House of Commons
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)
Public services in Northern Ireland can and should be better. The Government are backing the Northern Ireland Executive every step of the way, starting with a record £19.3 billion settlement. Of course there is more to do and we will continue to work with the Executive to do it.
Mr Dhesi
Like my Slough constituents, the good people of Northern Ireland deserve the best possible public services. This Government promised to cut the sky-high NHS waiting lists. Indeed, those lists are coming down for the first time in 15 years thanks to an extra £26 billion investment. That extra money is part of why the Northern Ireland Executive have a record funding settlement. Does the Minister agree that it is now crucial that the Executive and this Government work collaboratively to share knowledge and best practice so that we improve outcomes for patients?
Matthew Patrick
I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to highlight that, just recently, England had the second best monthly fall in waiting lists for 15 years. In Northern Ireland, the 70,000-appointments target has been surpassed and we have hit 200,000 additional appointments. I am pleased with the work of the Northern Ireland Health Minister Mike Nesbitt on that. The UK Government are committed to sharing best practice with those in the Northern Ireland Executive to continue that work.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Health is a devolved matter, but the fight against cancer is not. Will the Minister join me in praising the work of the All-Island Cancer Research Institute, which is led by Queen’s and others, and ensure that our efforts to address cancer are done not just in Northern Ireland or the four nations, but between these islands?
Matthew Patrick
It was my privilege to see some of the work being done there. Any efforts to bring down waiting times for cancer patients should be adopted. I will encourage this Government to do anything they can to share best practice from their own 10-year cancer plan.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Over the past 10 days we have seen a number of revelations about the procurement of services and goods and the provision of sensitive information during Peter Mandelson’s time as a Government Minister and as an ambassador in Washington. Given that Mandelson was, for two years, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, can the Minister assure the House that his Department will comb its records to identify any possible wrongdoing?
Matthew Patrick
I can absolutely give the shadow Secretary of State that assurance. That work is under way and we will update the House on anything that may emerge.
Alex Burghart
I am very grateful to the Minister for that direct response. Will he also commit to return to this House before Easter to update Members on the work that his Department has done and what it has found?
Matthew Patrick
I believe that work will be published by the Cabinet Office. I will ensure that, through that, the House will receive an update on the records.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I thank the Minister, the Secretary of State and his officials for their constructive engagement in preparation for a reserve claim for the Executive. Through that work, I know that the figure has doubled and rightly so. May I also highlight the Northern Ireland Audit Office’s report on the frailty within our Northern Ireland civil service? In the past six years, out of 23 recommendations, only five have been progressed. We have 5,000 vacancies, 3,000 temporary promotions and a rising sickness level. Does he believe that it is sustainable for the Northern Ireland civil service to ignore such changes for reform if we want to see the delivery of good public services?
Matthew Patrick
This Government are committed to civil service reform here. We have said that we wish to move fast and fix things. We will share our learnings with the Northern Ireland civil service. The right hon. Member also mentioned the reserve claim. He will have seen in yesterday’s supplementary estimates that £400 million has been given to the Northern Ireland Executive. That is exceptional. It will be repayable over three years and accompanied by an open-book exercise looking at the Executive budget.
Gavin Robinson
One constraint, as the Minister knows because I raised it at the last Northern Ireland questions, is the potential requirement, as a result of EU legislative change, of an additional 60,000 GP appointments for antimicrobial-resistant drugs. That would decimate the delivery of health services in Northern Ireland. I ask that he and the Secretary of State engage with this to ensure that Northern Ireland is not a casualty as a result of the imposition of EU regulation. Can he update the House on that?
Matthew Patrick
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter powerfully last month and again this month. We raised his concerns with the European Union, and I am pleased—I hope he is, too—that the latest draft of the EU regulations includes a full exemption for Northern Ireland regarding the prescription status of antimicrobial-resistant medicines. That shows the benefits of a grown-up working relationship with the European Union, so that we can address issues as and when they arise.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government are supporting Northern Ireland through the four city deals, the local innovation partnerships fund, an enhanced investment zone and greater economic stability. Economic activity in Northern Ireland increased by 2.9% over the year to quarter 3, and it has the lowest unemployment in the UK.
Joe Robertson
The Government are giving a 50% reduction to the emissions trading scheme levy on ferries crossing between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in an apparent effort not to negatively impact the economy there. Scottish islands are getting a 100% reduction, yet the Isle of Wight is getting no reduction. What economic assessment has been done to arrive at those figures, or are they simply plucked out of thin air?
Hilary Benn
The figures are based on the assessment that there are particular requirements for the Scottish islands in terms of services, access to essential care and so on. That is why that exemption has been applied for Scotland. The impact of this measure on trade between GB and Northern Ireland will be very small in light of the overall costs of moving goods and transportation.
Blake Stephenson
While the rise in the agricultural property relief threshold to £2.5 million is a welcome step for farmers, does the Minister recognise the broader economic concern shared by the Ulster Farmers Union that inflation and steadily rising asset values will over time pull more family farms into inheritance tax liability, even when their real wealth and income may not increase?
Hilary Benn
As the hon. Member will be aware, the Government announced that the allowance for 100% rate relief will be increased from £1 million to £2.5 million. That means that a couple will now be able to pass on up to £5 million tax-free between them, on top of the existing allowances such as the nil-rate band. The president of the Ulster Farmers Union, William Irwin, welcomed the changes. In fact, he said:
“We are in a better position today than we were yesterday”.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
The local growth fund was a UK Government policy that had been working to support some people outside of the labour market into decent work, helping to address Northern Ireland’s low productivity rates. The UK Government have changed that policy and the capital revenue split in a way that works for the Treasury, but not for organisations in Northern Ireland. Funded groups are being directed to PEACEPLUS, but its funding criteria does not work for most. Why are voluntary and community sector groups being asked to distort Special EU Programmes Body rules, rather than UK Government policy adapting to local needs?
Hilary Benn
I met the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action and CO3 last week to talk about this matter. It is a difficult situation because of how capital and resources have been allocated through the local growth fund. Of the £12 million of available resource funding, we agreed with the Executive that £3 million would go to Go Succeed at their request, and £9 million would go to economic inactivity programmes. We are exploring other potential sources of funding, of which PEACEPLUS is one. Another source is the Northern Ireland Executive’s record settlement. They had £9 million yesterday in additional Barnett consequentials. They could choose to invest some money in these programmes.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland, like Scotland and Wales, shares the benefits of a united United Kingdom and its collective spending power, generating jobs and opportunities across the four countries of the United Kingdom?
Hilary Benn
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. All parts of the United Kingdom derive strength and benefit from being part of that Union. We can see in the figures I quoted a moment ago the benefit being obtained in Northern Ireland in terms of how the economy is doing.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
The Windsor framework was meant to give Northern Ireland the best of both worlds: unfettered access to the UK internal market and barrier-free access to the EU. Not so, according to a recent survey conducted by the Federation of Small Businesses, which reports that more than half those trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are having difficulties, with over a third having stopped trading altogether. The figures are stark. Fewer than one in six Northern Ireland businesses say that they benefit from dual market access, while nearly 80% rate Government support as poor or very poor. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to a specific time-bound plan to make dual market access work, or does he accept that Northern Ireland got the worst of both worlds?
Hilary Benn
I do not accept that Northern Ireland has the worst of both worlds. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the issue facing small businesses, highlighted by the FSB report and others, including Lord Murphy’s independent report. As he will have noticed, in the Budget the Chancellor announced a £16.6 million package which will include a comprehensive one-stop-shop regulatory support service to help precisely those businesses to trade more between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)
The defence of our country is always the first duty of any Government. Last week I met businesses big and small, the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry and representative bodies, as well as our great universities, to discuss how the defence growth deal for Northern Ireland can pack the biggest punch possible. With £250 million across five deals, including one in Northern Ireland, there is a huge potential here, and I am determined that we will seize it.
Alice Macdonald
In Northern Ireland the defence sector offers many opportunities to apprentices, as it does across the rest of the country: I met two apprentices from MSI Defence Systems in my constituency yesterday. Will the Minister join me in celebrating apprentices throughout our United Kingdom, and will he explain how we will support the next generation of skilled workers in this vital industry?
Matthew Patrick
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in doing that. Just last week I visited Mallaghan, where four apprentices were being given incredible opportunities as a result of taking up their jobs, and I am sure they would agree with my hon. Friend’s assessment.
Kevin Bonavia
My hon. Friend will be aware that the defence industry sector is well established in my constituency, where it is building links with its counterparts in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that the defence industrial strategy presents a huge opportunity for businesses in constituencies throughout the country, including Stevenage and most certainly Northern Ireland, where it can help to boost investment, job creation and economic growth?
Matthew Patrick
My hon. Friend is right. The strategy is not just about the defence of the realm; there are economic opportunities that come with it. The defence growth deal on which we are working in Northern Ireland will take advantage of that, and will ensure that small businesses in particular can benefit.
John Slinger
The Government are doing good work to encourage young people into their careers via apprenticeships, and this week is National Apprenticeship Week. In my constituency we have GE Vernova, which is ramping up its apprenticeship scheme, while Rugby college, part of Warwickshire College Group, is getting apprenticeship programmes under way for 750 young people and adults. Does the Minister agree that the Government must go further to support apprenticeships in the vital defence sector, in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom, including, of course, Northern Ireland?
Matthew Patrick
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Some of the apprentices whom I met just last week told me that, over four years, they were more than £100,000 better off as a result of taking their apprenticeships. It is good for them, good for businesses and good for the country.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Yesterday I met two apprentices who were engaged in firms delivering defence contracts in Northern Ireland and were enthusiastic about the skills and their prospects, but Northern Ireland benefits minimally from defence contracts across the United Kingdom. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that more contracts are awarded to Northern Ireland, and will he ignore the comments of the First Minister, who does not want that to happen?
Matthew Patrick
This Government are supporting businesses in Northern Ireland. The work that I am doing with them on the defence growth deal is designed specifically to ensure that this will benefit them and all their supply chains, and I will continue to do that work.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Whatever the defence industrial strategy aims to do, its aims will not be met if we cannot find and recruit people willing to use the equipment and technology that are created. People will be far less likely to risk their lives to keep our country safe and free if they cannot rely on the Government to stand by them both during and after their service. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on the military and the defence industry of the Government’s decision to allow our veterans who served in Northern Ireland to be dragged vindictively through the courts?
Matthew Patrick
I reject that characterisation. The immunity that was offered by the last Government was false. We do not agree with that in principle, and the veterans we speak to do not want immunity under the law; they want equality before it. It was this Government who gave our armed forces the largest pay rise in over two decades. This Government are backing our armed forces.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Does the Minister agree that there is a clear need for a stronger role for Northern Ireland firms in the UK defence supply chain, and will he commit to encouraging far greater inclusion of Northern Ireland small and medium-sized enterprises in Ministry of Defence framework contracts and sub-contracting opportunities?
Matthew Patrick
I absolutely accept that we can do even more to support such companies. The companies I have been meeting in relation to the defence growth deal have said that the opportunity to showcase the talent and expertise that exists in Northern Ireland is really important, and I want to support them in doing that.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The autumn Budget provided Northern Ireland with an additional £370 million, on top of the record spending review settlement, and will assist families with the cost of living by cutting energy bills, lifting the two-child benefit limit and raising the minimum wage.
Sean Woodcock
The Government’s child poverty strategy aims to lift over 550,000 children out of poverty by 2030. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of the abolition of the two-child benefit cap for families in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
The lifting of the two-child benefit cap in Northern Ireland will help more than 17,000 children and more than 48,000 people in Northern Ireland households. We are also increasing the national minimum wage, which will benefit 170,000 people, and increasing the state pension will benefit 330,000 pensioners in Northern Ireland.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Cancer is a thief and a home-wrecker. Sadly, Northern Ireland has the worst cancer outcomes across the UK. I recently lifted the lid on breast cancer referrals, with red-flag appointments taking in excess of 14 weeks. Although the autumn Budget has been helpful, can the Minister confirm whether conversations are happening with the Treasury to ask for transformational money to help us transform our health service, so that cancer wait times and medical pathways can be improved once and for all?
Hilary Benn
Like the whole House, I share the hon. Member’s wish to improve cancer treatment and cancer waiting times for those who are currently waiting too long. There is the public services transformation fund, and the first phase of projects was funded last year. Decisions are about to be taken on the second phase of funding, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) mentioned, there also needs to be reform of the way in which the health service works. We are seeing progress under Mike Nesbitt’s leadership, and we need to see more.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The increase in national insurance contributions is having a devastating impact on the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland, with over a quarter of businesses reporting losses and a further 20% only breaking even. How is the Northern Ireland Executive expected to achieve their target of doubling tourism in the next 10 years if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is putting pubs, restaurants and hotels out of business?
Hilary Benn
The increase in national insurance was a decision that the Government took to deal with the inheritance left by the last Government. [Interruption.] That is a fact, and no one can argue that it is not the case. We needed to put the economy on a stable footing. The fact that the Northern Ireland economy is growing, and that Northern Ireland has the lowest unemployment in the United Kingdom, is a sign of the fundamental strength of the economy in Northern Ireland.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)
Chances in life are set early. Although education is devolved in Northern Ireland, we must work together. That is why it was my privilege to bring the Minister for Early Education to Belfast recently to visit schools and to present to Northern Ireland Ministers at the East-West Council. We discussed the school twinning programme, the theme of which is “Reading for Pleasure”. As a new dad, I am reading quite a few baby books at the moment.
Sarah Hall
As chair of the inclusion and nurture in education all-party group, I welcome the Northern Ireland Department of Education’s independent research showing that nurture provision delivers measurable improvements in pupils’ behaviour, attendance and attainment. What discussions are being had to share this good practice in inclusive education with the rest of the UK, including officials in England, as the Government seek to improve inclusion and educational outcomes for all?
Matthew Patrick
Just last month, I went with the early years Minister to visit schools that are really focused on being inclusive and nurturing for pupils, and my hon. Friend is totally right to highlight how this work can have such a positive impact on the children in our schools.
Jas Athwal
Does the Minister agree with me about the importance of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Government sharing knowledge, expertise and best practice as we all seek to improve outcomes for children in all our schools?
Matthew Patrick
I absolutely do. I have always said that this is not a case of cutting a cheque and walking away. There is work we can do with the Northern Ireland Executive, and we continue to share best practice. In fact, just this week I wrote to the Minister responsible for early years, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey), to explore further opportunities for collaboration.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
At last year’s spending review, the Northern Ireland Office announced a £2 million allocation to support the integrated education sector. Given that a range of schools in Northern Ireland have been offering an integrated educational ethos for many years, will the Government review that policy to support integrated education per se across a number of schools in Northern Ireland?
Matthew Patrick
We support integrated education, and integrated schools are a really important part of that. I was recently at some shared education schools, at the request of the Minister, and I was impressed by some of the work being done there, but I do not think there is just one route for schools in Northern Ireland.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. The Education Minister in Northern Ireland, Paul Givan, has been keen to introduce restrictions on students using smartphones in schools, and he has a pilot scheme in place. The Government here are happy to do the same thing. Has the Minister had an opportunity to encourage the Education Minister in Northern Ireland to bring in smartphone restrictions in schools? One party in the Executive wishes to stop that, but the will of the people is to make sure it happens.
Matthew Patrick
I was with the Minister for Education recently but this topic did not come up. Obviously, these matters are devolved and are for the Northern Ireland Executive, but I would be happy to speak to Minister Givan, as the hon. Member suggests.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
There are currently six republican paramilitaries facing prosecution for troubles-related killings. The legacy commission is already investigating a number of IRA atrocities, including the M62 coach bombing, the Guildford pub bombing and the Warrenpoint massacre. Under the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, the commission will benefit from information sharing by the Irish authorities.
David Davis
Some 2,058 people died at the hands of republican paramilitaries during the troubles—2,058—but despite that fact, only 19 IRA members are currently in prison. The Secretary of State laughably claims there was no amnesty under the Good Friday agreement, and he gives us only the few he has just mentioned. Can he tell the House how many prosecutions of IRA members he expects to arise under his troubles Bill, and how many families of people murdered by the IRA will find out what happened to their relatives?
Hilary Benn
The answer to the right hon. Member’s first question is that it will depend, as he well knows, on the evidence in any individual case, and that decision will be taken by public prosecutors in the normal way. On his second question, he will be aware that between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries were imprisoned during the troubles for a range of offences, including murder, and the purpose of the reform is to ensure that more families are able to find answers to the questions, which they are still asking, about what happened to their loved ones.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
On the subject of troubles-era violence, this week my Committee published a unanimous report calling on the Government to formally name agent Stakeknife. The Government have said that the Supreme Court judgment in the Thompson case has implications for their decision, but lead officers have said it does not. What is preventing the Government from naming Stakeknife, and when do they plan to do so?
Hilary Benn
I have, of course, seen the report that the Select Committee has published. There are ongoing civil proceedings and the Government, as I indicated previously, are still considering the implications of the Supreme Court’s Thompson judgment for this decision. I have promised the House that I will return when the Government have reached a decision on the request made by Sir Iain Livingstone, and I intend to honour that promise.
David Davis
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of the inadequate response that I received from the Secretary of State on Question 7, I give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman has put that decision on the record. I am not going to extend Northern Ireland questions, so we will move on.
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome to the Gallery the President—the Speaker—of the Parliament of Estonia. I thank him and his delegation for being with us today from Estonia.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. I did not think that the Prime Minister was so popular on the Opposition Benches.
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Mr Speaker, may I start by saying that my thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, are with the two children stabbed at Kingsbury high school in Brent? My heart goes out to everyone affected by this appalling attack. We thank the police for their rapid response. It is important now that we give them the space to pursue their investigation.
This morning I conveyed the UK’s deepest condolences to Prime Minister Carney and the people of Canada after the devastating shooting in Tumbler Ridge.
Mr Speaker, I am determined to fix the broken SEND—special educational needs and disabilities—system. No parent should have to fight for the support their child needs. Today we announced a 10-year plan to fix the crumbling school estate that we inherited, delivering more modern and inclusive classrooms that meet the needs of every child.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues—there have been quite a few of those this week. [Laughter.] In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mr Perkins
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks.
The Prime Minister’s commitment to 1.5 million more homes will require 48,000 new entrants to the construction industry every year. In Chesterfield we are doing our bit: our construction skills hub brought 70 new entrants into the construction sector. We saw a welcome increase in numbers across the country last year, but we need a step change and we need numbers to double. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to get more people to commit to construction industry careers and get those numbers up where we need them to be to deliver on his housing ambitions?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right: the task of rebuilding our country is a huge opportunity to give young people a brilliant career. We are backing apprentices with a record £3 billion budget, and we are making sure that companies that bid for major contracts commit to high-quality apprenticeships here in the United Kingdom. We are creating 13,000 new opportunities for young people as plumbers, engineers and bricklayers, securing their future and rebuilding this country.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
May I associate myself, and those on the Opposition Benches, with the Prime Minister’s words on the horrific stabbing in north London yesterday, as well as the shooting in Canada?
When he was Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said, “I never turn on my staff. When they make mistakes, I carry the can.” What changed?
The Prime Minister
I have accepted responsibility and apologised for the mistakes that I made. But let me say this: Morgan McSweeney helped me change our party and helped me win a landslide election victory, which delivered for the Conservatives the smallest Tory party in over 100 years. And what is the right hon. Lady’s great achievement? To make it even smaller.
Mrs Badenoch
The Whips have done a great job today—[Interruption.] Labour Members say, “Yes, exactly.” The Whips have done a great job today getting them cheering. We all know that they have been sick for the last week. Let us remember that just last week the Prime Minister told us he had “full confidence” in his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. On Sunday he sacked Morgan McSweeney—[Interruption.] Oh, “He resigned.” Last week the Prime Minister was defending the Cabinet Secretary. Now he is sacking him. What changed?
The Prime Minister
In January the Leader of the Opposition said that she had full confidence—“100% confident”, she said—that there would be no more defections from her party. Forty-eight hours later, her shadow Foreign Minister defected. Eight days after that, the former Home Secretary defected. The only question now is: who is next? She needs to wake up—her party is dying.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is demonstrating stratospheric levels of delusion if he thinks the problem is on the Opposition Benches. He did not say anything about why the Cabinet Secretary is going, but we know the truth: it is because he is throwing everyone under the bus except himself.
The Mandelson episode was not an isolated incident. A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced a peerage for one Matthew Doyle, his former director of communications. Immediately after that, The Sunday Times published on its front page that Doyle had campaigned for a man charged with child sex offences. Despite the Prime Minister knowing that, he gave Doyle a job for life in the House of Lords anyway. Why?
The Prime Minister
Matthew Doyle did not give a full account of his actions. On Monday I promised my party and my country that there will be change, and yesterday I removed the Whip from Matthew Doyle. I will tell you what other actions we have taken, Mr Speaker: along with the Safeguarding Minister, I and this Government have introduced the most far-reaching violence against women and girls strategy. This Government have also introduced a pay rise for millions of working-class women. What did the Leader of the Opposition do? She opposed it. This Government are introducing greater protections for women at work. What did the Leader of the Opposition do? She opposed it. I will tell you what else she opposes, Mr Speaker: this Government removing the disgusting rape clause that her Government put in place.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister pretends not to know about Matthew Doyle, but it was on the front page of The Sunday Times. He cannot explain why he gave this man a peerage—I think Labour Members should be wondering why they are still cheering for him after that. The Prime Minister sometimes likes to claim that he cares about violence against women, as he just did, but the truth is that he cares about the victims only when he is trying to save his own skin. Labour Members can shake their heads at that, but we saw it with grooming gangs, we saw it with Mandelson and now we see it with Doyle. Is that not what a former prosecutor would call an established pattern of behaviour?
The Prime Minister
I will take no lectures from the Tories on standards in public life. The Leader of the Opposition defended partygate for months and months, and even now she says that it was overblown. The shadow Foreign Secretary broke the ministerial code by bullying, but Boris Johnson kept her and the Leader of the Opposition promoted her, and now she sits on her Front Bench. Her former shadow Justice Secretary complained about not seeing enough white faces in Birmingham, and the Leader of the Opposition was too weak to sack him for racism.
