in the system. According to a 2025 survey by Turn2Us, 64% of claimants say that the system is trying to “catch them out.” Only 15% said support from work coaches is useful, while 55% of universal credit claimants say that claiming benefits has “worsened their health.” That sounds less like an employment system and more like a deterrence system.
That tactic has backfired. Job hunting is a tough process; morale matters. Totally undermining unemployed jobseekers by treating them like benefit scroungers has only ended up making sure that is exactly how they remain: stuck on benefits. The pressure on jobseekers to demonstrate industrial quantities of applications every week has destroyed trust on both sides. I have seen how local employers in my constituency have disengaged with the jobcentre. They feel that the applicants they are being sent are not interested and are just trying to meet their weekly quota of applications. The Liberal Democrats welcome the trial of place-based approaches, such as JobsPlus. It is too soon to judge, but the early signs suggest higher engagement and improved confidence and wellbeing. We need to get both jobseekers and employers believing and trusting in the system again.
We need clarity on funding. Council budgets are already under severe strain and rural areas, such as mine in west Sussex, face some of the greatest barriers to employment support, yet also face some of the stiffest demands and the tighter settlement under the new local government finance settlement. Councils are concerned that JobsPlus funding ends in March 2026, yet the full evaluation has not yet been completed. What long-term funding certainty will be provided to ensure that community-based employment support is not cut off just as it starts to deliver results?
Finally, on national oversight, it is vital that we ensure that place-based employment support is properly integrated with jobcentres and national programmes such as restart to avoid duplication and confusion. Will the Government commit to clear outcome measurement and regular, public reporting so that Parliament can hold the DWP to account for what those programmes actually deliver? Alongside that, what are the Government doing to properly integrate local employment schemes with national programmes, such as restart and jobcentre services, to make everything work together effectively?
To conclude, the Liberal Democrats believe that place-based employment support can reduce inequality, improve outcomes and help people into sustainable work, but it must be backed by long-term funding, a competent Administration and clear, national accountability. Otherwise, localism will end up as a slogan, not a solution.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) and congratulate him on securing this important debate.
Getting people into work should be a core priority for any Government and I know Members across the House share that view. I, and the Conservative party, wholly believe that work is the best route out of poverty. Work brings independence, dignity, opportunity and the ability for people across the country to provide for themselves and their families. It gives meaning and purpose, and has real, proven mental health benefits. That is why successive Conservative Governments have put in place a lot of employment support schemes. The restart scheme was one example. Launched in 2020, it gave tailored, intensive support to jobseekers who were often in need of more support.
I appreciate that the current Government recognise the challenges of joblessness and that there is a genuine desire to tackle the problem. Whether through local authorities or the private sector, there are many ways of attempting to improve employment outcomes and get people into work. There is a clear difference between broader national schemes and localised place-based approaches. It is clear that employment challenges in Carlisle, for example, are very different from those in Cardiff and that tailored, localised support can be a more effective way of helping people in those areas to gain meaningful, lasting employment.
The JobsPlus scheme—started by the previous Conservative Government—is an example of that, and has been mentioned a few times already this afternoon. The scheme was inspired by the response to problems in the United States, and has been carried out in the UK through social landlords, and convened and organised by Communities that Work. These pilots were carried out in a diverse range of areas, such as Swale in Kent and Toxteth in Liverpool, as a useful road test for a scheme that would show how it would work in different parts of the country. The evaluation last autumn, written by the Institute for Employment Studies and Learning to Work, said that there had been
“positive early indications that the JobsPlus model could be implemented effectively in the UK”.
There is, of course, a long way to go. We hope for the success of place-based employment schemes and for each area to see an uptick in employment. There are hard-working and committed people in communities across the country who are doing their utmost to improve the life chances of others. Effective wraparound support is essential in tackling those complex barriers to work that so many of our constituents are facing in their own communities.
We certainly know that a one-size-fits-all approach from Whitehall is often not the answer, and that devolving power down to local people and local decision makers can be the best way to achieve real, tangible progress and outcomes. However, we recognise that core principles apply to helping people throughout the country when they are trying to get a job. We must also guard against a postcode lottery, where some areas have a good level of support and others are, quite frankly, left behind. There is a clear balance to be struck, and I would like the Minister to explain how she will make sure that it happens.
I would also be interested to hear the Minister’s view on private sector involvement. From my perspective, relying on state interventions alone does not work, and we will need to unleash private enterprise, particularly small and medium sized enterprises. One of the current problems in the British economy, and, indeed, in our jobs market, is that businesses of all sizes and in all communities do not have the confidence to hire in the current economic and regulatory environment. The Minister does not need me to repeat the impact on jobs of the Government’s decisions on things such as hiking national insurance or the Employment Rights Act 2025. I hear the impact from my constituents, and I do not believe that the Minister and others on the Government benches do not hear the same things too.