Mrs Badenoch
Nobody buys it, Mr Speaker—not even the Labour women, because they know that the Prime Minister always puts the Downing Street boys club first. How dare he criticise us? The Conservatives were not the ones stuffing Government with hypocrites and paedophile apologists. He cannot build a team and he has no plan. He cannot even run his own office, let alone the country. He is now dealing with a new scandal of appointing someone who campaigned for a man convicted of having indecent pictures of girls as young as 10. Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that that will be his legacy?
The Prime Minister
My legacy is changing my party and winning a general election. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition this: I kicked my former leader out of my party, while her former leader, Liz Truss, broke the economy and has descended into bonkers conspiracy theories. I kicked her out of Parliament, but the Leader of the Opposition is too weak to kick her out of their party.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister has not apologised for appointing Matthew Doyle, because he will not take responsibility—he never does, and Labour Members know it. The Prime Minister is now telling everyone that he has never lost a fight, but that is because he will not step into the ring. He has never lost a fight because he has walked away from welfare reform, he will not stand up to the unions, he will not stand up to China—he cannot even stand up to Mauritius. He has had three Cabinet Secretaries, four chiefs of staff and five directors of communications in just 18 months, and now he is mired in yet another scandal. Does he ever look in the mirror and ask himself if the real problem is staring him in the face?
The Prime Minister
I delivered a landslide victory for our party. Only four people have ever led the Labour party to victory at a general election, and I am one of them. The Leader of the Opposition talks about numbers. Let us remember what the Conservatives had: five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors, eight Home Secretaries, eight Foreign Secretaries, and 16 Housing Secretaries—all were completely useless; all failed Britain. This Prime Minister is cleaning up the mess. The right hon. Lady comes here every week desperately fighting to save her dying party. I am fighting to change our country. Interest rates—down. Inflation—down. Waiting lists—down. Child poverty—down. And I can tell her another thing that is down: the number of Tory MPs.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Delivering the new Frimley Park hospital is a priority. Under the Conservatives, my hon. Friend’s constituents were given totally empty promises. They failed patients and they failed staff. We put forward a proper plan and the funding to match, and the trust is making real progress on the business case. I want to see spades in the ground as quickly as possible.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the dreadful stabbing of two children in Brent and the horrifying shootings in British Columbia? Our thoughts and prayers are with the children’s parents and the people of Canada, especially those grieving the loss of loved ones.
To appoint one paedophile supporter cannot be excused as misfortune. To appoint two shows a catastrophic lack of judgment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman once told this House that when a Prime Minister refuses to take responsibility, it
“only serves to convince people that things cannot get better, that Government cannot improve people’s lives, and that progress is not possible because politics does not work.”—[Official Report, 8 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 44.]
Does he still agree with himself, and does he share my fear that that is exactly what is happening now?
The Prime Minister
Millions of people in this country have been let down for years and years, and one of the reasons for that was austerity, which the right hon. Gentleman’s party supported. He should take accountability and responsibility for what he has inflicted on this country! [Interruption.]
Ed Davey
Mr Speaker, I think I touched a raw nerve. I think the whole House will agree that the Mandelson scandal has shown yet again why we need a duty of candour for anyone and everyone in public office. There should be no more delays in putting the Hillsborough law on the statute book, after a long fight by the bereaved families and so many others, such as the Mayor of Greater Manchester. The Prime Minister once said that it would be one of the first things he did in No. 10. Will he finally do it now, even if it is the last thing he does?
The Prime Minister
The panel report on the Hillsborough case was when I started working on the Hillsborough case. That was in 2012, when the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in power. They could have passed this law a long time ago and saved a lot of grief. I am proud that this Labour Government are bringing in a Hillsborough law—something I have committed to for a very long time.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I know how important affordable ferries are to my hon. Friend’s constituents’ everyday lives. The ETS scheme will make journeys cleaner and we are working with ferry companies on the grid connections in ports that enable greener vessels. I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
If I have just heard the Prime Minister correctly, he has essentially rolled the same pitch in relation to Matthew Doyle as he did with Peter Mandelson, in saying that they were not clear with him. He appears to be the most gullible former Director of Public Prosecutions in history. But he has a slight problem, because some of us do read the newspapers. Towards the end of last year, on 30 December, having written to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, I received a response from the chair, who advised me that as part of their vetting, they
“provide confidential advice to the Prime Minister on the propriety of the proposed nominees”.
Will the Prime Minister release that advice?
The Prime Minister
I have made my position clear. The right hon. Gentleman knows how the system works. He says he reads the newspapers. He will have read that in nine days, his party’s former chief executive goes on trial for embezzling money. He will have read that in the Queen Elizabeth hospital, we see one of the worst failures in Scottish public life, with vulnerable children and adults put at risk. Evidence of serious warnings to the SNP Government was ignored. He should have been looking at those warnings, not looking at the newspapers. The First Minister should act, because families deserve accountability.
Mr Speaker
Can I just remind the Prime Minister that we do not discuss live cases because they are sub judice?
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Lleyton’s success is a testament to what young people can achieve with the right support. We are creating technical excellence colleges and delivering training places for 60,000 skilled construction workers. Labour is creating opportunities for every young person while building the homes, schools and hospitals that our country needs, and that is what I am fighting for.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We are taking action, but if the hon. Lady sends me or my team the details of the particular case in her constituency, I will see if there is anything we can do to provide support on what is obviously an important issue.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an awful case, and my thoughts and those, I am sure, of the whole House are with the loved ones of Lorraine. Tackling violence against women and girls is a critical mission, and I will ensure that a Home Office Minister meets the family. I want to be absolutely clear that illegal immigrants who commit such appalling acts should not be in this country. That is why we have already removed nearly 60,000 people with no right to be here, and deportations of foreign criminals are up by a third. We are also reforming human rights law to allow us to swiftly remove those with no right to be here.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Prime Minister
We have put a record amount of money into dealing with potholes. The hon. Member needs to ask his council, which is run by his party, why it is not using that money.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Flynn, you don’t need to cover your mouth—I can still hear you. Your voice is louder than mine!
Douglas McAllister
It is also a source of great pride that the torch has now been passed to our Government. By removing the two-child benefit cap, we will lift more children out of poverty in a single Parliament than ever before—2,260 children in West Dunbartonshire and 95,000 children in Scotland. Does the Prime Minister agree that this demonstrates true Labour values in action across Scotland and the UK?
The Prime Minister
In Labour, we know the damage that growing up in poverty does to the life chances of children. The Tories put hundreds of thousands of children into poverty, and they will live with that for the rest of their lives. We are undoing their damage. Our decision will benefit almost 100,000 children in Scotland as we deliver the largest reduction in child poverty in any single Parliament.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising those cases—they are harrowing cases for everyone in this country. The safety of children is of course paramount, and we are acting to keep them safe. We are implementing all the proposals consulted on to strengthen safeguarding as part of our early years foundation stage framework. An expert group is developing guidance on the effective use of CCTV—the point she makes—and considering whether it should be mandatory in early settings. I will ensure that she is updated as we take that work forward.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. The people’s palace is an iconic British venue—a home for darts, snooker and world-class music. It is vital that we support brilliant venues that give so much to our cultural life. That is why we are providing almost £200 million to preserve heritage buildings across the country, so that venues like Alexandra Palace can have a bright future.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Mr Speaker
Order. It is an important question but I am sure that the Prime Minister got it in the first two minutes.
The Prime Minister
I know that communities have been badly affected by recent storms, and the damage to the A379 is very concerning. I am pleased that the hon. Lady is meeting the Roads Minister and the Floods Minister today. We are investing £10 billion to improve coastal and flood defences. I thank the Environment Agency staff who are working hard right now to put extra protections in place and support people ahead of further wet weather.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
My message is that I have always believed that those with skin in the game make the best decisions about their communities. I know just how much her constituents want Woodgate Valley visitors centre back open. Together, we can make that happen. Hope in Britain is found in our communities. That is why we are investing so heavily in our Pride in Place initiative.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
My constituent’s mum, sister and stepfather were killed in a horrific dangerous driving crime for which a foreign national offender was sentenced to 10 and a half years. However, the family have just been told that he may be released imminently in order to be deported, having served just three years. Will the Prime Minister look at the case and at what steps can be taken to prevent that release? Such a pitiful time served—three years for three lives—would be the final insult and undermine public confidence in our justice system.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising what is obviously a terrible case. If he provides further details, I will ensure that it is looked into as quickly as possible.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is an inspirational and powerful campaigner on this issue. By doing what he is doing, he will give great courage to other people to take the same steps. I am proud that we are increasing the number of NHS speech and language therapists. We are trialling new ways of identifying and supporting children with speech and language needs in their early years, because I agree that every child deserves the help they need to reach their potential.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
My Surrey Heath constituent Christopher was discharged from the RAF in 1966 solely for being gay, but—despite the Government committing to restoring the medals and the berets, and indeed acknowledging the injustice of those who were discharged from our armed forces prior to 1967 for that reason—his case has been dismissed out of hand, with only a letter that contained the tracked changes from the template that the Ministry of Defence issued. Can I ask the Prime Minister to take a personal interest in this case to ensure that it is resolved swiftly, and to allow Christopher to march on Remembrance Day, as he wishes to, with his medals and his beret, and his dignity restored?
The Prime Minister
I will do everything that I can to ensure that that happens, which is absolutely what should happen. This was an absolute scandal—the gays in the military ban—and it is absolutely right that it was overturned, but we must follow through on that. I will do everything I can to make sure that we deliver on what the hon. Gentleman has asked me to deliver on.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend’s constituency is already home to brilliant research, innovation and economic growth, and through a Greater Cambridge development corporation we will put in place the powers and resources to unlock its full potential. I want to let local people have their say. We will make sure that we create a fair plan, with attractive, well-connected and thriving new neighbourhoods.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister share with me the concern that while some ambassadors retiring in disgrace get tens of thousands of pounds in pay-offs, many other civil servants are failing to get the retirement that they are due and are expected to turn to their old Departments for bridging loans? This is clearly a scandal. Will he put all his effort behind making sure that those who have served with integrity are treated with the dignity that they deserve?
The Prime Minister
Yes; we are taking steps, and the right hon. Gentleman is right that we should take further steps. I think there will be agreement about that across the House.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that we need the conditions for flourishing high streets. That underscores the importance of six interest rate cuts, the £5.8 billion that we have put into Pride in Place, and the work to put money in people’s pockets. I am pleased that we have delivered a 15% cut and a two-year freeze for pubs and live music venues. That comes on top of the £4.3 billion to support businesses, and permanently lower rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for raising the stabbing at Kingsbury high school yesterday. It is absolutely right that we allow the police to get on with their job of investigating this terrible atrocity; indeed, the police are out there now, providing reassurance to parents and people in the community. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and those who witnessed the atrocity. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Will the Prime Minister now look at what needs to be done to combat knife crime across the country? It is absolutely wrong that people are carrying knives in the first place—they do not need to—and that they are drawn into such terrible atrocities. We owe it to the victims to ensure that that happens.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this case: it is one of the most powerful and important things that we do as MPs in this place, particularly when there are such awful cases. He is absolutely right; we must everything that we can to reduce knife crime. There are initiatives and steps that we have taken to remove the accessibility of knives, in relation to where they can be bought. We need to do much more work with our schools and young people to ensure that people do not carry knives, and we need to work with the police and law enforcement to make sure that these incidents are investigated as quickly and effectively as possible. I think that is an endeavour shared by Members from across the House.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
In my constituency, the beautiful grade II listed Chetwynd bridge on the A513 between Edingale and Alrewas has been restricted to cars and light vans since October 2023, so farmers face a 25-mile diversion. With severe flooding hitting Edingale multiple times a year, this vital route risks being cut off for emergency response times as well. Bridges like this one, with a clear economic impact on communities, should be the focus of the Government’s new structures fund, which I welcome. Will the Prime Minister encourage his Ministers to meet with me so that we can find a solution to this issue for my rural constituents in Tamworth?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Just hearing her makes it absolutely clear that we need to find a solution, so I will make sure that she gets the meeting that she requests with the relevant Minister so that we can move as quickly as possible.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Rubbish is building up right beneath my very nose. [Laughter.]
Ayoub Khan
It is becoming a serious problem. In Birmingham, bin strikes have now been running for close to two years. May I gently ask the Prime Minister to intervene? Will he perhaps speak to the leader of Birmingham city council to see if he can re-enter negotiations with Unite the union?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. We are doing everything that we can to resolve the situation, which absolutely needs resolving.
Point of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, a Reform UK MP visited a synagogue in my constituency and failed to notify me; it was a political visit. This is part of a pattern that has been observed. At a time when we need to work together in our communities to tackle antisemitism, a terrible form of hate, I would like your guidance on the correct procedure for Members on when they should—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Tice, it is very important that I hear this point of order—[Interruption.] No, I need to hear it; I will make a ruling in a minute.
Rachel Blake
I would like your guidance, Mr Speaker, on the correct procedure for Members. When should they, or when should they not, show the courtesy of letting the sitting Member of Parliament know of their intention to visit a constituency?
Mr Speaker
I am very clear on this matter. When Members of Parliament go into another Member’s constituency, they should let that Member know in advance. This is not about one party; Members of all parties continue to do it. These are the courtesies that we expect of others, so please remember the rule: let other Members know when you are going into their constituency. The point has been raised, and I will leave it at that.
Short-term Let Accommodation (Data Sharing Requirements)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require certain persons or organisations to share specified data relating to the short-term letting of accommodation with regulatory authorities; to amend the Data Protection Act 2018 in connection with that requirement; and for connected purposes.
I am honoured to represent the Cities of London and Westminster in the heart of London; it is a truly unique constituency in a number of ways. How many can say that they have the Tate Britain, Ronnie Scott’s and Abbey Road Studios in their patch? How many can boast 78,000 businesses and 2 million jobs? How many can point to having been the home for a unique wealth of historical figures, such as Mary Seacole, Millicent Fawcett and Olaudah Equiano? However, this centrality comes at the cost of one of the most competitive housing markets in the world, where long-term residents are forced to compete against commercial real estate, luxury developers and foreign oligarchs.
Chief among the forces hollowing out our communities is the unchecked proliferation of short-term letting hosts on Airbnb, Booking.com and other sites. These individuals turn our homes into hotels, our communities into commodities, and our neighbours into night-time nuisances. My inbox is full of such stories: fire services being called because of guests leaving cookers on; families with children being kept up with drug-fuelled James Bond-themed parties taking place right next door night after night; and even organised crime outfits renting out apartments for a weekend to harass Londoners, snatching phones and wallets before leaving with their ill-gotten gains.
Amidst this bad behaviour is the flagrant breach of the London-wide regulation that short lets can operate for no more than 90 nights per year without planning permission. This is operationally impossible to enforce because of how difficult it is to get accurate information on how many nights a short-term let is being used. In some parts of my constituency, as many as 30% of homes are being used as short-term lets, in the process making the homes that are left less affordable for long-term residents. Research from King’s College London shows that doubling the density of short-term lets is associated with an 8% growth—or more than £4,500 per year—in per-bedroom rental prices. This overheated housing market has become unaffordable for locals and hollowed out communities like those in the west end, which was historically the beating cultural heart of London, home to William Blake, Shelley and Constable. The average one-bed flat in Soho costs £2,400 a month to rent privately, That is over double what it would have cost at the turn of the millennium. At the same time, average prices have tripled from £300,000 to nearly £1 million.
When non-residential forces crowd into a residential market, it is working people who are the losers. It is no coincidence that Soho’s population has shrunk by two thirds over the same time period and that the knock-on effects of these changes are felt. Since my election, I have had to fight for institutions used by local residents, including schools and community facilities such as the Jubilee Hall gym and the Central YMCA, to stay open, and frequently their landlords have complained about a lack of footfall.
London is not just special because of its landmarks or its economy; it is special because of its people—its historic communities living and working together, and generating some of the greatest cultural and social achievements produced by this country. If we want to keep London a world-leading city, we need to ensure that its people can afford to make a home here, and that they feel safe and at ease living here. We have to fight for this city, and that is exactly what I intend to do.
I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the City of Westminster’s pioneering short-term lets team, who work day in and day out to enforce existing rules around illegal subletting, the 90-day rule, and antisocial behaviour in problem properties. Since coming into power on the council in 2022, Labour has doubled its size and I have been working with it in launching a short-term lets commission, directly reporting properties flagged by my constituents to council officers and ensuring they are taken off the sites for good.
The Government are on the side of my constituents too, pushing forward with a mandatory short-term lets registration scheme. This will for the first time give us clear, uncontested data on where the short-term lets are and who is operating them. Hosts will have to enter their property’s address and will receive a unique reference number, which will then appear on all sites where it is let, and they will have to confirm that they are following existing regulations that apply to short-term lets, such as fire, gas and electrical certificates. This will be transformative for how we enforce short-term lets in London. With a unique reference number, teams like those in Westminster will be able to pinpoint problem properties much more easily and take them off major sites for good.
But there is a piece of information that the scheme must collect, yet which right now we cannot: the number of nights for which homes are being let out. Without this crucial data, enforcing the 90-day limit will remain an elusive task to local authority planning enforcement teams. Data from AirDNA indicates that nearly 6,000 short lets in the Cities of London and Westminster are being let out for over the 90-day limit. These are almost certainly the worst offenders when it comes to the other community disruptions I have mentioned. If we simply made these actors follow the law, or better still took them off the market entirely, we would significantly reduce the disruption caused by short-term letting.
Why can we not record this data? The Data Protection Act 2018 currently prevents such information from being shared. While the Act is crucial for ensuring that our personal data is more secure than in comparable countries outside the EU, in this case it stands in the way of effectively regulating short-term lets. A number of exemptions exist in the legislation, however, and the Bill would extend them to include the number of nights for which short-term lets are used.
However, that is not the only action needed to tackle short-term lets. Time and again, my constituents bring up licensing as a possible solution to the spread of short-term lets, backed by reams of research from policy experts. Just as a business must apply to open a bar or café in a local area, so too should the host of a short-term let have to apply to their local authority before opening what is, in essence, a micro-hotel in the middle of a residential block.
While every local authority should be able to undertake its open approach to this issue, local authorities such as Westminster and the City of London, where concentrations are so high, need to have the power to decide where homes can be let out and under what conditions. The Government’s upcoming database is a crucial step in this direction because it can, for the first time ever, provide an authoritative dataset on the extent of this problem, which will benefit Members of Parliament and their constituents across the country.
My constituents are ready to engage with that database and report poor practice, and the local authorities I work with are on hand to upscale their work and the benefits that it can bring. All we need now is this final piece of the puzzle: knowing how many nights homes are let out for. That piece is well within our grasp, and it is up to us in this House to deliver it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Rachel Blake, Lizzi Collinge, Florence Eshalomi, Dame Meg Hillier, Alison Hume, Jayne Kirkham, Joe Powell, Anna Gelderd, Will Stone, Noah Law, Tony Vaughan and Dr Scott Arthur present the Bill.
Rachel Blake accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 382).
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your advice on how I register my utter disgust at the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) scoring a cheap political point about me visiting a synagogue in this constituency.
Mr Speaker
First, that is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has put it on the record. A point of order was made earlier, and this ruling is where I stand: if you are visiting a synagogue for prayer or in a private capacity, the relevant Member should not expect to be told. However, if you are visiting in an official capacity following an invite, it is only right that we must ensure that the relevant Member of Parliament is aware. I will leave it at that. I will not continue the debate, but I just reaffirm to all Members—whether shadow Ministers, Ministers or Back Benchers—that they should ensure that the relevant Member of Parliament is aware of a visit. When I say “visit”, I am talking about one made not in a private capacity but a political capacity.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raised a previous point of order regarding the Royal Mail and postal delivery services, and I mention that because I recently wrote to some constituents about that very point of order. However, that letter, which was sent first class from the House of Commons, took 12 days to arrive. Many Members across this House are writing about important issues on House of Commons paper, in House of Commons envelopes, and they are taking many days to arrive. As a result, many of our constituents might be ill-informed about the speed with which Members of Parliament are responding, which—as you will know, Mr Speaker—can be raised with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—
Mr Speaker
Order. That is certainly not a point of order, but you have rightly put your point on the record. I am sure your constituents are well aware that you are diligent in your replies, and that the delay is down to Royal Mail hanging on to your letter for 12 days. Royal Mail quite rightly has a duty of care. If it says first class, we expect a first-class delivery service. With the price of postage, the Royal Mail should be embarrassed by what you have raised today, but that still does not make it a point of order.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Police Grant Report
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2026–27 (HC 1638), which was laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.
Before I come to the detail of the settlement, I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister’s Question Time following the stabbing at Kingsbury high school in Brent yesterday, and add our condolences and our thoughts. We all hope that those who have been injured will be able to recover, and that justice will be done in a very difficult situation.
I also want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women who work to protect the rest of us from harm. I did not need to become the Policing Minister to appreciate the debt of gratitude that is owed to those dedicated public servants, but having the honour of serving in this post has given me a daily insight into the remarkable work of our police. I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing gratitude to the officers, staff and volunteers who, as we speak, are performing their duties with professionalism, skill and courage. We are all fortunate to have so many brave individuals dedicated to keeping us safe, whether they be first responders turning towards danger, police community support officers immersed in their neighbourhoods, or staff working behind the scenes to track the latest threats to the public. That is why our record cash investment in the policing system for England and Wales is so important. We are determined to provide our police forces with the resources they need to continue their vital work, as well as support to invest in their future.
In 2026-27, overall funding for the policing system in England and Wales will be up to £21 billion, an increase of £1.3 billion compared with 2025-26. Funding available to local police forces will total up to £18.4 billion, an increase of £796 million from 2025-26, or 2.3% in real terms. Of this funding increase, £432 million will come from additional Government grant, while £364 million will come from police precept, assuming that police and crime commissioners choose to maximise the £15 limit. Furthermore, we have worked with a small group of forces that evidenced particular financial pressures to agree additional precept flexibility. The settlement also includes at least £1.2 billion for counter-terrorism policing to preserve national security and guard against the most severe threats, as is the primary duty of any Government.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
As the Minister is getting into the detail of the funding package, will she accept two broad points? First, the overall number of police officers in England has fallen on Labour’s watch. Secondly, because of cost pressures on police forces from other decisions taken by her Government, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has said that there is a £500 million shortfall in the allocation of funding from this Government to police forces.
Sarah Jones
With £21 billion going into policing overall and £18.4 billion going directly to our police forces, I do not accept that there is a shortfall in funding. More money—hundreds of millions of pounds—is going into policing this year than last year.
Turning to the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, which I suspect Conservative Front Benchers will also try to make, we have worked with police chiefs not only to introduce a big package of reform, but to remove the arbitrary headcount targets for officer numbers that local forces found so difficult to navigate. Those forces were pushed into recruiting officers and putting them behind desks to do jobs that staff could do. We are not going to judge our police on the numbers of people in different roles; we are going to judge them on their outcomes, which is why we are setting targets, driving productivity, and focusing on tackling crime rather than arbitrary numbers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for the report we are debating. I think she mentioned that the figure for counter-terrorism was £1.2 billion. Obviously, we in Northern Ireland have a particular, critical role when it comes to addressing the issue of terrorism. It is still active in Northern Ireland—in a minor way, but still active—and we also have a border that we have to patrol, addressing issues such as immigration and theft of agricultural machinery. All those things come into the picture, so will extra money be coming to the Police Service of Northern Ireland through the Barnett consequentials to help us?
Sarah Jones
Of course, policing itself is devolved, but addressing the risk of terrorism involves working across the whole of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Security Minister will ensure we are working very closely across all four parts of this United Kingdom to offer the support that is needed.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
As the Policing Minister knows, West Mercia police—which covers Shropshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire—is a very good force in many ways. However, is she aware that West Mercia is about to see the first fall in police numbers in over a decade, with approximately 20 frontline police officers likely to be removed as a result of what the local police and crime commissioner calls a “shortfall in Government funding”, and that this will affect The Wrekin constituency?
Sarah Jones
To repeat, every force in the country has had an increase in its funding this year, and we are making sure we have the right funding to support our objectives. On police officer numbers, what we saw under the last Government was a reduction of 20,000 officers and then a rush to recruit 20,000. The result was, for example, a 60% rise in retail crime in the last two years of the Conservative Government—that arbitrary focus on numbers did not result in the right outcomes. We are interested in police outcomes. We are interested in driving down crime and preventing it, and we believe that we should give our chiefs the flexibility to understand what roles they need within their local workforce. Police staff are exceptionally important in many different roles.
Under the last Government, the number of PCSOs halved. That was not even Government policy; it just happened because they did not have a proper workforce plan and did not think about these things, and then in the latter years they did not allow flexibility for local officers. We believe chiefs can make the right decisions about their workforce locally, and for the first time—the Conservatives failed to do this—we will establish a national workforce plan, to make sure we have the right resources in the right places at the right time.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
The Policing Minister, who is my constituency neighbour, has referenced the different kinds of people in the police workforce and how police chiefs should have flexibility. However, over the past year, not only have police officer numbers fallen by 1,300, but police staff numbers have also fallen by 529. The number of PCSOs has fallen by 204, the number of special constables has fallen by 514, and even the number of volunteers has fallen. Every single number has fallen—is the Minister proud of that?
Sarah Jones
Knife murders have fallen by 27% and knife crime has fallen by 8%—there were nearly 4,500 fewer knife offences in the past year than in the year before that. We are focused on outcomes. The right hon. Gentleman will know that proper police reform involves looking at the staff, the workforce and new technology. He is a big fan of live facial recognition, as are we, and we are taking out of the system inefficiencies to the tune of £350 million during this Parliament. Money was being wasted by the previous Government, but we will strip those inefficiencies out of the system. Our reforms will focus on outcomes, and on delivering a local police force that will tackle the epidemic of everyday crime and a national police service that will tackle complex crime.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I apologise for the fact that I cannot stay until the end of this debate, because I have a debate in Westminster Hall, but I need to ask the Minister a question. She talks about outcomes. Is she as shocked as I am that the Labour Cheshire police and crime commissioner has already spent £200,000 on two listening exercises, and is expected to spend another £400,000 on more listening exercises? The precept is going up by 6.7%, but the police force will have to make redundancies. Does she not agree that the money should go not on vanity projects, but on frontline policing?
Sarah Jones
I suggest that the previous Government would have benefited from listening to the public. There is no harm in listening to the public. Indeed, it is our role as elected representatives to do so. One challenge that we are grappling with through the police reform White Paper is how we make sure that there is accountability at the hyper-local and national levels. We need to make sure that we listen to our constituents and target the crimes that they care about.
Esther McVey
Following on from the Minister’s point, I noticed today that the same Labour police and crime commissioner has put up an advert for a senior public relations officer on £45,000 to £55,000, and there are other vanity projects. Surely that money should be spent on PCSOs and police on the ground, not on the PCC himself.
Sarah Jones
I do not know whether the right hon. Lady has anybody in her team to help her with communications.
Sarah Jones
Nobody? I suspect that she does have somebody who helps with communications; most hon. Members in this place do.
Sarah Jones
Ensuring the public know what is happening is also a good thing. The right hon. Lady will know that we have said several times in this place that we are abolishing the role of the police and crime commissioner. That is not in any way because of the work that they have done. Indeed, they have done a lot of brilliant work. I have some fantastic colleagues that I will continue to work with until 2028.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Is the Minister taking the intervention or not?
Sarah Jones
I suggest that we carry on that conversation over a cup of coffee another time.
We are also investing £1.4 billion in the wider policing system to continue our progress on adopting modern, cutting-edge technologies that will better enable the police to perform their most critical function of keeping the public safe. The Government are supporting the police in their ongoing fight against knife crime by maintaining funding for serious violence reduction activity in every force area. Alongside that, there is £28 million, through our county lines programme, to disrupt organised crime and protect vulnerable and exploited children. A total of £119 million will go towards our ambitious programme of police reform, in which we will establish a new national centre to support the use of artificial intelligence across policing, enable the national roll-out of live facial recognition and strengthen the way that data is used to support operational policing.
Mark Pritchard
The Minister is being very generous with her time, as she always is. I hope that she will also be generous in her reply. AI is already playing a part in policing, and I would hope that everybody who wants crime reduced supports that, but as far as I am concerned, that support comes with caveats. There needs to be legislative oversight to ensure that AI is regulated and not abused. When will the Government come forward with the legislation that was mentioned by the Home Secretary? Just very briefly on police reform, does she recognise that West Mercia oversees a rural and semi-rural area? In any reconfiguration, restructuring should recognise the unique challenges of rural police forces, as opposed to, let us say, those of the neighbouring force, West Midlands.
Sarah Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the two points that he raised in one question. On AI, he is absolutely right that we need to ensure—I hope this is now the policy of the Opposition; it was not when they were in government—that there is an understanding of what AI is and is not used for. Importantly, we are consulting on how live facial recognition is and is not used. On AI, a huge amount of work is going on in different police forces, and most areas have ethics committees and other such structures that consider and talk about the use of AI. For example, there are certain rules around the use of AI. It should never be used to make a decision or to pass a judgment; it should be just for giving information. That is very important. We saw in the recent West Midlands case how easy it is to end up making a mistake, and we want to avoid that.
On the reform point, we are baking into our structures the idea that, at the hyper-local level, everybody in the ward will have a named, contactable officer, and that there will be targets for 999 response times, 999 call-answering times, and response times for non-urgent calls. I have heard from several MPs that rural areas are concerned that where there is a larger force, they will get fewer resources. That is not the intention—indeed, it is quite the opposite. Instead of having 43 forces making 43 decisions, and 86 decision makers spending money in 43 different ways, we will make savings that will mean that we can put more money into frontline policing in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I am reassured to hear the Minister’s words, but I am not hearing how what she describes will happen. We have all seen what happens with a larger force. The big cities and metropolitan areas have a political way of pulling resources to them; it is almost like gravity. Something structural is required. The Minister may not have an answer today, but will she consider ways of backing up her hope, to turn it into something on which rural communities in my constituency can rely?
Sarah Jones
As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), has just said to me, the two of us are from cities and we quite often feel the same way—that we do not always get the resources that we are pushing for. Everybody here will be interested in ensuring that their constituents get the funding that they need. We are about to set up an independent review on what the structures will be. The right hon. Member can also read the White Paper, which sets out some of these ideas. The independent review will be completed by the summer, and that will set out how many forces there will be and how they will work.
Sarah Jones
I will make a little bit of progress, if that is okay.
Let me say a little more about policing reform. Last month, as I said, we released the White Paper, which sets out how we will create a policing system fit for the future. Taken together, our plans amount to the biggest reforms for almost 200 years. They will see improvements to police governance, forced mergers to unlock greater efficiencies, and the creation of a national police service, capable of fighting sophisticated criminals at a national level. Those reforms are overdue. They will not be easy, but they are necessary. Our overarching aim is clear: to establish a new policing model, in which local forces protect their communities and a national police protects us all.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the challenges that we have always had in Staffordshire is that, because of a manufacturing site in Tamworth and because of the politics of Stoke-on-Trent, we have often had to deal with complex national issues around far-right activism and Hizb ut-Tahrir activism. With the increases for police forces, and given their national responsibilities, how will the Minister ensure that the local specialisms that we have built up in Staffordshire will continue to be deployable there? Sometimes, our neighbourhood policing is the first barrier—the first way of dealing with problems that can escalate further down the line. How will that knowledge transfer carry on?
Sarah Jones
Several people have raised similar concerns. My answer is that creating a much simpler system will make the movement of information, resources, people and specialisms easier, and that will be easier to maintain. We will be bringing together lots of different national bodies. We have the regional organised crime units, which do not have a legislative basis and are funded in a range of different, slightly peculiar ways. We have specialist units sitting in different forces across the country looking at different things, whether that is modern slavery or funding helicopters. We have this peculiar system that does not make much sense. By streamlining things, so that we have a national service, a regional service and local police areas, we can enable that flow of information and specialisms to be clearer. I understand my hon. Friend’s point, which has been raised by several people. We will certainly be mindful of it.
Graham Stuart
The Minister is being extremely generous in giving way. I met the chief constable of Humberside last week. As the Minister will know, it is the leading force in the country and has the best results, so local people are concerned about a reorganisation that could be expensive, and could draw resources away from a successful police system. How will those making preparations for these changes engage the chief constable in Humberside and others who are helping to set very high standards now? We do not want those standards diminished in the future.
Sarah Jones
The right hon. Gentleman points to a challenge, which is that some police forces perform brilliantly, and others perform less well. There is only one force in Engage at the moment, but in the main, forces will be good at certain things and bad at others, and that will vary across the country. Our aim is to ensure that we have brilliance everywhere, and we are working closely with police chiefs.
I think this is the first time that a reform programme has not had the criticism that we might expect from different aspects of policing. It was almost to the point that we sat back and wondered, “Have we got this wrong? Everybody is agreeing with us.” It is powerful to sit with police chiefs and with rank and file officers, as I did last week, and hear about the challenges they face and their solutions. We are suggesting the same solutions. It will be a difficult journey—no reform programme is not—but we are making sure that we engage with policing every step of the way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sarah Jones
I will make some progress, I am afraid.
Many hon. Members have talked about the funding formula. In opposition, I regularly called on the previous Government to review the funding formula. As part of this reform journey, we will have to reform the formula, because we are changing the structures. I can reassure Members that we will do that. This year’s settlement represents a first step in our reform journey. We have streamlined the way that we distribute funding and have put flexibility back into the hands of police chiefs, allowing them to focus on the priorities of their communities and of this Government.
One of those priorities has to be neighbourhood policing, as it is the bedrock of the British policing model. A central aim of this Government’s agenda has been to restore neighbourhood policing after it was catastrophically eroded in the years before the general election. Our efforts are already having an impact; there are nearly 2,400 more neighbourhood officers already in our communities, and the neighbourhood policing guarantee is delivering named, contactable officers in every area, but we must and will go further. Through this settlement, we will build on the progress made so far.
Having listened to feedback from police chiefs, police and crime commissioners, Select Committees and His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services and others, we are removing arbitrary headcount targets for overall officer numbers. We believe that success should be judged not just by numbers, but by how the police deliver the outcomes that the public want. Our focus is on putting police where they can make the most difference, which is often in our communities, tackling the crime and antisocial behaviour that blights cities, towns and villages. We are therefore ringfencing £363 million of funding to get 1,750 more police officers and police and community support officers into neighbourhood policing roles in the next year.
Sarah Jones
I will carry on making some progress.
Through the continued growth in neighbourhood policing, we will restore the vital link between police forces and the communities they serve. We also believe that there is significant potential to revolutionise police efficiency and productivity. We are continuing to work with forces through the efficiency programme towards the target I mentioned earlier of £354 million of cashable savings by the end of this Parliament. As set out in our White Paper, we must explore further avenues to bring policing into the modern age and deliver better value. Meanwhile, new structures will remove duplication and the national police service will allow us to deal with the biggest threats nationally. This Government believe in doing things right once, not in 43 different ways, and not a single penny of taxpayers’ money should be wasted. By investing in new technology, taking away administrative burdens and moving officers out from desks and into our communities, we move closer to that goal.
In 2026-27, we are continuing to invest in the police, supporting them with a record level of funding to do what they do best: keeping us all safe. That is the first duty of Government.
Sarah Jones
I will not on this occasion.
Keeping us all safe requires a highly effective and efficient police service that is both equipped for the crime-fighting challenges of now and prepared for the future.
Ultimately,
“the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.”
Not my words, but one of Robert Peel’s principles of policing, as laid out almost 200 years ago. Those principles are just as relevant today. We believe that policing should be about keeping people safe. The visible presence of police officers on our streets is vital, and this settlement aims to get officers away from desks and back on the frontline.
Esther McVey
I thank the Minister for giving way; it is most generous of her. My chief constable has raised a point about Labour’s new Sentencing Act 2026, where criminals will not be sentenced for less than 12 months. My chief constable says that their force will now be man-marking criminals on the street, which will cost them approximately £1.6 million a year. Can the Minister explain how she plans to address that issue in costs and man hours?
Sarah Jones
Significant investment is going into probation alongside those reforms. As the right hon. Lady would expect, colleagues in the Home Office and I are working closely with the Ministry of Justice to ensure we are equipped to respond to any changes. It is absolutely true that it is often right for people to have non-prison sentences, whether that is tagging or other punishments. We can do some innovative work on that going forward, but we are having regular meetings with our police colleagues to make sure we are ready for the changes.
Equally, we cannot forget the staff essential to our policing system, such as the PCSOs working with vulnerable individuals, victim support staff helping people through the aftermath of crimes, or tech experts working in police headquarters to track stolen phones. This settlement recognises that and puts power back in the hands of local forces, allowing them to prioritise the right mix of skills for a modern workforce. We are giving the police the resources—up to £18.4 billion—to invest in this workforce and to supply them with the tools and powers they need to do their jobs.
We know that to people across England and Wales, what matters most is not what we say but what we do. We are backing up our words with action—restoring neighbourhood policing, driving down harmful threats and equipping forces for the challenges of modern crime fighting—but we will not stop there. We will maintain momentum this year and beyond, reforming policing and striving to give law-abiding citizens the safety and security they deserve. This settlement will aid us in delivering those aims, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Gareth Snell
I just wanted to say this before the right hon. Gentleman got into his speech. In 2010 the number of police officers in Staffordshire was about 1,000, and it only returned to that level this year. We have never had a police and crime commissioner who was not a Conservative, and we have only ever had a Conservative council and a Conservative Government during that period. Is the right hon. Gentleman able to tell me whom I should hold accountable for that decimation of neighbourhood policing under the last Government?
Chris Philp
The last Government left office with record police numbers. In March 2024, at the time of the last recruitment intake, there were 149,769 officers by headcount, the highest number in history and 3,000 higher than the number in 2010. The Minister asked about outcomes. According to the crime survey for England and Wales, overall crime fell by about 50% under the last Government.
I was about to say, before I, perhaps foolishly—
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Philp
Goodness me, this is already becoming very congested, but I cannot possibly resist my right hon. Friend’s entreaty.
Graham Stuart
I am extremely grateful. My right hon. Friend is being most generous, and he has barely begun his speech.
I must have misheard, because I have listened to so many speeches about law and order from Labour Members, and my right hon. Friend must have misspoken. He has suggested that not only did the last Conservative Government leave a record number of police officers, but overall crime fell by 50%. Have those words ever been issued by the Ministers, or do they try to mislead the public at every opportunity?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to stand up and correct the record? Go ahead.
Graham Stuart
I mentioned no individual, Madam Deputy Speaker, but “inadvertently”, of course, in any Minister’s case.
Chris Philp
It is true that Labour Members forget to mention the record police numbers in March 2024 or the reduction in crime—which was, in fact, more than 50% over the period.
Chris Philp
I will happily give way quite a lot, but I have not even started, and I have given way a couple of times already.
I was going to start by echoing the Minister’s tribute to police officers up and down the country who, every day, put themselves in the line of danger. I have attended the annual police memorial service and met the families of officers who have tragically lost their lives while keeping us safe, and I think they should remain at the front of our minds during the debate.
The Minister threw around some big numbers earlier in respect of the increase in police funding that has been announced, but the 4.5% increase for frontline police forces—the increase being given to police and crime commissioners—is not enough to meet the funding and cost pressures that they face. Earlier today I spoke to Roger Hirst, the Essex police and crime commissioner, who is, as the Minister knows, the finance lead for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. He told me that, according to his assessment, this funding settlement is about £100 million short of the cost pressures that police forces will face, which means that they will have to find cuts—but it is not just Roger. The National Police Chiefs’ Council, the body that represents chief constables, said on 28 January:
“Many forces are planning service reductions, with consequences for officer numbers, staff capacity and…resilience.”
In other words, both police and crime commissioners and the NPCC say that the settlement is inadequate to maintain police resources. But it not just them either. The Labour police and crime commissioner for Avon and Somerset has just had to cancel the recruitment of 70 new officers because of “lower than expected” Government funding. The Cambridgeshire police and crime commissioner says that the settlement falls short of what is required. The chief constable of Cleveland says that his force faces a £4 million funding gap. The Essex police and crime commissioner, whom I mentioned a moment ago, says that
“the Government…settlement…is insufficient to cover rising costs”,
and Greater Manchester police say that they face a £32 million funding gap. In summary, this settlement is not enough to enable police forces up and down the country to maintain their level of service. They will shrink, and their services will be diminished.
The Minister mentioned the money being provided for the 1,750 neighbourhood policing officers, but did not say how much it was. In fact, the Government are providing £50 million for that purpose. If we divide the one number by the other, we find that it comes to £29,000 per officer. As the NPCC has pointed out, the cost of an officer is, on average, £68,000, so the Government are funding only 42% of the cost, leaving the other 58% completely unfunded. The Minister also forgot to mention that the Government are cancelling the funding for antisocial behaviour hotspot patrolling, which was introduced by the last Government and should have been continued.
As for the way in which the money is distributed, it remains the case that the funding formula is deeply unfair. Changes are long overdue, and I ask the Minister to introduce those changes to make the formula fairer. The Metropolitan police receive by far the highest amount in the country. Even if we account for the national capital city grant and counter-terrorism funding, they receive £439 per head. As for the lowest-funded forces, Dorset receives £255 a head, Essex £236, Cambridgeshire £237 and Wiltshire £235. They are inadequately funded, and the formula urgently needs to be updated. I ask the Minister—or her colleague the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), when she sums up the debate—to address that point.
The consequence of this inadequate funding settlement is just the same as the consequence of last year’s inadequate funding settlement, when my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), my shadow ministerial colleague, stood at the Dispatch Box and warned the Minister’s predecessor that the settlement would lead to reductions in police numbers. We now know that that has come to pass. The most recent figures, published only a few weeks ago, show that in the year to September 2025—an entire year in which Labour was in government—the number of police officers fell by 1,318. Numbers are being cut under this Labour Government.
The Government say that they want to hire staff instead, to do jobs behind desks, but the number of police staff fell as well, by 529. They talk about police community support officers. Well, the number of PCSOs fell by 204. Special constables are down by 514 and police volunteers are down by 429. That is a reduction of 3,000 in the police workforce in just one year under this Labour Government. They are not funding the police properly, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Mark Pritchard
It is true that a huge number of police staff are never seen—support staff, admin staff and call centre staff, for instance—and they play an important part in delivering police services to all our communities, but is it not the case that visibility in policing is needed, and only police officers who are warranted can make arrests when crime is committed? Notwithstanding all the wonderful people working in the back offices of all our police forces, we still need police officers in our communities, tackling the antisocial behaviour that my right hon. Friend mentioned and turning up at least occasionally at the parish council, where the local police officer still has a reference in the agenda. Visibility is critical to deal with the fear of crime, and a police officer with a warrant is critical in enforcing the law and making arrests.
Chris Philp
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. Only uniformed or warranted officers can make arrests, and that is why the fall in police numbers under this Labour Government is so shocking. They talk about neighbourhood police officers specifically, but that, of course, ignores activities such as crime investigation, 999 responses, and specialist officers who investigate, for example, sexual offences. When total numbers are falling, they focus on only one part of policing.
Sarah Jones
Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome the 2,400 more police in our neighbourhoods than at the start of this Government?
Chris Philp
The point is that the Minister has cut other areas to do that. She has cut 999 responses and crime investigations. She can use smoke and mirrors by focusing on only one part of the police world, but the fact is that total police numbers are down, police staff are down, PCSOs are down, specials are down and police volunteers are down—all under this Labour Government.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for lobbying on behalf of Essex. Obviously, I want more funding for Essex as much as he does. I should declare an interest at this point, as I have stood against Roger Hirst in two elections, but I want to make it clear that I have a great deal of time for the work that he does as police and crime commissioner. On his website, he says that he welcomes
“another 69 new recruits into Essex Police, making the force bigger and stronger than ever before.”
That does not quite fit with what the shadow Secretary of State said earlier.
Chris Philp
Roger Hirst, in common with many police and crime commissioners, has done a valiant job in the face of inadequate funding. However, as he said himself:
“The Government settlement is insufficient to cover rising costs.”