A thriving economy and business confidence really is the best way to boost employment across the UK. That simply is not the case at the moment, with job vacancies down and unemployment up from 4.2% when the Government came to power in July 2024 to 5.1% today. There are 700,000 university graduates who are out of work and on benefits, and nearly 1 million NEET young people. These are sobering numbers and will impact on the constituencies and constituents of every Member in this room, across the length and breadth of the country. They impact people now, but also into their futures. Those numbers put a huge pressure on employment support programmes, and often overwhelm them. We want employers to feel comfortable in hiring people, not to impose hiring freezes because they are concerned about the state of the economy.
I will briefly focus on my constituency, as others have today. I often talk in this place about the oil and gas sector and the impact that policies are having on jobs. Employment, particularly locally in north-east Scotland, is wholly reliant on the oil and gas sector. Every other sector and industry is related to it: hospitality, taxis, shops, and the housing market. Regardless of whether people support oil and gas or whether people believe in the energy transition, policies in this sector are having an impact on jobs.
No other constituency in the country is seeing as many job losses in a single sector as we are across north-east Scotland. If this were happening in any other Member’s constituency, they would not be sitting silent; they would be fighting for the employment and future of their constituents. That is what I am doing, and it is what must be done if we are to ensure that place-based employment support is not needed in Aberdeenshire to the extent that it would be if the oil and gas sector were allowed to collapse.
I certainly welcome robust place-based employment support, but I call on the Government to link it with broader economic changes that allow businesses to flourish and encourage them to take a chance on younger people and those currently out of work. I thank the Minister in advance for her response and the hon. Member for Southport again for securing this debate.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr Murrison.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) on securing this debate. As he rightly pointed out, employment can often get bound up in numbers, targets and rates. What we all know is that this is fundamentally about people, families, communities and the world of work. Work is a huge part of people’s lives, and we should never underestimate how much it matters that we support people into work and help them succeed in their careers. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon, in what I think has been an excellent debate, about the support that their constituents are already receiving in many cases.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) talked about her local employers, as well as the vital role of towns in economic growth and regeneration. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), who brings great knowledge to her role on the Work and Pensions Committee, as well as her experience prior to entering Parliament. She spoke about the Connect to Work programme, which I will say a little more about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) spoke about NEETs and about the excellent work, rooted in partnerships, that is already going on in her area to support individuals. At the end of her contribution, she talked about hope, ambition and action, which I thought was a very powerful message. I would gently remind the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) that over 500,000 people entered employment over the last year.
I pay tribute to what my hon. Friend the Member for Southport said, and to his commitment to helping his constituents into good work. It was great to hear him champion some of the excellent work of The Big Onion in Southport, the Cradle to Career scheme in the Liverpool city region more widely, and the various place-based employment support providers across the north of England. I was particularly interested in Zink and its microjobs, and in how it helps people move into part-time and then full-time work.
My hon. Friend also spoke with great eloquence about the challenges he faced growing up in an area where the local factory had closed and work was really hard to come by. It underlines the fact that where someone lives is often a significant factor in the challenges they face and the chances before them in life. Those who live in communities like the ones that he represents, or that I represent in Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham, will always know best what the barriers and opportunities are in their local area. That is why I am committed to working closely with mayoral strategic authorities, local government, the voluntary and community sector, and others to ensure that employment support works for people, no matter where they live.
I regularly meet with mayors and leaders in local government, as do my officials, to ensure that we are designing employment support that meets the needs of those local communities. In December, I met the mayoral council. Last week, the Minister for Skills, Baroness Smith of Malvern, and I met the Local Government Association’s inclusive growth committee to hear from local leaders working across England, including those representing towns, on youth employment and the jobs and careers service. Earlier today, I met the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham. We will continue to listen to and engage with local leaders as we reform employment support.
A core strength of the Department is our network of jobcentres and work coaches on high streets all around the country, with staff who are knowledgeable and passionate about the communities they serve. We have to make the most of that, which is why we are building a new jobs and careers service that moves away from the one-size-fits-all approach that has been mentioned several times this afternoon. We are instead building a locally responsive service designed to meet the different needs of local labour markets, local people and local employers. We are already testing new elements of this service through our pathfinder in Wakefield, which I went to see before Christmas. We have also matched up Jobcentre Plus boundaries with mayoral strategic authorities to strengthen partnerships between jobcentres, local government and other local stakeholders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport mentioned the efforts to make jobcentres more human. I have to say, this is not the first time that effort has been put into that. I read that, in the 1940s, as part of his drive to humanise the employment exchanges that existed then, Ernest Bevin felt it necessary to issue an instruction that staff should say “good morning” to members of the public when they came into the employment exchange looking for help.
Fortunately, I think we are starting from a better position than that today, but we want to make sure that jobcentres are places that people want to go to for support, not places that they shy away from. We are making sure that the new jobs and careers service is less about benefit administration and box ticking, and that it better uses technology so we can free up our work coaches’ time to focus on giving people support that is tailored to their needs. In the English devolution White Paper, we again set out the important role of mayors in driving local growth and supporting labour market and skills needs.