Let us look at outcomes, which the Minister mentioned. It is a matter of deep concern that, under this Labour Government, shoplifting has gone up by 10%, to record levels, robbery from business premises is up by 66% in the past year, antisocial behaviour has gone up, rape has gone up by 7%, and sexual offences have gone up by 8%.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
When the right hon. Gentleman says that rape has gone up, does he mean that the recorded crime of rape has gone up? Does he recognise that all Members of this House should celebrate when women feel more comfortable in coming forward?
Chris Philp
That is not what the hon. Lady was saying when the rape figures were going up under the last Government.
Chris Philp
Once is enough.
Reported rapes are going up, which reflects increased levels of offending. That is a serious concern.
Jess Phillips
What is actually going up is rape charging. To put the record straight, I never criticised increased reporting of rape. What I criticised was the decimation of rape charging under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, which led to the worst record in history.
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady will know that the change in the rape charge rate followed the disclosure rule changes after the Liam Allan case back in 2017. The last Government set up Operation Soteria and a rape taskforce, which were designed to increase rape charging rates. Indeed, they were increasing prior to the last election, and I very much hope that this Government are continuing the work of Operation Soteria, which was started by the last Government.
On the police reforms that the Minister referred to, some functions, such as counter-terrorism and fighting serious and organised crime, may well be better provided on a national basis. However, we oppose the creation of approximately 10 regional mega-forces, which will see county forces essentially abolished and merged into enormous entities that are far removed from the communities they serve. That will inevitably see resources drawn away from towns and villages and given to large cities, and there is no evidence that large forces are either more efficient or better performing.
In fact, the two arguably worst-performing forces in the country, the Met and West Midlands, are also the largest forces in the country. The history of Police Scotland, which was created by merging eight police forces into one, has not been a particularly happy episode, and it is certainly not a good case study for what is being proposed. I ask the Minister to think again about the creation of mega-forces, given that the examples of the West Midlands, the Met and Police Scotland indicate that large police forces do not perform well.
There is one area where I agree with the Minister, and where I actively support what she is trying to do: the use of technology in catching criminals, and in particular the use of live facial recognition. She and I have both seen that being used very effectively in Croydon town centre, and indeed across London, where 963 arrests have occurred in the past year as a result of using live facial recognition of criminals who would not otherwise have been caught, including a man wanted for a double rape dating back eight years. He would not have been caught, but for the use of live facial recognition. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s plans for rolling out this technology across the country and accelerating its use dramatically.
I would like an assurance that the Minister’s consultation on the use of the technology will be carefully calibrated, because there is a risk that people on the fringes—left and right—who do not like it will lobby her and try to persuade her to introduce all kinds of rules, regulations and red tape. If she gives in to their requests, she may end up inadvertently creating a bureaucratic system that, in practice, is very difficult for the police to operate. I urge her to think about the mainstream majority, who strongly support this technology. In Croydon, the public certainly support the technology, because they understand that it catches criminals and that if someone is not on the watch list, their image is immediately and automatically deleted. I ask the Minister to make sure that if she does change the rules, she does so in a way that is quite light-touch, and that it does not end up strangling what could be one of the most promising and effective crime-fighting technologies that this country has seen for many decades. I really hope that is the approach she plans to take.
Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend will have noted, as I did, that the Minister failed to answer on the “how”. She said that she wishes to ensure that the creation of massive new police organisations does not lead to policing becoming more distant, remote and hard to influence, not least for rural communities, but she could not tell us how it will be done. Does he share my concern that we will end up with a larger, more bureaucratic system that is remote from ordinary people? People in rural East Yorkshire are going to feel far away from decision making.
Chris Philp
My right hon. Friend puts it brilliantly. He has articulated exactly why the forced creation of regional mega-forces is likely to be a backwards step.
Chris Philp
I am almost done. The hon. Gentleman may find that a matter of considerable relief.
In conclusion—sometimes “in conclusion” are the most popular words I utter in a speech—
Esther McVey
At a time of great pressure on police budgets, my Cheshire police force is having to make redundancies. Was my right hon. Friend as concerned as I was that the Minister felt that our Labour police and crime commissioner could spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on vanity projects? She accepted it, rather than condemning it, and that money should go to frontline policing.
Chris Philp
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it was disappointing that the Minister did not substantively respond. Spending money on loads of communications officers, instead of police officers to catch criminals, is a misallocation of resources, and my right hon. Friend is right to call it out.
This police funding settlement is not adequate to meet the funding pressures. It will lead to continued reductions in police numbers across England and Wales, which will leave our constituents and our countries less safe.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her remarks. She will find very considerable support for the broad thrust of what she said, especially on streamlining and the new policing models. I know that she is thinking very seriously about how to get the best return on the reorganisation in order to tackle serious and organised crime, and she is alive to the regional specialisms and expertise that already exist. I thank her for that, and for her commitment to delivering better funding for our police force following the disastrous period of austerity under the Conservatives.
I want to put some challenges to the Minister, because I have some local concerns. However, after hearing the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks about police numbers, I have to say, in all candour, that the reduction of 20,000 police officers in the name of austerity was one of the most reckless and stupid things a Government could ever do. I would like him to come to the Dispatch Box and apologise for that gross dereliction of duty. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) chunters and laughs from a sedentary position.
Andy McDonald
I will in a minute.
Perhaps the shadow Secretary of State would like to apologise to the country for the damage that was caused. I can tell him that removing so many officers at a stroke had a devastating impact. Looking at the raw numbers—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member chunters, but he fails to comprehend.
Chris Philp
The hon. Member is focusing on the events of 14 years ago, when that Government were fixing the financial mess that Gordon Brown had left behind. I would remind him that the last Government left office with record police numbers, and I suggest he reserves his ire for the falling police numbers we are seeing under this Labour Government.
Andy McDonald
The penny has not dropped for the shadow Secretary of State, who cannot for one minute understand how that translated in our communities. That is the issue, because he simply does not take into consideration that loss of expertise. We cannot replace those police with recruits overnight. It was the stupidest thing a Government could do.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes my point for me, which is that the devastating thing was ripping the experience out of our police force and then dressing up new recruits as somehow a replacement. That led to higher crime in my constituency and, I know, in his.
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. Those were the lived experiences of our constituents, and those were the consequences they had to live with. Opposition Members may say that was because of the financial situation they were left with, but austerity was of course a political choice. The Conservatives deliberately ploughed this furrow with disastrous consequences, and they should have the humility to get up and acknowledge the error they made.
Graham Stuart
I have never heard someone so passionately misinformed in my life. The Labour Government left a massive, gaping overspend. In other speeches the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the national debt going up under the Conservatives, but we brought it down every year, and we fought and reduced crime as well. Having ensured that the country recovered, we left record levels of police officers and a 50% cut in crime. He puts on this faux outrage, but the lived reality for his communities and mine was an improved service and balanced books.
Andy McDonald
The right hon. Gentleman should not consider it to be faux outrage. I lived in my constituency throughout that period and saw the damage it caused.
Andy McDonald
Yes, and we should acknowledge the damage that was caused. I am going to be challenging my own Government, and I am trying to be objective about these issues, but what has to be understood in this place is the consequences of the terrible decisions that were made.
I will now move on, because I want to ask the Minister to address the real issues involving Cleveland police. There is more to be done in improving funding, which remains uneven, and some local areas continue to miss out. I hope to explore this in an objective and rational way with those on the Front Bench.
I want to draw attention to the urgent and growing concerns of Cleveland’s police and crime commissioner about the funding of our local force. Despite serving one of the most deprived and high crime areas in the country, Cleveland police remains the force with the lowest number of officers compared with 2010—a reduction of some 12%—leaving the community more vulnerable and officers overstretched. With the greatest respect, the recent funding settlement compounds the problem. Cleveland received the smallest increase in the country—just 3.3%—and after accounting for inflation and pay awards, that leaves a real-terms shortfall of about £2.4 million, which is equivalent to 40 officers. The Government continue to expect this deficit to be met through local council tax, and I just respectfully suggest that is unreasonable.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman was practically spitting with anger when he talked about the Conservatives’ record of increased numbers of police officers and a halving of crime, but now he “respectfully” makes suggestions to the Minister. Is it his understanding that, as a direct result of the settlement that this Minister has brought to the House, there will be a cut in service level in his deprived communities, making them less safe? Is that his understanding, and if so, perhaps his passion could rise up a little?
Andy McDonald
The difference between me and the right hon. Gentleman is that I am capable of being objective when facts are put in front of me, whereas he appears to be completely myopic and in total denial about his own Government’s record of decimating our police forces and the consequences of that. I am perfectly content with making proper representations to the Government on the settlements that have been devolved. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition, and it is a shame that he could not participate in a more sensible discussion.
With almost a third of our neighbourhoods in the top 10% of the most deprived nationally, local residents cannot shoulder a £90 increase on band D properties to restore staffing to safe levels. The police and crime commissioner has written three times to the Minister seeking urgent clarity about how the settlement was calculated. Each time, he has not had a response, and I ask the Minister to reflect on that and come back to me. Our communities and their elected PCC deserve answers. It is not just a matter of fairness; it is a matter of public safety. Without adequate funding, Cleveland police cannot meet the Government’s own objectives of reducing knife crime, tackling violence against women and girls, and maintaining effective neighbourhood policing.
The people of Cleveland, their PCC and officers on the frontline have done everything asked of them—exceeding recruitment targets, investing in neighbourhood policing and achieving crime reductions above the national average—and of course they made incredible efforts in response to the riot on 4 August 2024. It was the most remarkable response by the police and the community, banding together in the wake of the most violent attack on our community. I must pay tribute to the incredible work the police did, because they have never had to deal with anything like that. They did it with such incredible dedication and professionalism, and we cannot ever be thankful enough to them for their efforts. Again, I just ask the Minister to reconsider this settlement, because I am not convinced that it reflects their efforts, and it redistributes scarce resources to other forces with less need.
I therefore urge the Government to revisit the settlement urgently; to properly resource Cleveland police based on need, deprivation and demand, not on population alone; and to provide the answers that the PCC and our communities deserve. Our officers deserve the support they have earned, and our residents deserve the safety and security that only properly funded policing can provide.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I would like to start by declaring an interest, in that my father-in-law is the police chaplain for North Yorkshire police and my brother-in-law is an inspector in North Yorkshire police. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Hear, hear, indeed, and I would like to segue from thanking them to thanking Inspector Steve Benbow, who leads the policing team in Cheltenham and does a terrific job in difficult circumstances.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for a return to proper community policing. Unfortunately, community police numbers fell under the last Conservative Government, and it is clear to me from speaking to people in my constituency and elsewhere that they want a visible and trusted police presence in their community to focus on preventing and solving crimes. Far too many crimes—shoplifting, bike theft, tool theft and so many more—go unsolved at the moment, and ordinary people pay the price. Police stations and front desks are disappearing at an alarming rate even under this Government, leaving people with nowhere to go.
Labour has promised the public 13,000 more police officers, but instead frontline officer numbers have fallen. By September last year, we had 1,300 fewer officers than the year before, and in March 2025 the number of frontline police officers was down by more than 4,300 compared with March 2024. That is why it is so important to get these police reforms right, and we must see an improvement in frontline policing numbers as soon as possible.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I would like to highlight one case from Flamstead, where David, who was a toolman and a tradesman, had his van broken into 10 times. On the 10th time, he called the police while the thieves were there, but it still took officers many days to arrive, and he has now decided to retire because it is too expensive to keep going. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why it is so important to have a frontline community service from the police?
Max Wilkinson
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point. When we call the police, we expect them to turn up. I do not blame the police officers for not showing up. If there are simply not enough of them to do the job, that problem is a hangover from the previous Government. This Government must go faster to solve that problem.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman may have inadvertently suggested that there was a reduction in police numbers. There was a record number of police officers, the highest in this country’s history, when the Conservatives left power. That number has been reduced—frontline, back office and PCSOs; each and every one of them—by the Policing Minister and the Government opposite. I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is always an honest and straightforward Member of this House, would not want to suggest that the Conservatives left us with reduced numbers, when, in fact, they had increased.
Max Wilkinson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention—[Interruption.] I also thank Government Members for the many communications that are coming from the other side of the Chamber. When I hear the Labour party and the Conservative party arguing about police numbers, I just think it is an excellent advert for voting for one of the other parties.
If the Government are serious about restoring neighbourhood policing, they need to step up, get this reform right and get more officers back on to our streets. Ministers have suggested that the numbers will increase. We do not doubt their good intentions, but they will ultimately be judged on results.
We cautiously welcome the Government’s suggestion that they will assign a police team to every council ward, but the devil will be in the detail. So I ask the Minister—I am happy to take an intervention if she would like to put me straight, because we have asked a written question—will each council ward have its own policing team? Will it be unique to that ward, or will it be assigned en masse to several wards?
Sarah Jones
At the moment, we have a situation where each area has its own named, contactable officer. We are going even further, so that each ward will have its own named, contactable officer. These are hyper-local police.
Max Wilkinson
Based on the Minister’s answer, I assume that each ward has its own police officer and that that police officer has only one ward to deal with.
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Member suggests from a sedentary position that each police officer will have multiple wards. I wonder whether the Minister can clarify that.
Sarah Jones
To be clear, by the end of this Parliament there will be 13,000 extra neighbourhood police. The hon. Gentleman can divide that by—[Interruption.] Yes, police.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The Minister is making an intervention on Mr Wilkinson, not continuing the debate. Please make the intervention, so the hon. Member can respond.
Sarah Jones
To be clear, PCSOs are police officers. They are not warranted, but they are police. We will have 13,000 extra police in our neighbourhoods. I would have to do the maths to divide that number between each ward, but there will be a named, contactable officer in each ward.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before I call Max Wilkinson, I note that the Front Benchers will have an opportunity to respond at the end of debate.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I concur with the hon. Gentleman’s point on what the Minister has just said. In Cambridgeshire, our named neighbourhood officers—it is a little difficult to pin down exactly how many there are and how big an area they cover—cover a vast area. For example, the officer who covers the town of St Ives—that is the whole town, which has multiple wards—covers every area between St Ives and Ramsey, which also includes several villages. It is for the birds to suggest that Cambridgeshire constabulary will have enough named officers to cover every single ward that is represented currently by local government.
Max Wilkinson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. That is the point I am trying to draw out. The White Paper is somewhat non-specific on that point. It does say that there will be a named contact for each ward, but the suggestion is that that might be just one person—one police officer or PCSO per ward—and that that officer would have no other responsibilities. I do not believe that that will be the case given the numbers being presented, which means that the White Paper is perhaps somewhat misleading. I am not suggesting for a moment that Ministers would like to mislead the House, but the White Paper does need clarification.
If communities are to have confidence that stretched local police teams can deal with local issues, such as illegal e-scooters and e-bikes, they need certainty that police teams are available and accessible. Failure to do so will lead to more people feeling unsafe and, sadly, to more tragedies. In my Cheltenham constituency, we recently suffered the loss of an 18-year-old, who was riding an illegal e-scooter, in a road traffic collision. In my constituency, and in constituencies up and down the country, we frequently witness e-bikes travelling at speed, often on pavements and in pedestrian areas. An on-street police presence would surely deter such activities. That must be fully funded. Visible policing would also help to deter the onslaught of shoplifting that this nation is suffering. We must hope that the Government’s warm words on that will be backed by action.
We applaud the Government for announcing the impending abolition of police and crime commissioners. We Liberal Democrats have long opposed the politicisation of policing and we believe the money should be spent elsewhere. However, there is a risk that splitting the powers of police and crime commissioners between directly elected mayors and the Home Secretary will perpetuate the same problems with the politicisation of policing that we have experienced since 2012. The Government must ensure that in doing so, they allow crime and police boards, which will be made up of local councillors and representatives of relevant local groups, and will perhaps include mayors, to take over and ensure that police resources—the grant we are talking about today—are properly spent, so that we do not see money being wasted.
The Liberal Democrats are also calling for a police front desk in every community across the country. These would be in community hubs such as libraries, shopping centres and town halls. Such an approach would allow people to report crimes or share information with the police face to face in convenient and accessible locations.
Graham Stuart
When I met the chief constable of Humberside last week, he talked about Bobbi, an AI tool that is now able to meet 75%, and up to 90%, of queries. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage the desks always being manned, or would a computer or AI-based system be suitable in his view?
Max Wilkinson
We envisage them being staffed. Clearly, people want to see police face to face. AI can have a role, although we all know there was a cautionary tale from the west midlands recently that we would all like to put behind us. AI surely has a role, but in the proposals the Liberal Democrats are putting forward there would be staffed desks in convenient community hubs. I ask Ministers to consider that.
As Members will know, crime is not only concentrated in cities and towns. Many Members here in the Chamber represent rural constituencies. NFU Mutual estimated that the cost of rural crime in 2024 was as high as £44.1 million—a shocking cost to our countryside. We must consider the impact on those who live in rural areas, specifically farmers who are having a really difficult time. Their mental health and wellbeing can be badly harmed by crime. A survey of 115 NFU Mutual agents found that 92% believed rural crime was disrupting farming activities in their area and that 86% knew farmers who had been repeat victims of crime, leaving them feeling vulnerable in both their workplace and in their home. Rural communities have seen increasingly organised and damaging offences, yet only a small proportion of the police workforce is dedicated to tackling them. Rural crime is currently dealt with by just 0.4% of the overall police workforce.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about rural crime. My concern is that as the boundaries of police forces become greater, the resources tend to go to the urban areas. We see that in east Devon, where Cranbrook has sucked in resources from villages and towns that have previously had a police presence. Does he recognise that the effect of police being pulled into urban areas is being seen in other parts of the country?
Max Wilkinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention. On the issue of policing structures, if the Government impose wider boundaries, as they intend to, we need to ensure that they follow through on their pledges on local community policing areas. The responses we heard in the debate from many Members about five minutes ago tell us that the Government have not yet told the story in a way that will reassure my community or his.
Rural communities are increasingly concerned by the increase in crime they are seeing and want to be reassured that Ministers are allocating the funding that is needed to tackle it. In the report we are considering today, there are few references to rural areas and the countryside. Can we be reassured that rural crime will be tackled by a specific team in every police force? We are calling for a “countryside copper guarantee”, which would see properly resourced, dedicated rural crime teams or specialists embedded in every police force. Will the Government pledge to deliver the equipment, specialist knowledge and communication tools needed to tackle these crimes effectively?
The shadow Home Secretary mentioned facial recognition technology. We accept that this technology has the potential to improve the outlook for members of the public and to make the police’s job easier, too, but it does place our civil liberties at risk, and we must not be relaxed about that. In December 2025, the UK’s data protection watchdog asked the Home Office for “urgent clarity” over the racial bias of police facial recognition technology. Official Home Office research has shown that the technology identifies the wrong person about 100 times as often for Asian and black people as white people and twice as often for women as men.
We seek reassurances that this technology will not be used unless the data can be safely captured, and seek assurance from Ministers that those in minority communities will not be misidentified and wrongly arrested. We hope that Ministers can reassure us that the data will be stored appropriately and that this will not result in the widespread retention of data relating to innocent people. Will the Government consider statutory guidance on this technology to ensure that each police force takes a common and safe approach?
Chris Philp
I just want to pick up two points the hon. Gentleman raised, which I looked into when I was Minister for Policing. First, he raised allegations of racial disproportionality, which arose in 2017 or 2018. The system has subsequently been updated significantly. It was tested by the National Physical Laboratory two or three years ago, and, at the setting the police use it, there is now no racial disproportionality at all. It is a historic problem that has now been fixed. Secondly, on data retention, the system operates in such a way that if a member of the public who is not on the wanted list—like me or the hon. Gentleman, I assume—walks past the camera, our image is then automatically and immediately deleted. I hope that addresses his concern about data retention.
Max Wilkinson
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for addressing those two points. I can reassure him that I am not on the wanted list, although I can speak only for myself. That was a useful clarification, but I would like it from Ministers as well; perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure me when she sums up.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is sitting beside the Policing Minister, will share my view that police must be better at tackling violence against women and girls. I know that she has done a huge amount of work on this. Survivors of VAWG and domestic abuse deserve to know that properly funded support services will be there, and we must also be reassured that the police have the training to enable them to address so-called honour-based abuse.
The Government should look at introducing high-quality programmes for perpetrators in domestic abuse cases, with the aim of preventing further abuse, and Ministers must make it easier for victims who are already suffering to come forward. The Government should also consider rolling out a Home Office-led national public awareness campaign that tackles the myths around domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, signposts victims to support services and promotes the role of the new VAWG taskforce; there is already some really good publicity going out that we will have seen on our televisions.
Survivors must always be able to safely report incidents to the police, although the complexities of these cases mean there are additional needs that must be addressed. We seek reassurance that police forces will provide for anonymous reporting options and embedding VAWG and domestic abuse specialists in every 999 operator assistance centre—both important measures to help victims to report incidents to the police. These measures should bring together officers and specialists with the training, resources and capacity to effectively support survivors, including by working in partnership with frontline women’s services. Will the Minister therefore commit to establishing specialist taskforces in every police force?
Finally, we ask whether, in considering this report, we are yet again looking at smoke and mirrors—it is the same with funding no matter which party is in government. The Government’s figures assume a maximum police precept rise in every local area, pushing part of the funding settlement discussion to local areas. Should Governments of all colours not just be clearer about that in their communications?
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Before I make my remarks and my plea to the Government, I must respond to the complete nonsense from the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and other Members on the Opposition Benches. The 14 years following 2010 saw catastrophic cuts to the police service, a rise in recorded crime, unmanageable police force budget deficits, the demise of neighbourhood policing and the near destruction of the Probation Service. No part of the criminal justice system was spared from mismanagement. It is incredible that the penny still has not dropped that when austerity is forced on an area, antisocial behaviour and fragile communities are the outcome. Opposition Members will have to excuse this Government for not taking lectures from them.
This debate is crucial as it is about how we fund the services that keep our communities safe and resilient. Safe communities are the foundation of economic growth and local prosperity; businesses invest where towns feel secure, families settle where neighbourhoods are stable, and regeneration succeeds when antisocial behaviour is tackled and police are visible and responsive. Public safety underpins economic renewal and long-term confidence.
Our police and crime commissioner, Joy Allen, has raised serious and legitimate concerns about the structural pressures faced in Durham and Darlington under the current funding framework. Those concerns are about not performance—Durham constabulary is highly regarded and delivers daily for our communities—but capacity and sustainability. Durham has one of the lowest council tax bases in England and a very high proportion of band A properties, meaning that each £1 added to the police precept raises significantly less locally than it does in many other force areas. In practice, a 1% increase in the precept in County Durham generates £490,000, while in Surrey it generates approximately £1.7 million. At a time when we are rightly focused on narrowing the north-south divide, the funding framework risks reinforcing it.
North Road in Durham is a clear example of why sustained neighbourhood policing matters. It is one of the city’s busiest corridors and has, at times, been a hotspot for shoplifting and antisocial behaviour, particularly drug and alcohol abuse, placing real pressure on local traders and creating a perception of fear for residents and visitors. In response, Durham constabulary has worked with businesses to introduce the Shop Watch scheme, and it now holds regular meetings with retailers to share intelligence, co-ordinate action and improve visibility. That kind of partnership approach is starting to make a difference, but it relies on having the capacity and presence on the ground to sustain it.
County Durham also covers a large and diverse geographical area, with dispersed rural communities creating distinct policing pressures in terms of travel time, visibility and response. A prime example is when yobs on e-bikes terrorise our villagers, our football clubs and walkers; people feel scared, but police cannot reach them in time to take action. A single national framework does not, therefore, produce equal outcomes. The same policy decision yields very different resources, and over time that gap is compounded.
Between 2010 and 2020, under the Conservative Government, Durham constabulary lost 408 officers—around 20% of its workforce—and officer numbers have still not returned to 2010 levels, meaning sustained pressure on neighbourhood teams and frontline capacity across that wide geography. For three consecutive years, local consultation has shown that residents are willing to invest more when it protects visible neighbourhood policing and community safety. There is democratic backing locally for strengthening capacity. The issue is not willingness, but ability.
When funding depends heavily on council tax capacity, areas with lower property values are structurally constrained, regardless of need or performance. Equal percentage increases in grant do not offset unequal precept yield. If we want to see places like Durham flourish to attract investment, support local business and build confident communities, the framework for funding policing must not entrench the inequality between regions that soared during the Conservatives’ imposed austerity measures. Safer communities—
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is making a powerful speech. As she says, there will be a regressive impact from this police grant settlement, which is going to see higher and higher council tax on low-earning residents in her area, and because of rising costs, reduced policing. That is obviously concerning. I wonder how she is going to take that up with Ministers to try to effect change.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind Members that it is completely up to them whether they wish to take an intervention.
Mary Kelly Foy
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was happy to take that intervention. To the right hon. Member’s point—[Interruption.] If he cares to listen to my response, what he said is exactly what I am doing now: I am urging the Government to look again at the council tax precept. We are playing catch-up for the years of mismanagement and austerity when his party was in government.
Safer communities enable growth. The settlement should reflect that principle fairly and consistently across the country if we are ever to repair the damage caused by the Conservative Government’s period in office.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker,
“The current funding system is complex, outdated and the product of legacy decisions rather than strategic design”—
not my words but those of the Government in last month’s police reform White Paper. I agree, which is why I do not approve of the “Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2026-27”. The complex and outdated legacy police allocation formula sees Cambridgeshire constabulary down at the bottom of the list of forces for police funding per head, and yet the Government are still using it. Since being elected to the House, I have called on the Government to change this repeatedly, and it continues to be an issue that concerns my constituents. Reliance on a formula based on data from 2001 maintains the existing imbalance in funding that the Government know cannot continue.
The Government have already committed to updating the police allocation formula as part of their commitment to restructuring the 43 police forces in England and Wales, but that will not take place for years, and it will be years more before we see any benefit locally. How will current recruitment and resourcing dovetail into the new force structures? What rebalancing will take place, and would it not have made sense to have done the work on future structures first, so that the road map to the new model of policing could be better articulated?
The Government are already on the hook to fulfil their neighbourhood policing guarantee. Two weeks ago, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners released a statement that clearly outlined that
“the settlement is only sufficient to fund the increase in personnel promised by the Government under the neighbourhood policing guarantee in part”.
With funding for hotspot policing already rolled into the neighbourhood policing grant, where are we with the recruitment of the 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and specials?
The number of 13,000 additional officers was first announced in February 2023 by the then Home Secretary. In March 2023, the number of full-time officers was 142,145. In March 2024, just before the general election, that figure had reached 147,745—an increase of 5,600. By March 2025, the figure had fallen to 146,442—a 1% decrease year on year. Exactly what progress has been made in recruiting the 13,000 additional officers? What is the baseline figure that this is being benchmarked against? Is it March 2023 when the pledge was made, is it March 2024—the most recent data available when Labour came into government—or is it March 2025, when the funding to recruit these officers actually came on stream?
I am happy to take an intervention from the Policing Minister if she would like to clarify exactly what the baseline figure is. No, she does not wish to. As far as I am aware, that baseline figure has never been clarified, and when I asked that question of the previous Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), I received a waffly non-response that did not even attempt to answer the question. So do the Government even know? Nope—nothing from the Front Bench.
Let me turn to the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), about the number of police officers per ward. St Ives and Ramsey in my constituency has six officers in total, across police sergeants, PCs and PCSOs, covering 10 wards. In Huntingdon, there are eight officers for 11 wards. That makes 14 officers to cover 21 wards, so we are already seven officers down, and that is assuming that none of those officers ever has a day off, is ever on holiday and is ever sick. I do not see how we are going to gain those additional officers that the Policing Minister implies that we are going to receive under the neighbourhood policing guarantee in order to make up that shortfall. The APCC joint leads on local policing, Chris Nelson and Matt Storey, highlight that, as things stand, the maths simply do not add up, saying:
“We want to deliver the increase in neighbourhood policing the Government has pledged, but this can only be done if it is fully funded. Current funding covers the cost of approximately 750 additional officers, so it is unclear how forces will be able to fund the remaining 1,000 neighbourhood officers to which the Government has committed.”
Less than a year ago, we saw the Government revise down the neighbourhood policing figures. A staggering 31 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales amended their figures, having overstated them, resulting in a net reduction of 2,611 police officers and PCSOs—a 13% decrease. They had included student officers based in the classroom, not out on patrol, as well as officers double-counted on out-of-date HR systems. West Midlands police force had its true neighbourhood policing figure reduced by 62%, Gloucestershire’s was reduced by 65%, and Wiltshire and Suffolk had their figures reduced by over 50%. Is that 2,611 factored into the 13,000? The Minister referred to an extra 2,400 neighbourhood police officers, but the number of officers is already 2,611 down, resulting in a net negative of 211 officers; she will forgive my scepticism about the accuracy of the Government’s policing plan.
Sarah Jones
Just to be clear, there are 2,400 extra neighbourhood police officers in our neighbourhoods. Our policy is to tilt resources into our neighbourhoods, because the previous Government decimated neighbourhood policing. We are building it back up.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I appreciate the Minister’s intervention. I understood that point, but my point was that those 2,400 officers do not even make up the 2,611 by which the Government have already reduced the number of neighbourhood police officers by recounting the officers that we have.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Smoke and mirrors, indeed.
Last month’s police reform White Paper does little to clear up any confusion. The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners said:
“We are aware the cost of police reform has been estimated at around £500 million. While the Government has announced that £119 million will be allocated to the reform programme in 2026/27”.
Those police and crime commissioners have been scrapped, and in 2028 police governance will be transferred to strategic authority mayors or policing and crime boards. While the White Paper mentions that the latter will be expanded to reflect larger forces in the future, it does not explain how strategic authority mayors’ responsibilities would be restructured.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
The hon. Member is saying that police funding has been cut and that we are getting rid of police and crime commissioners, but is the money not better spent directly with police forces than in the offices of police and crime commissioners?
Ben Obese-Jecty
To be honest, looking at the police and crime commissioners, it has not been clarified exactly how that responsibility is going to work across the country. The point I was trying to make is that we are saying that the authority for policing locally is going to go to strategic mayors. That is fine, but if we are also going to merge forces, who will have primacy among those strategic mayors? In Cambridgeshire, for example, it will be devolved to the mayor of the combined authority, but if that force is to merge with other forces in East Anglia, and if there is a future mayor of Norfolk and Suffolk, which of those two mayors will have primacy over that area?
Graham Stuart
It is just that sort of incoherence that is upsetting my constituents. Humberside police force—the finest in the country—has a mayor on the north bank and another mayor on the south bank, so who exactly will be in charge of the police force? We do not know what will replace it. We do not have the detail, and we do not know what it will cost. All we do know from governance reorganisations through the years is that whoever is in charge, they are normally slower, more costly and do not deliver as much as the Government hoped for at the beginning.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I hope that that will clarified by the Minister who winds up, or through further clarification of the White Paper. I have read the White Paper, and it currently is not explained.
We have also received little explanation about how the independent review of force structures will work; who the independent chair will be; when and how they will be appointed; when the terms of reference will be published; and whether we as Members of Parliament will be included within the scope of the “policing stakeholders” referenced in the White Paper. Some clarity regarding the process behind such seismic and sweeping changes desperately needs to be outlined.
There are serious concerns that the new model for policing will not address some of the key resource requirements for rural forces, instead seeing cities and larger towns taking up an ever-growing share of the available resources. Last week I spoke to local National Farmers Union members in my constituency. For the second year running, concerns regarding rural crime, specifically hare coursing, were raised by local farmers. This is a topic that we rarely hear spoken about in this Chamber or by the Government. It is incomprehensible to many that idyllic rural locations could find themselves in the grip of violent and organised crime, but that is the situation that so many find themselves in.
Esther McVey
Is my hon. Friend concerned about not only that but increasing industrial-scale dumping in rural areas and the additional pressures on neighbourhood policing—whether from the increase in illegal immigrants going into hotels and houses of multiple occupancy, or from prisoners being let out of prisons, who neighbourhood police forces have to man-mark because of Labour’s Sentencing Bill?
Ben Obese-Jecty
The police are required to pick up the slack in so many different aspects of this, and I do not think that that is factored into or reflected in the way we are looking at the force structures. I hope that it will be factored into the review of the forces.
Coming back to rural crime, in my constituency of Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire constabulary has an effective and successful rural crime action team, but they are only 14 strong and cover a huge rural area. This must be factored into discussions and not risk being lost in the maelstrom of big-ticket policing items brought under national control and a myopic focus on urban and neighbourhood policing. It is my understanding that the rural crime action team, who specialise in dealing with machinery theft, GPS theft and hare coursing, have been moved from being operational support unit officers to being designated as neighbourhood policing officers. They are specialist officers required to do a specialist role. They are not bobbies on the beat in the villages around my constituency and they are never going to be that, so it is annoying to see that they are being restructured in that way. Redesignating rural crime specialist officers as neighbourhood officers to balance the books and tick an administrative box is not going to cut it.
Cambridgeshire constabulary proved itself to be an effective force with the swift manner in which it neutralised the assailant following the Huntingdon train attack last November. Speaking to my local officers, I know that there are huge inconsistencies in the way in which each force is managed, and I ask the Policing Minister for clarity on how those discrepancies will be harmonised intra-force. We know that overtime calculations for police officers lack consistency from force to force, as does the application of the adjustment bank for outstanding hours owed. These issues are affecting officers on the ground. Not every issue in policing is an operational resourcing question. Much of the pressure officers are experiencing is due to administrative inconsistencies, from pay inequality, given the south-east allowance, to officers wearing body armour that is past its expiration date because of failings in the procurement system—a tragic front-page scandal waiting to happen.
To conclude, I ask the Policing Minister to consider: ringfenced funding for rural crime action teams in the new force structure so that rural crime can be eradicated once and for all; pay disparities, particularly in regard to eligibility for the south-east allowance, the application of overtime eligibility and the management of the adjustment bank; and consortium contracting, and particularly the risk posed by reliance on one make of vehicle, including the use of Volvos by any force, given that Volvo is now owned by the Chinese Zhejiang Geely Holding Group. I believe I have a meeting scheduled with the Policing Minister, and I would be keen to continue the discussion around these issues with her on behalf of the officers in my county who have received a raw deal for far too long.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The 2026-27 settlement delivers a cash increase nationally but once again fails to address the structural unfairness faced by rural forces such as Dorset. It does not properly reflect rurality, seasonal population increases or the cumulative impact of more than a decade of underfunding. Dorset police is consistently one of the worst-funded forces in the country. It ranks in the bottom 10 nationally for total funding, receiving around £203 million, and sits at roughly 26th out of the 43 forces on a per capita basis. Despite covering over 1,000 square miles of largely rural geography, Dorset police remains at below the national average for funding per head and far behind most urban and metropolitan forces. The 2026-27 settlement does nothing to change that relative position.
The settlement assumes that police and crime commissioners will raise tax by the full £15 band D precept. In Dorset, that assumption is particularly problematic. Around 51% of Dorset police’s funding already comes from local council tax payers, compared with a national average of 34%, and as little as 20% in some of the better-funded force areas. Because Dorset has a smaller and slower-growing council tax base, even the same £15 increase raises far less in real terms than it does in urban areas. This settlement therefore locks in a reliance on council tax in a way that systematically disadvantages rural counties. We have already seen where this kind of Treasury assumption can lead. Similar flawed assumptions in fire service funding have resulted in plans to close fire stations in Maiden Newton and Charmouth. Once again, decisions are being based on unrealistic expectations of local funding, with consequences for rural communities.
Although the Government have stated that the recent 2.4% police pay settlement is fully funded nationally, in Dorset it is very different. For Dorset police, our settlement alone requires £500,000 of savings to be found locally. Over the past three years, the force has had to make £2.8 million in savings, with a direct impact on staffing levels. Meanwhile, seven forces nationally are able to generate surpluses year after year, while six forces, including Dorset, are forced to find savings just to stand still or, in many cases, regress. This is not a fair or sustainable system. It makes a mockery of the Government’s neighbourhood policing guarantee, even after the proposed long-term reforms. Dorset is one of the 11 forces that has still not returned to 2010 officer levels, and when neighbourhood policing funding is examined in isolation, Dorset is the worst-funded force in the country.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Over the weekend I went on a walkaround with my local police officers in Boscombe and Springbourne, and they were talking about the need to make sure that, particularly over the summer months, neighbourhood police teams were not seeing—in their words—significant abstractions of police officers from our communities into the seafront and the town centre, because Bournemouth particularly sees very high levels of tourism and large numbers of people coming in from outside who sometimes cause criminality. They also welcome the neighbourhood guarantee, which will see an increase in neighbourhood police forces. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to ensure that we keep our neighbourhood police forces in their neighbourhoods?
Edward Morello
I thank my fellow Dorset MP for his intervention. He will know that we welcome a huge number of tourists, who are vital for our local hospitality and tourism economy. While we want people to come, this does put an incredible strain on our local police forces and the funding needs to reflect that population increase.
Graham Stuart
One of the dangers, while the Government are cutting the police—1,300 last year alone, estimated by my police and crime commissioner, and another 4,000 nationally could go next year—is that they come up with this smoke-and-mirrors talk about neighbourhood policing and ask the hon. Gentleman whether he wants to protect that. If an artificial number, set from the centre, leads to the removal of police officers from where they are needed to meet local need, that is not a good thing. I hope that he, as a proper Liberal Democrat, will recognise that local decision making needs to guide this most, and that we need to have a Government who are not playing with smoke and mirrors.
Edward Morello
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for saving me from the indignity of not being intervened on by him during this debate. I agree that local police forces need to be local, and that we want bobbies on the beat everywhere.
Forces that routinely generate surpluses are able to invest in more officers, better technology and healthy reserves. Dorset cannot do that. Dorset police serves large, sparsely populated areas such as West Dorset, meaning longer response times, higher fuel costs and fewer economies of scale. Rural areas also tend to have less CCTV, fewer automatic number plate recognition cameras and generally fewer witnesses, making crime harder and more resource-intensive to investigate. National analysis shows that the average rural police force budget is £6.03 million, compared with £8.52 million for urban forces. On top of that, Dorset faces intense seasonal pressures, as we have discussed. West Dorset alone sees a 42% population increase during the peak tourist months and Dorset as a whole receives 25 million day visitors each year.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I want to follow on from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) in asking the Policing Minister again: would you agree that it is about time we got—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I do not agree, I do agree—I am pretty neutral. The hon. Lady should ask the Member to agree and not use the term “you”.
Vikki Slade
I can only apologise, Madam Chair. Would my hon. Friend agree that the Policing Minister is long overdue in replying to the calls from Dorset MPs and the police and crime commissioner in November last year to look at the seasonality issue, because we simply cannot go on?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. To help other Members in case they should make the same error: I am not “Madam Chair”; I am Madam Deputy Speaker.
Edward Morello
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, I agree with my Dorset neighbour. All the Dorset MPs have written repeatedly to Ministers to ask for a fairer funding settlement, and I shall speak to some of those issues.
None of the additional demand caused by our population increases during the summer months is properly funded. Dorset police faced a £3.6 million funding deficit in 2024, rising to £7.3 million last year. Despite submitting evidence-backed requests for additional funding of £12.2 million annually to recruit around 250 extra officers and staff, that support has not been provided. Instead, the police force has been forced to cut community support officers by 43%, freeze recruitment, sell vehicles and buildings, restrict overtime and halt non-essential spending.
If the Government are serious about fair policing and neighbourhood visibility, two immediate steps are needed, alongside the restructuring and long-term reforms our rural police service is calling for. The first is greater precept flexibility for forces such as Dorset that are already asking far more of local taxpayers than others. Secondly, as a stopgap, forces holding reserves above 5% should contribute back to a central redistribution pot, particularly when recommended reserve levels are closer to 3%. The proposed reforms come too late to make the difference on the ground that people want to see from their police force. This police grant report delivers more cash, but no structural fixes, and it comes before the police reforms that the Home Secretary laid before the House a few weeks ago have even been implemented.
As part of the reforms, we must reassess how we properly fund rural police forces to allow for proper neighbourhood policing. For rural forces like Dorset, the grant in its current form is closer to standstill funding than a genuine uplift once inflation, demand, population increases and geography are factored in. If we want safer rural communities, visible neighbourhood policing and public confidence in fairness, the funding formula must finally reflect what rural constituencies experience day to day.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Before I delve into the issues facing policing in Norfolk, I have to discuss some of the simply incredible ways that funding allocations are decided in the police grant report that we are debating. This is just another example of government functioning in a way that is rapidly becoming unfit for purpose and not changing with the times fast enough. An array of complex sums, based on data from as long ago as the 2001 census, dictates how many police officers we can expect to see on the streets in my constituency over the next year.
If we asked the average person on the street how their local police force funding was decided, few would guess that it was decided by a long formula that includes multipliers such as the daytime net inflow in 2001, a population projection for 2013, and the number of unemployed men between 2009 and 2012. The number of pubs and bars in an area is linked to the funding that a police force receives. Under police crime top-ups 1, 3, 4 and 5 and the “fear of crime” top-up, the greater the number of licensed establishment per 100 hectares, the greater the funding multiplier for the police force.
That leads me to a key question that I hope the Minister can answer on this year’s report and next year’s funding settlement. The Chancellor’s ongoing war on pubs is leading to closures across rural areas like mine; can the Minister confirm that under her formula, if a community lost their local pub, their local police force would receive less funding the following year? Surely we can create a clearer, more up-to-date and more workable formula than this—one that uses better data and delivers more funding. I note that Members of the Home Secretary’s own party have called for reflection on this, and so I hope she will take it into consideration.
People in North Norfolk want to be reassured that they are getting a fair deal. I am not sure that the system delivers that for them. Once upon a time, this formula may have delivered well, but given the evolving nature of crime, I do not think that it is well suited to the policing needs of 2026. Whatever logarithms and multipliers the Home Secretary chooses to use, the reality on the ground in my area is clear: our communities feel less safe than they once did. Community policing has been stripped back. Rural crime is not being handled with the seriousness that it deserves.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Does my county colleague agree that there are particular challenges in Norfolk? Under the previous Conservative police and crime commissioner, not only were all 150 of our police and community support officers made redundant, but many police stations lost their public access, and accessibility and visible policing have been eroded as a result.
Steff Aquarone
Those facts are irrefutable. I will come on to some of the points that the hon. Member makes about the challenges of policing an area like North Norfolk, due to the unique characteristics of our shared county.
We are lucky to have a lower than average rate of crime, but that does not mean that we should have our provision cut, or officer numbers reduced. Security and confidence in public safety are created by a well-funded and trusted police force, not by punishing us for not having enough crime. Maybe the Minister could listen to what her colleague and perhaps future leader, the Health Secretary, says about his focus on prevention. If we view much of crime through a public health lens, we can learn sensible and holistic lessons about stopping crime before it happens, rather than just responding as best we can.
Rural crime across the country is at staggering rates, and that causes real fear for farmers and rural business owners in Norfolk, where our past Conservative police and crime commissioners left us with zero specialist rural crime officers—an unbelievable statistic for such a rural county. Latest stats show that after pressure from the Liberal Democrats, the numbers reached the heady heights of two officers in 2024. Clearly, we have a long way to go. I will work with our PCC and police chiefs to ensure that we can deliver more for tackling rural crime, and that the Government give them what they need to do so.
I have said time and again that I am proud to have the oldest population in the country in North Norfolk, but that brings challenges for policing, and challenges to do with the way that my residents are targeted by criminals. Older people are seen as good marks for fraudsters and scammers. In Norfolk last year, £4.5 million was lost through investment fraud. In 2023, almost £100,000 was lost to pension fraud; some had their retirement savings ripped away. We have to crack down on this awful crime, which has serious financial and emotional impacts on its victims.
It saddens me that the prevalence of fraud and scams could make our communities less trusting and confident in the goodness of others, all because of criminal groups out there who steal their hard-earned money. For all the benefits that artificial intelligence can bring, we need to accept, sadly, that this will be one of the ways in which it can be damaging. Scammers with access to AI can use it to make their scams more widespread and efficient; it will allow them to hit more people in shorter timeframes. When the long-promised AI Bill comes to the House, it would be great if steps were taken to address that. We Liberal Democrats have called for the establishment of an online crime agency to focus on fraud and scammers who prey on constituents like mine. I hope that the Government will look carefully at our proposals, and will take action to stop these criminals damaging our communities.