I will turn to some of the locally led employment support that we are investing in already, including £1 billion through our Connect to Work programme. I recently saw that support in action in Lewisham, where a neurodiverse young man told me how the personalised support that he was receiving from the team was helping him in his work as a swimming teacher. Across England and Wales, he is one of 300,000 disabled people, or people with health conditions and other complex barriers, who we will be supporting through Connect to Work by the end of the decade.
Mayors and local authorities are being funded via grants to enable delivery of local Connect to Work programmes. Over two fifths of delivery areas are now up and running, and we have given areas considerable flexibility in how they deliver the service to reflect the local priorities and other support available in the area.
We are also expanding WorkWell across the whole of England over the next three years to support up to 250,000 people. I visited WorkWell in Cambridge a few months ago and saw the brilliant way that it is working together with local authorities, integrated care boards and Jobcentre Plus to provide a single route to personalised, integrated work and health support. This recognises that local areas are well placed to knit together local services. For that reason, we have also commissioned local Get Britain Working plans in all areas of England.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), raised the issue of Access to Work, and I heard what he said. He will know that a National Audit Office report was produced at the end of last week. Demand has soared for Access to Work; we are already putting in additional staff and we are looking at what more can be done because we recognise how important it is.
I want to mention the voluntary and community sector, which was raised by a number of Members this afternoon, and how important its role is in employment support. With the mayoral strategic authorities, we are working closely with the sector to deliver 17 economic inactivity and youth guarantee trailblazers to test new, innovative ways of delivering that support, delivered by local partners. The partnership is about engaging with communities at that grassroots level to help them access holistic support to move towards work. I heard the calls this afternoon for the funding to be made available to that sector on a sustainable basis with multi year settlements.
There was mention of local authority funding. The local government finance settlement is the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s most significant move yet to make English local government more sustainable. The Government are making good on long overdue promises to fundamentally update the way we fund local authorities. We are delivering fairer funding and targeting money where it is needed most through the first multi-year settlement in decades.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport spoke about the long-lasting effect on his life when he could not get a job as a young man. For so many, the consequences of what happens at the start of their working life can cascade down the years. That is why we are putting a real focus on supporting young people, not least through our youth guarantee.
At the Budget, we announced the expansion of the youth guarantee, backed by £820 million of investment, which answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) about supporting young people into infrastructure projects. That investment will create around 300,000 more opportunities to gain workplace experience and training for young people. I take issue with his comments, however, because he failed to acknowledge that if support and help are offered to a young person, as they will be through the youth guarantee, there is a responsibility on them to take up that offer of assistance and support. That is part of the social contract in this country.
I have already mentioned the locally led trailblazers, but we are also expanding youth hub provision to more than 360 areas across Great Britain. That is important because those hubs are helping us to reach young people where they are—in places such as football clubs and other sports facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport mentioned the importance of delivering support in familiar settings, and I am glad that he and several other Members highlighted JobsPlus as an example of that. It delivers community-based employment support through the social housing sector and is being piloted in 10 sites across England.
I want to mention the Milburn review, which is looking at why nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. It is due to report in the summer. We cannot allow the talents of nearly 1 million young people to be wasted. It is not good for those young people, and it is not good for our economy or the taxpayer either.
Whether it is our trailblazers, youth hubs, Jobcentre reform or programmes such as Connect to Work and WorkWell, we are determined that people should get the support that suits them, regardless of where they live or what their circumstances are. People’s lives are complex and people can face all sorts of barriers to work, whether it is health, skills, transport, housing or any other factor. That is why we must take a joined-up approach to deliver a locally tailored ecosystem of support to ensure that no one is left behind.
We must ensure that people can access offers of support from sources that they trust and that treat them as an individual and as a whole person. That is why the Government have committed to learn from place-based support, such as the economic inactivity and youth guarantee trailblazers and Connect to Work, and it is why we are committed to truly embedding and tailoring our new jobs and careers service to meet the needs of local people and employers.
As we develop our jobs and careers service, our youth guarantee and Pathways to Work, we will be working closely with local government, including mayoral strategic authorities, to ensure that they reflect the communities that they serve. Ensuring that employment support is integrated in, and meets the needs of, local communities will help people to benefit from the purpose, pride and independence of good work and to fulfil their potential.
Patrick Hurley
I thank you, Dr Murrison, for your exemplary chairing of the debate. I also thank hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. What has come through really clearly is that employment policy works when it starts with the reality of people’s lives and that, for people furthest from the labour market, progress works best when the support that they are given is human and rooted in place.
The message that I hope the Minister will take away is simple: the systems that we have in place centrally matter, but they cannot do all of this alone. Place-based delivery, person-centred support and genuine partnership are all essential if we are serious about tackling the scourge of inactivity. Crucially, funding, and the certainty of funding, is also massively important. I know that the Government will reflect on how future policy can embed the approaches we have talked about this afternoon. I thank everybody for their contributions to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered place-based employment support programmes.
Written Statements
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Integrated Security Fund
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text