I am not sure how many more police grant reports we will debate in this House that will have Norfolk as its own line item, as the Government’s White Paper seems to be strongly flirting with the idea of merging us with two or even three other counties. That is just another step taking us further away from policing in the community, and from an understanding of what an area needs. A lack of local leadership, making police chiefs even more distant, and the notion that policing priorities in Stalham could be dictated from as far away as Peterborough do not make sense to our constituents.
The Government are returning to type. They are centralising power, and trying to sell it back to us with the promise of some meagre back-office savings. That is their approach to local government reorganisation, to devolution and now to policing as well. We want them to ensure that Norfolk can stop and solve crime, and to make our community safer, not waste time and energy rejigging structures without a promise of improved outcomes.
North Norfolk is a fantastic community, which is lucky to see less crime than other parts of the country, but that is something we have worked hard to achieve. I am grateful for the hard work of Norfolk constabulary, which keeps my constituents safe and supported. It is time for the Government to listen to their needs and ensure that the money and resource needed to keep us safe is being delivered.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) said earlier, Liberal Democrats have long called for a return to proper community policing. After years of Conservative chaos and mismanagement, it is clear in Wokingham and across the country that there are not enough police officers. Residents in Wokingham are always telling me that they want to see more bobbies on the beat and a visible and trusted police presence in our communities, focusing on preventing and solving crimes.
That community presence is important, but it is not the only reason why we need greater police numbers; many in Wokingham tell me that they need to see better police responses to crime as well. Shop managers do not want to feel that shoplifting is not important when they contact the police. Early last year, I visited several stores in Wokingham, Emmbrook and Arborfield to speak with managers about shoplifting. Stores were seeing increasingly frequent and targeted incidents of shoplifting, which was impacting their businesses and customers. It was clear that store managers need better responses from the police when it comes to tackle shoplifting as the incident is happening. Needless to say, better police responses on tackling crimes as they happen also help prevent future crimes. If the Government really want to restore neighbourhood policing and rebuild public trust in policing, they need to ensure that reforms are done properly, and that more police officers are put on our streets and in our communities.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I join the House in thanking our frontline police officers and staff for their incredible commitment, and the contribution and sacrifices that they make to keep our streets safe. I am grateful to the Minister for her statement, though I must say that it has the familiar quality of a Government announcing success, while the public are left wondering where exactly it has occurred. The Minister has come to the House today to present this police funding settlement as a turning point—as if police numbers are not actually falling, and as if criminals across the country are now packing up their tools and reconsidering their life choices.
However, outside Westminster, the country looks rather different. The public judge policing in a far more old-fashioned way than Ministers. They judge it not by the tone of a statement, but by whether they see officers on the streets, whether the police answer the telephone and turn up, and whether crime is dealt with when it happens—and on those measures, too many of our constituents feel that policing is being stretched to breaking point. This debate cannot take place without us confronting the central fact behind it: Labour promised more police on our streets, but since it entered government, police officer numbers have fallen by more than 1,300. That is not a minor adjustment, or an accounting quirk; it is 1,300 fewer police officers available to respond to crime, protect victims and patrol our communities.
Matt Bishop
The shadow Minister talks about reductions in officer numbers. Has he considered perhaps that those officers were coming to retirement, or were suffering ill health and were on restricted duties, and were not the officers seen by the public on the street, so the public perception is just the same?
Matt Vickers
This is the net number of police officers making the difference out there on Britain’s streets. There were 149,769; there are now nearly 2,000 fewer—that has a real impact. We hear all this noise about neighbourhood policing. Neighbourhood policing has a huge part to play in the policing model, but we cannot take away the police who respond to 999 calls. Should we badge police up, redeploy them, and leave people waiting longer for a 999 response when they really need one?
Graham Stuart
In his powerful speech, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) talked about the rise in scammers and fraudsters. I am concerned about the fact that Humberside will get a 2.4% funding increase, according to a public announcement by Ministers. The police and crime commissioner has shown that, when costs are taken into account, that represents a 2.9% cut. That is why 1,300 police officers have been cut so far, and it is why another reduction of 4,000 is expected next year. The Minister can go through a carefully curated number of neighbourhood officers, but the overall number is down, and the Government are not being straight with us.
Matt Vickers
I could not agree more. That is why the number of robberies against businesses has surged, shoplifting is up, and people feel less safe on our streets. Between September 2024 and September 2025—entirely on this Government’s watch—the number of officers fell by 1,318, compared with the year before. More broadly, 3,000 fewer people are working in police forces across the country to keep us safe.
Andy McDonald
I hear what the shadow Minister says about police numbers, but what did he say when Cleveland lost 500 police officers on his Government’s watch? Was he concerned then?
Matt Vickers
Back in 2010, I was deeply concerned about lots of things—the damage to our economy, the number of people without a job, the challenge of the difficult choices that the Government had to make—but the previous Government left office with record numbers of police on our streets.
Richard Foord
Measuring police effectiveness by looking solely at numbers is absolutely flawed. Does the shadow Minister accept in retrospect that the way in which Theresa May allowed police numbers to plummet while claiming that crime was falling was completely flawed? We lost a lot of experience in those years.
Matt Vickers
When the Conservatives last left office, we had record numbers of police on the streets. I do not know how many police officers we had on the streets when the Liberal Democrats last left office. [Interruption.] I will make some progress.
In terms of headcount, the picture is starker. In March 2024, under the previous Government, there were 149,769 officers—the highest number since records began. As of September 2025, that number stands at 147,621—a decrease of more than 2,000. When the Minister speaks about supporting the police, the House is entitled to ask a simple question: how can the Government support policing while presiding over fewer police?
Worryingly, the bad news does not stop there. The number of officers in the British Transport police and the number of staff in the National Crime Agency have also decreased, all while the Government announce a national police service that will be created from organisations such as the NCA. The staff who will make up that service are leaving. That is critical because the grant that we are discussing comes against the backdrop of many forces warning about their long-term financial stability.
As the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council said:
“The overall financial picture remains challenging. Many forces are planning service reductions, with consequences for officer numbers, staff capacity and overall resilience.”
That is a direct consequence of the Government’s decisions. There are real funding challenges, here and now, with real consequences for forces and communities across the country. The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners says that this year’s settlement leaves police forces with a shortfall that could be as high as £500 million.
Labour’s own police and crime commissioners across the country have spoken out on the challenges. In my own part of the world, Labour PCC Matt Storey has said that Cleveland police have to operate with
“one hand behind their back”,
and that funding has
“failed to keep pace with the level of inflation, while other funding has been removed and re-allocated”,
making it impossible to maintain current levels of service. I understand that he has written to the Minister on three occasions and is still awaiting a response. Durham’s Labour police and crime commissioner has been even more direct in her criticism. She said that the Labour Government have
“consistently demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of policing and community safety.”
The Minister will no doubt point with great enthusiasm to headline figures. Such spin fails to acknowledge inflation, pay awards and the ongoing cost of the Government’s jobs tax. Many at home will be stunned that our police forces were subjected to hundreds of millions of pounds of costs by way of the national insurance increase, and that the Government have actually taxed the police off our streets. This settlement is not the straightforward increase that the Minister claims it is. It relies heavily on the police precept, pushing more of the burden on to local taxpayers, while forces face rising costs and rising demand.
In 2023, an MP told this House that the then Government’s approach was to
“put up local taxes, put up council tax, push the problem on to local forces”,
and that
“Ministers have chosen to heap the burden on to hard-pressed local taxpayers through the precept.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 935.]
Any idea who that might have been? [Interruption.] Yes, it was the current Policing Minister. Given the Government’s fondness for U-turns, I am not surprised by the Minister’s change of view.
Jess Phillips
If the shadow Minister was so upset about this, why did he not do anything about it?
Matt Vickers
An increasing burden is being put on local taxpayers. Members can say one thing in opposition, but then they enter government and have to make real choices. Labour’s choices have meant cuts to police numbers, increases in the burden on local taxpayers, and spiralling levels of retail crime and robbery against businesses.
The consequences of that approach are as obvious today as they were then. The reliance on the police precept entrenches a postcode lottery in policing. Areas with strong council tax bases can raise more; areas with weaker council tax bases cannot. Yet the need for policing does not neatly align with local prosperity. Criminals do not check council tax bands before committing burglary. Nor do they decide where to operate based on local authority revenue forecasts. Yet under this Government’s model, two communities can face the same crime pressures but receive very different policing capacity simply because one can raise more money than the other. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what changed her mind about increasing the burden on local taxpayers for funding the police. Given the articulate case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty)—and by the Minister when in opposition—will she tell us when the funding formula review will take place?
The pressures on policing are not diminishing; they are growing. Forces are dealing with county lines, drug gangs exploiting children, organised crime operating across borders, cyber-crime and fraud expanding at an industrial scale, and domestic abuse cases that require extensive time, safeguarding and specialist capacity. They are also dealing with public order demands, which have become increasingly routine. This is a modern landscape of threats that requires modern capacity, and it cannot be met with funding settlements designed for ministerial speeches rather than frontline realities. This settlement will ultimately be judged not by the Minister’s tone, but by its results.
This debate comes down to the difference between saying and doing. The Government can say that they support policing, but too many see numbers falling. They can say that they support victims, but too many see no justice. And they can claim to be tough on crime, while quietly introducing early-release schemes that put offenders back on our streets sooner. Until the Government’s actions match their words, the public will not be convinced—and nor should they be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
I thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate—there was a big representation from the Liberal Democrats. I will not repeat the details of the settlement, as they were set out very clearly by my hon. Friend the Policing Minister. However, I will re-emphasise the importance of the significant investment in policing. It plays a key role in our programme of police reform, through which we will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of our police service, and ensure that our police are equipped for the future. The settlement also supports neighbourhood policing, which is the bedrock of the British policing model. We are listening to feedback from forces and giving them flexibility to shape their workforce and meet the demands of modern policing.
I will now come to the points raised in the debate.
Jess Phillips
The right hon. Gentleman raised many such points, so he will excuse me if I do not give way now.
It seems that the whole House can agree that no one likes the funding formula. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) gave an especially good trot-through of that issue. While he is not of my political stripes, he is considerably better than the previous right hon. Member for North Norfolk, who bears some responsibility for the damage that this Government are having to fix. The funding formula is fundamentally—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would like to intervene or think that I have said something that I should not have said, they should feel free to defend the former right hon. Member for North Norfolk, the one-time Prime Minister who crashed the economy.
Graham Stuart
As ever, I am afraid that this Minister gets her facts wrong. Despite that frailty, she is none the less straightforward and pretty outspoken. We get so few direct answers these days, so I look to her to provide them to two questions: are there fewer police officers now than there were when Labour came to power? And were there record numbers at that time? Are those two facts correct or are the Conservatives misleading the House, which we would not want to do?
Jess Phillips
I will come to the points that were raised in the debate, and that is one that the right hon. Gentleman raised many times.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) asked a specific question about the baseline. The baseline of the number of police personnel working in neighbourhood policing, which is measured from 31 March, was 17,715. Today that figure is 20,687.
I will tell a story about my recent visit to Cumbria police. I visited a call centre, where brilliant work was being done, and where I met some brilliant domestic violence advisers. However, the people staffing the call centre were warranted police officers. I do not think that warranted police officers should be staffing the call centres in police departments.
Jess Phillips
I will make some progress.
I do not think that those warranted police officers should be doing that. That is why we are tilting to increase the number of police, getting 12,000 of them from behind desks to where they need to be: working on the frontline.
The consensus from Members in the House today, including my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and others from different parties, is that some unfairness exists in the funding formula. It would be ridiculous to reform the police funding formula, carry out all of the police reforms that will come out of the planned review of policing, and then paste the funding formula on to that completely new programme.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon has already laid out his questions about the White Paper, but the point is that there will be a review of policing. I like the way hon. Members have started to use the term “mega-forces” as if they will be a bad thing. To me, they sound quite cool, like something out of “RoboCop”—which is not Government policy. It is for the hon. Gentleman and every other Member to take part in that review, ask questions, such as the ones he asked today, and represent their areas.
The hon. Members who have spoken today largely come from rural or semi-rural communities. From listening to that debate, people would be forgiven for thinking that where I live is basically a police state, where if someone calls the police, they will be out in five minutes. I recognise exactly the same issues that Members representing rural constituencies raised—that the police do not always come when people need them—and the needs of their police forces. One of the forces mentioned was West Mercia and there seemed to be an idea that that force would suck resources away from Birmingham, but I feel the same way about other bits of Birmingham, and indeed other parts of the country. That is why we need to reform the system.
I was in a meeting this morning with three of the most senior police officers in our country, who are part of the new violence against women and girls policing unit created by this Government. We were talking about the disparity between the 43 different police forces—stalking or honour crime may be tackled well in one area but not in another—and the domestic abuse risk assessments that they use. In that meeting, I thought, “Gosh, we are going to have the opportunity to start from first principles.” If I were to design the police force today on behalf of women and children in our country, I would not be designing the systems that we have today, so I ask people to enter into the issue of police reform in that spirit.
On the policing funding formula, there is no doubt, as hon. Members have mentioned—I suffer from this in Birmingham, as well—that a council tax base that is low has a disproportionate impact. When the funding formula is reformed, as part of the overall reform of policing, it will absolutely have to rely on need, deprivation and demand, as was laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East. Need can do a huge amount of heavy lifting for things like seasonality, which was raised by a number of hon. Members.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jess Phillips
I will give way to the hon. Member for Huntingdon and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash).
Ben Obese-Jecty
The Minister mentions the factors that will go into the police allocation formula. That formula is currently based on the 2014 population size, and density and sparsity figures from 2001. However, since that formula first came into effect, an additional 300,000 people now live in Cambridgeshire. Will that be factored into the formula? From what date will the population data be taken? Will it be the 2021 census or the 2011 census?
Jess Phillips
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s first question, yes, of course that will be factored in. Did he say 2001? I really enjoyed the conflab in the debate about who was to blame for what—it went back to things being blamed on the last Labour Government. I would like to remind hon. Members that we have to be careful about the way we are seen, because I was not old enough to vote when the last Labour Government came to power. Perhaps we should update some of the references. The idea that the figures we use will date from 2001 seems completely and utterly ridiculous, but the review that will be undertaken will look at that. All I can say is that it will be as recent as one would expect and as recent as is possible with data. [Interruption.] I can see that people are keen for me to be quiet.
Mr Brash
My hon. Friend talks about a new funding formula needing to be based on need and the challenges that the precept creates. We are never going to get fairness if the council tax system is the method of doing this. Is she ruling out getting rid of the police precept as a method of raising funding?
Jess Phillips
Far be it from me to have the authority to do that right now—I have to be honest. My colleagues who are responsible for local government and policing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), are sat on the Front Bench, and they will have heard the concern about that interplay. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) is absolutely right: this is about need and trying to ensure that we look at the different things that different areas face.
We are committed to giving the police the resources that they need, and that is exactly what this settlement does. We want to see robust neighbourhood policing that engages with the public to build trust and confidence. We are grateful for all the work that the incredible men and women of our police service do, and we are therefore determined to provide them with the capability and flexibility that they have asked for through the funding, in order that they have the tools they require. The removal of arbitrary targets for officer numbers means that local chiefs have more flexibility to shape their workforce, meet the demands of modern policing and do the vital work behind the scenes.
This settlement is only the first step. The 2026-27 settlement provides the police with the immediate resources needed to continue their invaluable work, alongside the opportunity to invest in the future, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2026–27 (HC 1638), which was laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.
Local Government Finance
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:06 - The House divided: - Ayes: 277 / Noes: 143 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:20 - The House divided: - Ayes: 279 / Noes: 90 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2026-27 (HC 1604), which was laid before this House on 9 February, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2026-27 (HC 1605), which was laid before this House on 9 February, be approved.
Steve Reed
Before I begin, I notify the House that the local government finance report has been updated with small corrections on pages 7 and 13. These corrections have been passed on to the House in the proper way ahead of today’s debate. Like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its careful consideration of these reports.
I believe in local government, because I have lived it. As a councillor and as a council leader, I saw the difference that councils make to people’s lives. Local government is the part of our democracy that is closest to people and the things that they care about the most—their family, their community and their home town.
Labour took office after 14 years of ideological cuts imposed on local government. The Tories devolved the blame for their failure in national government by imposing £16 billion of cuts on councils and local communities. Even worse, they targeted the worst of those cuts deliberately on our poorest communities. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), was filmed standing in a leafy garden in Tunbridge Wells boasting about how the Conservatives had stripped away funding from struggling towns so that they could play politics with public money.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Has the Secretary of State made an analysis of the division of Pride in Place funding between Labour and Reform seats versus Liberal Democrat and Conservative seats?
Steve Reed
I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to stand up and apologise to the House for what his Government did in diverting money away from the poorest communities. I am very disappointed that he did not take that opportunity, and I suspect that I am not the only one—perhaps he will take the opportunity later on. I remind him and his colleagues that under the Tories, only three in 10 councils received funding that aligned with deprivation; with this Government, the number is more than nine in every 10.
Local people were forced to pay a staggeringly high price for Tory venality. High streets were hollowed out and boarded up. The number of people sleeping rough on our streets doubled. The number of families stuck in temporary accommodation doubled. There were more potholes on our roads than craters on the moon.
Steve Reed
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman so that he can apologise for that.
Mark Garnier
I was going to say thank you for the Pride in Place money, actually; I am very grateful that the Government have given £20 million to my constituency.
On the subject of funding for councils, the Government are requiring district councils to pay for food waste recycling. That is not an unreasonable proposition, but there was a principle under the previous Government of new burdens funding, whereby when a new burden was presented to a council, the Government would sort it out. Why have the Secretary of State’s Government decided not to support councils with new burdens funding?
Steve Reed
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s words about Pride in Place. I am glad that he has answered the question of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), because that money is being distributed to constituencies represented by Members right across the House. On the point that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) makes about food waste recycling, funding for that has been built into the settlement, so it is present. The new burden is being funded in that way.
Mark Garnier
The Secretary of State is being incredibly kind. He talks about the settlement, but the settlement does not work. Wyre Forest district council has had a 0% increase in core funding. Dare I say that across the whole of Worcestershire, where there is a district council with a Conservative Member of Parliament, there has been a 0% increase, but where there is a district council with a Labour Member of Parliament, there has been an increase of up to 5%. Can he explain why that has happened?
Steve Reed
The settlement follows a funding formula and takes account of the costs of delivering food waste recycling in the way that the hon. Gentleman described earlier.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Steve Reed
Let me return to my theme for a moment before I take any more interventions.
The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) and colleagues across the House will remember that the Tories used to belittle local councillors as part-time volunteers and took away their pension rights to deter people from risking a career on the frontline of local government. Today, it falls to this Government to fix the foundations that the Tories smashed apart.
We are rebuilding local government so that councils can rebuild their communities. We are making good on our promise to introduce multi-year funding settlements so that councils can plan for the future with certainty. We are reconnecting funding with need so that we can take off the Tory shackles that have held back so many of our towns and communities for so long. We are ending wasteful bidding wars for funding, freeing councils to focus on filling in potholes, not forms. We are putting fairness back into a system that the Tories bragged about breaking. We reject the decline that ripped the heart out of towns and communities up and down this country. We choose change.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Shropshire council is about to see a 10% cut in its core funding from central Government, having been terribly badly run by the Conservatives for the previous 16 years before the Lib Dem administration took over in May. The Government have given the council permission to put up its council tax by 9% without a referendum, but that does not even touch the sides of the cut in funding from central Government. How is Shropshire, which needs to receive exceptional financial support in this year, ever going to fill the ever-growing black hole unless the funding from Government reflects the costs of delivering services in rural areas?
Steve Reed
I believe the hon. Lady has had several meetings with my colleague the Minister for Local Government. It is right and very important that we should align funding with need; that is the only way to ensure that funding is fair across the whole country. That is what we promised to do in our manifesto, and that is what we are doing with this settlement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Steve Reed
I have taken an awful lot of interventions so far, and I do not want to leave no time, but I will take one last intervention.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is being very generous with his time. Like him, as a councillor I saw appalling pressures put on our local council in Reading while funding went up in neighbouring Wokingham, which is a much better-off area and was then controlled by the Conservatives. I appreciate his work on readjusting the settlement to reflect need. That should be a fundamental point in any allocation of resources to local government. Would he like to say a little more about his work on this, and how it is going to benefit residents on the lowest incomes in the most disadvantaged communities?
Steve Reed
At core, what we are hearing from all parts of the House at the moment is people’s views on the fact that under the previous Government, the alignment between funding and deprivation was broken, and this Government are bringing it back. Because the previous Government did nothing about it for 14 years, funding became extremely detached from deprivation. We are putting that back in and making sure that funding goes where the need is greatest, so that stealing money from the poorest communities to pork barrel Tory areas—which the former Prime Minister bragged about—can no longer go on.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is being a little unfair to the Tories. The biggest cuts under austerity from 2010 to 2024 came from 2010 to 2015 when the Lib Dems were in coalition, so perhaps they should share some of the blame.
Steve Reed
I certainly agree that the Lib Dems should share the blame for austerity. I was a council leader while the Lib Dems and Tories were in coalition together. I think they cut our council by a third just over the first one or two years that they were in power. Now they have the chutzpah to stand up and complain that this Government are putting some of it back. I really think they should reflect on that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Steve Reed
I have taken an awful lot of interventions, more from the opposite side of the House than from my own side, so with your kindness, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a little progress.
I thank all who contributed to the provisional settlement consultation. We listened carefully to views expressed by councils and MPs, and today I am pleased to announce an additional £740 million in new grant funding over and above the provisional settlement. This means that by the end of the multi-year settlement, councils will benefit from a 15.5% increase in core spending power, worth over £11.4 billion, compared with 2025-26.
When this Government took office, we introduced the recovery grant, targeted on those areas held back the most by Tory and Lib Dem austerity. This year we have maintained that grant, so every upper-tier council that received it will see a real-terms boost. I can announce a £440 million uplift to the recovery grant over the multi-year settlement targeted at councils the Tories hit with below average funding increases. By the end of this Parliament, we will have invested a total of £2.6 billion in the most deprived councils through the recovery grant, over and above what they receive through the settlement.
I have also listened carefully to feedback from the sector about business rates pooling. As a result, I am compensating any authorities that would have lost funding this year so that they have time to adapt to the new arrangements.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
I was council leader at St Helens for five years before coming here in July 2024. I just want to say thank you to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government, and the Ministers in post before them, for the engagement, because the relationship now is different from what it was before. The conversation we have had since the provisional settlement has been constructive—it has been good; it has been done in good spirit—and I am very grateful for the result that we have for St Helens. In 2010, St Helens got £127 million a year from the last Labour Government, but when the Conservative party opposite left office it was £13 million a year. Does the Secretary of State share my absolute shock at the brass neck of Conservative Members?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Brief interventions can be just as productive as lengthy ones.
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. What he is seeing is the realignment of funding with deprivation, and that is as it should be.
Graham Stuart
The Secretary of State has been tremendously generous in giving way. He has also been making his usual barnstorming political knockabout speech, but perhaps he should start to act more like a Secretary of State, because low-income residents of the East Riding, of whom there are many in Beverley and Holderness, are going to have a £200 council tax bombshell. The smallest house is going to be paying £200 more in three years’ time and will have reduced overall funding to support public services after the increase in costs imposed by the Government. That is the reality. The Secretary of State said he wants to focus on need; why has rurality been removed from the category of need, when it is such a real issue?
Steve Reed
Well, the easy answer to that is that it has not been; it is still there.
Above all, this settlement is about fairness, because this Government reject the Tory belief that our poorest communities should be left to sink with less funding and worse public services than other parts of the country. That approach pulled our country apart; and, in doing so, was profoundly unpatriotic. Our settlement reflects a council’s ability to raise income locally, and it reflects the fact that it costs more to deliver services in different parts of the country, retaining rurality funding for social care, because we recognise that workers in those areas have to travel longer distances. We have used the most up-to-date data on deprivation to make sure funding accurately follows need.
We are introducing changes gradually over the period of the settlement so councils have time to adapt, and we are protecting councils’ income, including from business rates growth. Today’s settlement is a milestone in returning councils to a sustainable financial footing, and in restoring fairness to local government funding.
Lincoln Jopp
I am incredibly grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He calls it a milestone; I call it a millstone. He talks about fairness. Stanwell in my Spelthorne constituency hits the markers for the double deprivation criteria that would qualify for the Pride in Place funding, but that is diluted by the more affluent areas in my constituency. How is it fair to the people of Stanwell that they do not qualify for Pride in Place funding just because they are surrounded by more affluent areas? Rather than helping, is the Secretary of State not just going to engineer the continuation of pockets of deprivation?
Steve Reed
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood how it works. An area does not get diluted. The scheme looks at super-output areas on a very small level so we can ensure that the funding goes to those areas with the highest levels of deprivation. I would be happy to write to him about the process if it would help him to better understand how it works.
For the vast majority of councils, increases in council tax will be restricted to 3%, and 2% for the adult social care precept.
Steve Reed
I am going to make some progress, I am afraid.
There are a few councils facing extremely challenging financial pressures that the previous Government turned into a crisis by ignoring their problems for over a decade. In response to requests from those councils, I am giving them flexibility to increase their council tax above referendum principles next year. Unlike the previous Government, we will not agree any increases that could lead to households in these areas paying above national average council tax, but we will not let councils go to the wall and see their residents punished with failing services. These flexibilities will apply to Warrington, Trafford, Worcestershire, Shropshire, North Somerset, Windsor and Maidenhead, and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. One fire authority will also be granted additional flexibility. These are caps, not targets, and no area with additional flexibility will see bills rise above the national average.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for making that point about council tax and flexibility for local councils. Does he agree with the Local Government Association, which is worried, stating that
“council tax is not the solution to the financial challenges facing local government. It places a significant burden on some households”,
including the poorest. Does he agree that we should now be looking at council tax reform?
Steve Reed
I agree with the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that council tax cannot be the only means to fix these problems. That is why we have increased the level of funding overall and reconnected it with the deprivation indices that tell us which areas have the greatest need, and should therefore get a fair share of the available funding.
The Home Secretary and I have also agreed an additional £3.50 council tax flexibility for six police and crime commissioners in 2026-27, where that was critical to financial sustainability in maintaining law and order. It is for councillors, mayors and police and crime commissioners to set their own council tax, and to take into account the impact on households when making those decisions.
Nationally, council tax will not increase by more than it did last year. Six local authorities set council tax bills between £450 and £1,000 lower than the national average because of the high value of homes in their areas. The previous Government made no adjustment in the funding formula for this, creating unfairness. It is not fair that people living in our poorest communities should subsidise rock-bottom bills in some of our wealthiest areas, so I am giving those councils additional flexibility to manage their budgets as we align funding with need, as we should.
For councils that need some support to balance their budgets this year, we will no longer just sign off borrowing or the sale of assets without a credible approach to reforming services to get back to financial stability. Later this month, I will confirm arrangements for supporting councils in the most difficult positions, but they will be expected to bring forward plans for more effective and sustainable services, built on sustainable budgeting into the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Steve Reed
I want to make some progress, because I have taken quite a lot of interventions, but I will give way before I conclude.
Local government is still under pressure, and we will not bury our heads in the sand or dodge the difficult decisions. The adult social care system is in crisis, and we are facing up to that by transforming it. This settlement makes available around £4.6 billion of additional funding for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, including £500 million for the sector’s first ever fair pay agreement. That means more carers getting better pay and having the time to provide the high-quality, compassionate care they want to give. It will get us moving towards a national care service that gives people better-quality care, joined-up services, and more choice and independence.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
We are very grateful for the settlement and the announcements that the Secretary of State has made today. Both Redbridge and Waltham Forest in my constituency are receiving significant uplifts from this Parliament, and Ministers have been excellent in listening to the arguments of both those London boroughs. Although this measure will not be enough to fill the immediate financial gaps left by the Tories, it is a step forward. However, given that temporary accommodation costs have risen so much in London—by about 75% over the last five years—will the Secretary of State set out how the Government are acting to expand the supply of socially rented homes?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for recognising that funding is now following deprivation. He will find the answer to his question in the homelessness strategy, which I will come to. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, you are indicating with your wrist that I need to speed up, so I will make some progress.
On children’s social care, the system was again left on its knees. That is why this Government are driving forward the biggest transformation of children’s social care in a generation by rolling out the Families First Partnership programme. We have backed the programme with nearly £3 billion over four years, including an investment of over £2.4 billion in this multi-year settlement. It gives local authorities, police and health partners the tools to provide families with the right support at the right time, shifting the system from expensive statutory provision towards early intervention and preventive support. It will help families stay together, divert thousands of children from care and transform the outcomes and wellbeing of children across the country.
The investment in the Families First Partnership programme marks a milestone in transforming the children’s social care system, but we recognise that the children’s social care residential market is fundamentally broken. Local authorities are being pushed to the brink, while some private providers are making excessive profits. This cannot—and it will not—continue. Instead, we are working to reduce reliance on residential care and move towards a system rooted in family environments through fostering. Last week, the Government set out a plan to expand fostering for 10,000 more children by the end of this Parliament. The evidence is clear that taking this approach will be better for children and better for the local authorities that provide the services. Using the new powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we will explore the implementation of a profit cap in the children’s social care placement market to ensure that public money delivers value and care, not profiteering.
It is obvious that the current special educational needs and disabilities system is not working for children and families. We know that it is not working for councils either, as they are seeing funding for neighbourhood services diverted into a broken system. The Government are bringing forward ambitious reforms that will create a better and financially sustainable SEND system, built on early, high-quality support for kids with SEND to improve their time at school and maximise their potential throughout life. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will set out the details of those reforms in the upcoming schools White Paper.
Crucially, we are taking action now to support local authorities as we move towards that reformed system. We will deliver this in phases, the first of which will address historic deficits accrued up to the end of 2025-26. All local authorities with SEND deficits will receive a grant covering 90% of their high-need deficit up to the end of 2025-26. This is subject to local authorities securing the Department for Education’s approval of a local SEND reform plan.
On homelessness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) has said, we know that temporary accommodation is a growing financial pressure on councils, with near record levels of rough sleeping and declining social housing stock. The final settlement also provides a £272 million uplift to the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant, taking total investment delivered through the settlement to £2.7 billion. On the ground, that will mean families off the streets; kids out of temporary accommodation and instead living in safe, secure homes; and people’s lives put back on course. We are matching that landmark investment with our national plan to end homelessness, led by the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, to put the full might of the state behind preventing homelessness before it happens.
Today’s settlement is about keeping a promise—a promise to repair the broken foundations of local government, and a promise to put the heart back into our communities. When the last Conservative Government slashed councils to the bone, the consequences were severe: the services people use every day were undermined, streets became filthy and people’s lives got tougher. The hard work of councillors, mayors and frontline staff kept vital services running during those hard Tory years, and we thank them for the work they did in those circumstances. Our aim is a future where councillors, working with their communities, have the freedom to innovate—rebuilding public services and investing in high streets, youth clubs and libraries. We are fixing the foundations so that councils and their communities can build the public services, renew the high streets and shape the future they want to see.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the shadow Minister, I will announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026. The Ayes were 362 and the Noes were 107, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Secretary of State and I will have had long experience of working with Morgan McSweeney during the many days he spent as head of the Labour group at the Local Government Association. I think that influence is reflected in the very political speech we have just heard from the Secretary of State. Despite its political excellence, I am struggling to reconcile his speech with what is actually in the finance statement he has laid before the House to agree this afternoon. We have a high level of agreement that local government touches all our lives in our communities. We recognise its huge potential to develop our economy, improve public health and give children a great start in life, and we know that the average local authority in this country delivers over 800 different services. They are there for us literally from cradle to grave, and are led by democratically elected councillors who run budgets that are bigger than those of many Government Departments, in organisations that are more complex than many a FTSE 100 business.
However, having served—like the Secretary of State—as a councillor under the last Labour Government, we see a swift reversion to type. Announcements of funding for social housing may arrive towards the end of the decade; funding for schools from VAT on fees for private education amounts to a real-terms cut in state school funding; and at the heart of what the Secretary of State has set out is a massive diversion of funding away from the legally enforceable statutory duties placed on councils by this Parliament and towards generalised poverty as a driver of those allocations.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Labour Government have abolished the rural services delivery grant, a decision that has cost Somerset council £4.1 million and has cost other rural counties many millions of pounds—rural counties in which it is more expensive to provide services? Does he agree that this is Labour diverting money from rural areas that are desperately in need to Labour strongholds in the north?
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. The analysis produced by the County Councils Network makes a comparison between the funding pressure on statutory services facing the urban councils that are the beneficiaries of the Government’s largesse, which totals £180 million a year, and the budget gap facing rural areas as a result of this Government’s decision, which is a £2.7 billion black hole.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
That is nothing new. In every one of the last 29 years, people who are lucky enough to have a modest property in the New Forest and a mansion in the city have come to me to complain about how much more their modest property in the forest costs them in council tax. I have told them that the one is subsidising the other, but people who are not in that fortunate position—young families in my parliamentary constituency with only one property—are subsidising the north and the cities, and they cannot afford it.
David Simmonds
I hesitate to disagree with my right hon. Friend, but it was not ever thus. The rural services grant referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) was a measure to address those additional cost burdens, including direct costs arising from statutory duties. It was a funding stream that is being removed by this Labour Government.
Gareth Thomas
The shadow Minister will remember that when the Conservative party took control of Harrow council four years ago, it did so on a promise of freezing council tax, which he presumably campaigned on. Instead, council tax has risen by 20% over the past four years. Will the shadow Minister take the opportunity to apologise to the people of Pinner—indeed, of Harrow more generally—for his party saying one thing when it was campaigning and then doing exactly the reverse, increasing the cost of living for his constituents and mine?
David Simmonds
Without wishing to be parochial, I am sure the hon. Member would also like to join in the apologies for the appalling level of corruption that had taken place under Labour in the London borough of Harrow. As has been covered extensively in the local and national media, it left an astonishing legacy of cost overruns in the local authority’s highways department, which has taken a good deal to recover from. I am sure we would not want the House to be inadvertently misled about the impact of those cost overruns.
Graham Stuart
It is far from my typical habit to get involved in political knockabout, but following that astonishing intervention that showed a total lack of self-awareness, does my hon. Friend remember the now Prime Minister saying that council tax would go up by “not a penny”? This settlement assumes an increase of 5% a year on low-income people in rural East Yorkshire at the same time that core funding is cut. That is a £200 hit for the smallest house in our area, while—as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said—very valuable homes in central London seem to pay a fraction of the amount.
David Simmonds
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. When Ministers talk about additional resources being provided to local government, we need to reflect on the fact that two thirds of the funding in this settlement comes from the maximum possible council tax rise across the country, and a large chunk of the rest comes from a huge rise in business rates.
Mr Betts
It is interesting to hear the hon. Member completely remove from his memory what happened in the 14 years of his Government. I ask him to remember back to when this began in 2010, when council tax generated about 20% of council funding, and how it has grown over the years under the Conservative and coalition Governments to deliver more than half of local government funding. How can he say that this is a problem when his Government originated that process?
David Simmonds
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will be pleased to know that that prompts me to move on to the next part of what we need to say. Let us recall for those who cry austerity at Conservative Members that the last Labour Government spent on average 10% more in every year of its final decade in office than they raised in taxes, which left a colossal legacy of debt that we have scarcely begun to repay. Millions were squandered on projects such as building schools for the future that were cancelled at the tail end of the last Labour Government by Alistair Darling, as they ran out of money. When we look at the reports of what this means at constituency level, councils such as Surrey, which embraced this Labour Government’s devolution agenda, have now lost the opportunity for the mayor that they were promised. They report that they have been left £60 million a year short. Members will be ill-served by the consequences of the Budget.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I am sure the hon. Member did not mean to inadvertently mislead the House, but as I was a councillor in Hartlepool in 2010, I can tell him with absolute surety that it was the Conservatives who cancelled the building schools for the future programme. I think he should take the opportunity to correct the record. You cancelled it; we initiated it.
David Simmonds
One of my tasks in the world of local government was to engage with that last Labour Government and the disastrous consequences of their overspending. They were completely clear with authorities such as mine that stopped work on BSF that they did not have the money to see through the promises that they were making to the public. We were told that by the Department for Education. I am very confident that my constituents understand the consequences that a Labour Government have on their politics.
Danny Beales
The hon. Member is very generous with his time. I always have a lot of time for him. He is talking about our constituents in Hillingdon. Is it not the case that the financial settlement of the previous Tory Government, which also included council tax, had a 7% cut to core spending power for our constituents in Hillingdon? This spending settlement has almost a 40% increase in core spending power for our constituents. [Interruption.] hon. Member seems rather depressed about this announcement. Surely that is fantastic news for our constituents. Does he not agree with me that thank God we have a Labour Government for Hillingdon?
David Simmonds
I appreciate that he knows rather more about Camden council than he does about Hillingdon council, but let us reflect a little further on the history. Our constituents last had a Labour council in 1998. I went to that budget meeting at which our constituents were faced with an 18.7% council tax rise—£60 million of unfunded efficiency savings by a Labour council. I think they understand where their political priorities lie and who has their interests at heart.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Simmonds
I will make a little progress, because I know that Madam Deputy Speaker will want others to have time.
History is repeating itself. Let us not forget that this is a statement that leaves two thirds of councils in England worse off, from the analysis that has been done by the Local Government Association. That piles additional costs on top of things such as last year’s national insurance contributions rise, which left councils £1.5 billion net worse off. This settlement tightens ringfencing, removing the ability of local leaders to deploy homelessness funding flexibly to meet local needs, for example. It also comes at a time when this botched reorganisation of local government has created chaos across the sector, with a hokey-cokey of elections promised and then cancelled, sometimes within 24 hours, from that Dispatch Box.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the current process for local government reorganisation is that there has been no direction on how the funding will work out? We have some proposals on the table that would leave enormously vast rural communities in constituencies such as mine neighbouring towns and urban centres that will see this as an opportunity to get what they want. This settlement does not give those rural councils any confidence that they will get the money they need once local government reorganisation has taken place.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend draws attention to another significant issue facing local authorities: the level of uncertainty. Money has been promised, then withdrawn. Budgets have been allocated, then reduced. In that context, I am sure that her constituents will be as concerned as I am that so much of this money is simply built into massive tax rises across the country.
I will turn briefly to business rates. We know, including from the question that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) asked at Prime Minister’s questions, the pressure being felt acutely on our high streets, especially in hospitality and retail. A business owner in my constituency told me yesterday that across his food franchise, the business rates rise alone is an additional £100,000 a year. That is a lot of entry level jobs at risk. It means price rises for consumers, fuelling inflation. The rise is a barrier to investments in our high streets, and that situation is replicated across the country.
Let us not forget that under the previous Government—this is one of the things of which we are most proud—an average of 800 new jobs were created every single day we were in office. Let us never cease to remind those on the Government Benches that unemployment has risen in every single month of this Labour Government. They are a Government who clearly do not respect our local colleagues. They refer to leaders as mere community convenors. They seek to reduce our councillors’ level of discretion. They create uncertainty through a lack of clarity on reorganisation, on special educational needs and disabilities deficits and on whether mayoral elections are going ahead. That comes at a time when thousands of voters are being denied a say by this Government through the cancelling of elections. That situation is caused solely by the Secretary of State’s abject failure to deliver the Government’s devolution plans to the proposed timetable. It is one thing to cancel elections in a council that is about to be abolished, so that voters can instead choose its replacement. It is very much another thing to defer elections indefinitely while we wait for the Secretary of State to get his act together. Our councils and our communities deserve a better settlement than this.
I will conclude with some points that I hope the Minister will address in the summing up. One of the most striking things about this settlement is that the Secretary of State has come to the Chamber and said that the key priority for this Government is addressing poverty and deprivation. Poverty and deprivation do not feature in this local government funding settlement. They are not part of this formula that the Secretary of State is asking us to agree. What is striking is the things that he says are important. He talked about vulnerable children in education, but it is cash flat, same as last year. Virtual schools are cash flat. The revenue support grant for local authorities is cash flat. Personal advisers to care leavers are cash flat. Money for supporting local authorities with social care, which was specifically described as a priority, is cash flat. Buy one, get one free campaigns intended to reduce obesity in the public health environment have a 50% reduction. Even Awaab’s law, which was championed at the Dispatch Box just a short time ago by the Minister for Housing and Planning sees a cut of £26,000 from its paltry beginnings.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will reflect that what he is announcing is essentially a massive shift of funding away from the statutory duties and obligations that this Parliament has placed on our local authorities to those favoured political areas that the Government see as their priorities for the future.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Harrow council was on the verge of bankruptcy until Ministers announced substantial extra funding in the local government settlement. Council officers told councillors that they were facing a budget deficit of more than £32 million, and they were planning to use virtually all the council’s reserves to fill the gap if the settlement for Harrow was not as generous as in fact it was. They were even contemplating having to ask for exceptional financial support status, so I particularly welcome the 31% increase in funding for Harrow over this Parliament that the Government announced in December. The last multi-year funding settlement for the council, under Theresa May and Boris Johnson, delivered just a 5% increase, so a 31% uplift over this Parliament is a significant step forward.
Harrow certainly needs that uplift, because over the last four years residents have become increasingly concerned about how the council has been managed. Council tax has increased by more than inflation every year. Rents and service charges imposed by the council have rocketed. Crucial parts of the council’s responsibilities have been rated as inadequate and needing improvement. Basic critical services such as street cleaning have been cut to the bone, and new housing to ease the housing and homelessness crisis has been stalled, delayed or just axed. Council officers have told senior councillors that without that increase, Harrow would have faced having to approach the Secretary of State; it would have been at risk of bankruptcy, and of needing exceptional financial support.
Although a combination of recent mismanagement of council finances and a decade of austerity has done considerable damage to our public services, Harrow remains one of the lowest-funded councils, both in London and nationally, so I say gently to the Secretary of State that I hope he will understand when I tell him that I will continue to press for further funds to improve our local services. It is worth underlining that between 2013-14 and 2022-23, the council saw cuts in its funding from the Tory, and Tory-Liberal Democrat, Governments of more than £50 million, and a reduction of a shocking 97% in the revenue support grants. One of the consequences of that level of austerity was vastly weakened public services.
Gareth Thomas
I am happy to give the right hon. Gentleman a way into the debate, but he might prefer to sit down and make a longer contribution later.
Sir Desmond Swayne
No, no. The one thing that the Secretary of State got right when he was wagging his finger to my left was his implication about the Liberal Democrats. I was at the heart of that Administration. Danny Alexander was Chief Secretary to the Treasury and had to be restrained by George Osborne, so gung-ho was he about making greater cuts. Personally, I would have given him his head, but don’t let them escape!
Gareth Thomas
I am happy to join the right hon. Gentleman in again condemning the role that the Liberal Democrats played, but if he was the sane voice in the Government at the time, I hope he will forgive me for being—slightly—even more concerned about what was going on.
One of the understated problems resulting from the austerity that Harrow has suffered has been the decline in the quality of vital local services. Children’s services were rated inadequate by Ofsted just last year, and immediate improvement was required in eight areas. They included leadership stability, particularly relating to management and oversight of staff and social workers; the
“quality of support, advice and guidance for care leavers”;
the “quality of help” for children who were homeless; the
“quality and consistency in the response”
when care leavers went missing; and the consistency of staffing to support children. Some of the most vulnerable children in my community and across Harrow more generally have been let down by Harrow council. Two years earlier, the Conservative councillors who led Harrow council had driven through major cuts to children’s services of over £2.5 million. Astonishingly, the current Conservative leadership locally is proposing another round of major cuts to children’s services.
One particular case in my constituency stands out. At a nursery, parents reported significant bruising on their child, in what looked like the shape of a child’s footprint. The matter was referred to social services. The parents were arrested and went to court, and the child was taken into emergency foster care. Eventually, the case against the parents was rightly dropped when the court accepted that the original bruising was caused by a child’s foot. In the meantime, during supervised contact that was arranged by Harrow social services, the parents found extensive injuries on the child and reported them to the social worker. Given the scale of the injuries, there should have been a serious investigation at the time, but there was not. In the nearly three years since, the council has struggled to get answers to its questions, and the parents inevitably remain profoundly affected by what has happened to their child, and by what they have been put through as a family. I wish I could say that was an isolated case, but it is not. Although I welcome the additional funding that the council will get, which it will be able to put into social care for young people, there are other measures that I hope the Secretary of State will consider further down the line.
It is not just children’s services that have been affected; the Care Quality Commission has said that adult social care run by Harrow council requires improvement. That certainly did not come as a huge surprise to many carers, elderly people and other vulnerable adults in Harrow. Just last year, the council was ordered to pay compensation to an elderly resident with dementia and her family. The resident needed medical help after she was neglected and let down by the care home in which she had been placed by Harrow council.
Since 2022, Harrow has become the third most expensive council in London for council tax, behind Tory-run Croydon and Liberal Democrat-led Kingston upon Thames. Harrow’s Conservative councillors have put up council tax by the maximum possible every year they have been in power, and they plan to continue doing so—a 20% rise in council tax since 2022, despite their promises to freeze it.
Council tenants have been hit with the maximum rent increases allowable in each of the past four years, while leaseholders’ service charges have rocketed. Astonishingly, some leaseholders in properties owned by Harrow council are expecting to see their service charges rise by 70% this year. One family, currently paying £2,000 annually, have been sent a bill for £3,400 for next year. Those rates are simply unacceptable in the midst of a cost of living crisis, and I hope the council will review them urgently.
Lincoln Jopp
Does the hon. Member believe that people who promise not to raise council tax should not raise council tax?
Gareth Thomas
Conservative councillors in Harrow promised not to raise council tax but duly did so. I hope the hon. Gentleman will join me in urging the shadow Secretary of State to ask the leader of the council to explain to the people of Harrow why he reneged on his promise.
Regeneration should be an opportunity to build more affordable and social housing, and to help tackle the housing crisis that we face in communities like mine. It should surely involve local communities, create opportunities for them to come together, and provide for key local services. Instead, the completion of the redevelopment of the Grange Farm estate has been delayed multiple times—again, a product of the lack of funding and poor leadership locally.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point, and I am very sorry to hear about the challenges that his residents have with their council. Some local authorities are doing the exact opposite of what he describes. In my area, Reading borough council recently opened 46 new council houses, built on its own land, as part of a programme to build nearly 800. There are local authorities that are able to grip this issue, and I am very sad to hear about the situation at his council. Perhaps it could learn something from Reading and other councils around the country.
Gareth Thomas
I would certainly welcome the news that the Conservative councillors in Harrow responsible for housing were looking at councils that are committed to building more council homes, like those in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
The failure to complete the redevelopment means that residents have had to put up with mice, damp and substandard accommodation for too long on the Grange Farm estate. On other regeneration schemes in Wealdstone, plans for affordable housing have been axed, no new council housing that had not already been planned by the previous council has been built, and a primary school that was due to be provided has been axed. Developers are not being held properly to account, and a major opportunity to lift the quality of life in the borough has been missed.
A consistent complaint that I have heard from constituents of mine is that they find it very difficult to get to see anyone at the council. They do not know where to go to meet council staff to sort out problems and discuss issues in their neighbourhood. Shortly after the local Conservative party took over running Harrow council, it closed Harrow’s civic centre. It was due to be replaced by a smaller set of council offices in Wealdstone, on what is currently the Peel Road car park. That would have given Harrow residents access to council staff, and helped increase the number of people using businesses on the local high street. It would have freed up council-owned land for much-needed affordable housing and for new workspaces, retail and commercial spaces, as well as a new primary school, a new library, a new park for residents to enjoy and a new town square. However, the civic centre remains closed—derelict and boarded up—and major decisions on regeneration have been delayed or cancelled. No new set of accessible council offices is planned, and no one knows when, or indeed if, new promised housing will go ahead. Instead, local Conservative councillors have spent thousands of pounds doing up their council offices, yet members of the public are not allowed in.
Gareth Thomas
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have given way to him once, and I leave him to hope to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The public will get their say on the situation in Harrow in May, but the failures at Harrow council raise other questions. Reversing the decade and more of austerity for local services is clearly a priority, and the settlement that was announced in December makes a good start on that objective. Harrow certainly needs a serious examination of its funding formula, but surely raising the quality of local services needs to be more than just the responsibility of local people. In 2015, the Opposition parties decided to abolish the Audit Commission, a body that usefully challenged councils much earlier on, and helped prevent many poor management practices of the sort we regularly see in Harrow from developing and getting out of control.
Danny Beales
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Rightly, this Government are putting more money back into local government for the first time in many years. That is long overdue, but that money has to be well spent. Unfortunately, what he describes in Harrow is quite similar to the experience of my residents in Hillingdon. The independent auditors are quite damning about the council’s budgeting approach. Millions of pounds have been misallocated, and there were no opening and closing balances, well into the financial year. It was recently reported by the press that the council, in a secret deal, had written off a former Tory councillor’s debt, all while applying for exceptional financial support from this Government, so I completely agree with him. Do we not need more independent oversight and audit of local government finance?
Gareth Thomas
We certainly need more independent oversight of the way in which Conservative councils in outer London are managing their finances. I am completely with my hon. Friend on that score, and the story of what has happened in Hillingdon is almost as bad as the situation we have faced in Harrow over the last four years. The one bright spot has been the increase in finance that the Secretary of State has delivered for Harrow. We need a review of the funding formula for Harrow, but I welcome the settlement we have had, and I look forward to continuing to persuade him of the case for more funding in Harrow.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
In our manifesto, the Liberal Democrats called for multi-year settlements for local government; for councils to be freed to generate more revenue, including by charging more council tax on second homes and from increased planning fees; and for an extra £2 billion on education, including for special educational needs and disabilities. It is right that funding for local government is rebuilt after the consequences of the 2008 crash and the famous letter left by the outgoing Labour Government that they had spent all the money and there was none left. The moves forward in the areas I have mentioned through this settlement are positive and we welcome them.
The announcement that 90% of SEND service debts that councils have unavoidably built up will be met by central Government also begins to address the crisis in SEND, but I am afraid it does not finish the job. The promised SEND reforms have again been delayed. Whatever the outcome of those SEND reforms, they must not be a precursor to weakening the protection disabled children rely on and their parents expect.
Our five tests for SEND reform would guarantee that children’s rights to SEND assessments and support are maintained, and that the voices of children and young people with SEND, and those of their families and carers, remain at the centre of the reform process. Secondly, capacity in state special school provision must be increased, alongside improvements to inclusive mainstream settings. Thirdly, national Government must top up funding for each child whose needs exceed local authority provision within a given cap. The Government must get on and introduce a cap on the profits made by private sector SEND companies. Fourthly, early intervention must be improved and waiting must be times cut. Lastly, schools must be incentivised to both accept SEND pupils and train their staff.
The additional funds for housing and homelessness, while small, are welcome, including those for Somerset council in my constituency. The extra funding through the recovery grant is also welcome, but places such as Kingston upon Hull tell us that it does not go far enough and will not fill the gaping hole in financial stability that persists. It is disappointing that social housing does not get a mention in the settlement. We need a new generation of council and social rented homes. Our plans are for 150,000 per year and Shelter’s are for 90,000 per year. Both would be a good proposition. The Government’s proposal for 18,000 per year just will not meet the level of need out there.
The additional funding, along with provision for SEND deficits, will help councils like mine in Somerset to keep the council tax rise to the 4.99% norm across the country. In a cost of living crisis, people cannot afford more than the minimum increase. That is something Somerset MPs and the council pushed hard for, and I am grateful to the Local Government Minister for meeting us and engaging with us on that. It is notable that 70 out of the 74 Liberal Democrat-led councils have kept the council tax rise to the norm minimum of 4.99%. The four that are, exceptionally, going above that all inherited from their previous Conservative administrations a social care funding time bomb.
Voters will take note that Reform-led Worcestershire county council is increasing council tax to the highest level allowed in the country. Typically, Reform Members are not here to take part in the debate on local government finance. The message is clear: vote Reform and pay more tax than anyone else in the country.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech outlining how Liberal Democrat councils up and down the country are doing their best in this cost of living crisis. Oxfordshire county council finds itself in a £24 million deficit as a result of the settlement. Meanwhile, residents on the doorstep are saying to us, “What about my potholes?” He is right to point out that social care is part of that demographic deficit. [Interruption.] Does he agree that we need to tackle the core issues and that one of those is social care, because sorting that out helps everything to do with local government finance?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Conservative Members ask, from a sedentary position, who runs the council, but I use the phrase “inherited time bomb” advisedly. The well-respected Conservative former leader of Somerset county council, Dave Fothergill, was one of the first in the country to identify this issue. He told “Panorama” back in 2019 that adult social care was a time bomb that was ticking. That time bomb has now gone off around the country, and council tax payers are having to bail out the broken social care system.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
For Torbay council, on which I still serve, incredible assumptions are being made about the levels of council tax being collected. That results in a deficit of £13 million in years 2 and 3 for a small unitary authority. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party has been learning from the Conservatives, and is planning to balance the books of councils on the backs of local tax payers?
Gideon Amos
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, who champions Torbay on a regular basis in the Chamber. Councils are suffering reductions in their funding settlements across the country, which is one of the reasons we cannot support the amount of support they are getting from central Government.
Mr Betts
There is again memory loss on the Lib Dem Benches. It was the coalition Government who made the biggest cuts to local government funding and started passing funding responsibilities over to the council tax system—that all began with the Lib Dems in the coalition Government. Why does the hon. Gentleman not apologise to the Chamber and to people up and down the country for what the Lib Dems did to them when they were in government?
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is right that massive savings were made after the financial crash in 2008—some would say around £40 billion over the coalition years. He would be horrified to learn that the only people suggesting cuts greater than £41 billion were those in the Labour party in their 2010 manifesto, which proposed £56 billion in cuts. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, he can look at the headlines of the time: “Alistair Darling: we will cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher”. That was Alistair Darling in his 2010 Budget. Who began austerity? Who began the cuts? It was the Labour Government, who were planning to go further, faster and deeper, according to Alistair Darling, than the Liberal Democrats or the coalition did.
David Simmonds
I just want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with the Labour leader of Sheffield council, who says:
“Cost pressures continue to outstrip increases in funding, both specific inflationary pressures in major service areas, particularly for care, accommodation and construction, and the increasing volume of demand in housing and care.”
Is the Labour leader in Sheffield correct?
Gideon Amos
I hesitate to get too involved in the politics of Sheffield.
I am concerned that we are seeing reductions in Government funding for councils across the country, particularly in the case of rural authorities, which are especially hard hit by this settlement. Rural authorities find delivering social care and other services far more costly than in tightly drawn urban areas; Somerset’s 4,000-mile road network, for instance, is a massively more onerous proposition than a network in a tightly drawn urban area.
It is inexplicable that despite a consultation that considered maintaining the remoteness funding uplift across the country and across all funding heads of local government, it has been taken away from all funding heads apart from adult social care. Why would it be less costly to provide children’s services than adult’s services in a remote, rural area? Why would it be less costly to provide flood relief and flood protection than adult services in a rural area? A whole range of really remote authorities are affected, including Westmorland and Furness, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, all of which are particularly badly hit.
Remote authorities have much greater areas to protect from flooding. I have spent recent days with families in Stathe and Burrowbridge on the Somerset levels in my constituency, where I have seen how heartrending it is for families to watch the water coming closer and closer to their homes. Some people are going to bed with the water 200 metres away, but by the time they wake up the next morning and look out of their window, it is only 20 metres away. In some of the places I visited, the water is lapping up against the houses themselves.
When Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron came down in 2013-14—the last time we had severe flooding—he promised Somerset that money would be no object. It turned out that he meant that Somerset residents’ money would be no object, because Somerset’s new rivers authority became the only one in the country not to be funded by central Government and to have to rely on local taxpayers.
When the Flooding Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), came down to Somerset yesterday, she said that Somerset will not be forgotten. I ask the Local Government Minister what extra support the Government are providing to Somerset council to deal with this flooding major incident, which could easily become a national emergency if effective measures are not taken now—and I mean in the next few days. Water levels are still rising, Minister.
Finally, we need an end to the massive expense of all this top-down reorganisation of local government where people do not want it. Forcing change on the structures of the natural communities that people know and love can only distract from the important work of reducing flooding, delivering care and all the other priorities that councils put first. No one I have met in Taunton and Wellington, in Somerset or on the levels has told me that what they really want to see is a metro-style mayor for their area coming down the road. Is spending almost half a billion on mayors really going to help any of our constituencies in the way that known, understood and strengthened local councils would?
While we welcome the limited extra funding, the settlement leaves too many questions unanswered on how SEND costs will be met. It is still going to lead to big cuts in services for rural and remote authorities, and on social care it leaves council tax payers bailing out a broken system. For all these reasons, we cannot at this stage support the settlement.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State, who is not in his place, for opening this debate on the settlement. I know the work that he and the Local Government Minister have led on in bringing forward this statement, and they have been strong voices for our local government colleagues. I should declare that the Secretary of State and I served at Lambeth council, and the Minister served as a councillor in Southwark, one of my neighbouring boroughs. I also want to pay tribute to the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for the work he did with many councils to get us to the place we are at.
I know that many local authorities across England will be delighted to see that the Government are going to be covering 90% of the debt that has built up through supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities. The issue of SEND appears in all our inboxes, and it has been a big ongoing issue for many councils, regardless of which party leads them. The issue is how we continue to support some of the most vulnerable children, so we must ensure that councils are adequately funded in this area.
If we are honest, SEND costs are not of councils’ making. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), highlighted, the costs are a result of the broken system, which is finally being addressed by this Government. I hope that the Government will continue to address this issue in the upcoming schools White Paper.
One of the first things that everyone across local government asks for is certainty from the Government—certainty that authorities can make long-term investments in infrastructure; certainty that they have the funding to build the homes that we need; and certainty that they can start turning around the 14 years of under-investment in local government. I know that Opposition Members do not like to hear about it, but we saw 14 years of under-investment in SEND, temporary accommodation and adult social care. We should all welcome the first multi-year settlement in a decade, which ends the year-on-year waiting game that held back investment for too long.
This settlement has been called for not only by the current Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee but by its predecessor Committee, which was chaired by my wonderful colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). It is good to see that the Government are finally listening on this issue.
We welcome the reduction in the number of grants. We have been asking our cash-strapped councils to continually bid for small pots of money. That means officer time being taken away from frontline services. Councils are bidding for those pots when, in some cases, they will not even be successful. That is not a good use of vital officers’ time, and in some cases the councils had to justify submitting the bids in the first place. We really do welcome this crucial change.
There are two other areas I want to focus on, one of which has been raised by right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon. The reality is that even with this welcome funding, a number of councils will still face budgetary issues. The Local Government Association anticipates that more councils may apply for exceptional financial support. When we see more councils having to apply for emergency funding, there is nothing exceptional about it. We cannot have a situation where councils have to rely on emergency funding to carry out day-to-day services and to avoid declaring bankruptcy. I hope that the Government will look at this area.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I agree with what the hon. Lady is saying. I am concerned that the Government’s support package for councils such as Woking borough council—which effectively went bankrupt several years ago following Conservative mismanagement—is allowing them to borrow more money to pay off their Government loans. Does she agree that the exceptional financial support process needs to change immediately?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Member, an excellent colleague on our cross-party Select Committee, for his intervention. The Committee looked at this in our report on local government finance, and he will remember that our report stated:
“Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) by means of capitalisation direction is a stopgap measure that avoids section 114 notices and allows councils to produce short-term balanced budgets, but can weaken councils’ finances and capital investment in the long term.”
There is an issue, and we cannot keep sweeping it under the carpet and thinking that it is going to go away—it is not. In the long term, we are building more debts for those councils, which we have to look at addressing. I am pleased that the Government are going to ensure that councils applying for ESF have a wholesale root-and-branch review of how that money is to be allocated.
We know that this multi-year funding process will not solve the underlying issues facing all our councils. Another area at the heart of this issue, which I have mentioned on many occasions and on which there is growing cross-party support, is the reliance on the most regressive form of taxation to pay for mandatory demand-led services, where councils have little control over that demand. Council tax amounts to about half of the settlement total, with an assumption of the maximum increase across the board, despite the fact that the Government have little control over how much that figure will be. The Secretary of State has highlighted that in boroughs where the referendum principle will be lifted, the Government are assuming that increasing council tax will help, with some councils having to increase their council tax by over 30% just to reach their core spending powers and the figures in the settlement.
I think we all understand the challenges the Government face when it comes to balancing the books and the inheritance they were left with after 14 years. These are difficult decisions that we have to make, but let me take us back to when the former Local Government Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, told us:
“There is a real danger to the democratic process if there is not a link between the tax that people are paying and the quality of public services that they are getting in return.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 850.]
Mark Garnier
On exactly this point about the democratic process, my constituents were promised by the Reform candidates that they would cut council tax, but Worcestershire county council’s council tax is going up by 9%. It is a shame that not a single Reform Member of Parliament has turned up to defend what they have done. The worrying point is that we are being denied a referendum even though this goes above the 5% threshold. That bit of the democratic process has been removed from Worcestershire.
Florence Eshalomi
I agree. I think many residents are feeling the pinch. Yes, we have seen fantastic initiatives and new legislation from this Government, but that is not trickling down quickly enough. Many residents will be seeing their council tax bills in the next few months, and for a number of them, those bills will be going up. It is important that we look at that democratic link.
Graham Stuart
A £200,000 house in the East Riding of Yorkshire will be paying between £3,000 and £4,000 in council tax, depending on its 1991 valuation. A £2 million flat in Westminster will be paying £2,000. There is an opportunity to put that right. I know that the hon. Lady is from London and the Secretary of State is from London—it feels to a lot of us out in the provinces that everybody in charge is from London—but this system is so egregious and wrong. Does the Chairman of the Committee not agree that something needs to be done about this? We did not do it in our years in office, but this Government said they would have a fairer system, but it is not fair yet.
Florence Eshalomi
I think it is fair to say that successive Governments have put the issue of council tax in the “too difficult” box. I hope that it will fall on this Government to finally address that and bring an end to this regressive form of taxation.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the work being done on the draft local government settlement to get us to this final local government settlement has actively put the principles of fairer funding into place? My local authority in Sandwell—the fifth most deprived local authority in the country—is getting an extra £28 million as a result of the continuation and increase of the recovery grant. That money will go on crucial services that we were deprived of in my area during 14 years of Conservative austerity. I know my hon. Friend will want to join me in welcoming the work being done by the Local Government Minister and our friends in the Treasury to make sure that the principles of fairer funding are put into place.
Florence Eshalomi
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for her constituency and for her council’s needs. I think it is fair to say that the outdated and opaque previous funding settlement caused a number of issues for councils up and down the country. It is good to finally see this Government responding to that and ensuring that we have a fairer and more simplified settlement, so that our councils can get on with the day job of providing vital services for residents.
We have to be honest and ask: if councils have to impose a council tax hike just to fulfil mandatory services—going back to the question raised by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier)—where is that democratic choice for residents? If council tax is collected locally, how can it be right that what it is largely spent on is dictated by central Government? We know from the settlement today that the Secretary of State and the Minister have shown a boldness by ensuring that they continue to engage with local leaders, the Local Government Association, and cross-party colleagues and councils, to get to grips with the day-to-day issues facing local government, but I urge the Minister to continue on that road of being bold. The Government need to continue working, especially with Treasury colleagues, to properly address the growing demand on the mandatory costs that councils face, from SEND to adult social care and temporary accommodation. That demand for those core services will continue to grow no matter how much money the Government put into them.
There is a real need for a fundamental review of council tax and wider council funding. I urge the Government to go further and bring about a cross-party consensus, and to truly reform council tax and bring an end to this regressive form of taxation once and for all.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
This settlement is supposed to deliver fair funding; that is what the formula says on the tin, but it fails the Ronseal test. Norfolk’s core spending power in the first year of the settlement is lower than the national average, and the largest increases in core spending power are going to urban authorities. This simply fails to recognise the needs of large rural counties such as Norfolk. The County Councils Network’s assessment is that rural counties and unitaries face the highest pressures, collectively amounting to £7 billion of costs by 2028-29.
Natasha Irons
I appreciate the hon. Member’s concerns. My constituency is an outer-London borough that has long been deemed as having inner-London support through finance, and it has inner-London problems—it is not particularly leafy, and deprivation is tough and takes a massive toll on our councils. Does he understand that addressing deprivation, the cost of housing and things like temporary accommodation are crucial for places like mine?
James Wild
Indeed. I am sure that if the hon. Lady catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, she will elaborate on that.
Here is my point. Perhaps the kernel of the unfairness is the lack of recognition of remoteness and its impact beyond the adjustment for adult social care. It has been removed from most of the formulae—
James Wild
I will not give way; lots of people want to speak.
This is a serious cost pressure on rural authorities that the Government have chosen to ignore. Of course, this has been compounded by the removal of the rural services delivery grant in 2025—the loss of funding that had been put in place specifically to acknowledge the high cost of rural service delivery. That was a political choice made by a very political Secretary of State.
People in Norfolk can see in plain sight how this Government view rural areas, in the light of the farm tax, the lowering of the bus funding that the previous Government had put in place, and the scrapping of road and rail schemes in our area. I ask the Minister, who is not currently in her place—I hope the Whip on the Front Bench will make a note of my question—why Ministers rejected the evidence that Norfolk and other rural authorities submitted about the additional costs that they face and the importance of remoteness.
After remoteness, there is the recovery grant, which is supposed to be a one-off formula intended to give local authorities the funding they need. The formula was meant to be replaced, but the Government have decided to continue it for the next three years. However, there is no funding for Norfolk county council, despite the allocation, and the additional element of the final settlement, supposedly being targeted at upper-tier authorities—only Labour upper-tier authorities, it seems. It is little wonder that the Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
“Maintaining…allocations of the recovery grant does not look like a principled decision”.
I think that says it all. The policy is designed to shove all funding to Labour councils. Let us be clear: this is about shifting resources away from rural areas and into unitaries.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I declare an interest: I am a Central Bedfordshire councillor. Central Bedfordshire will have to find £17 million off the back of this so-called fairer funding formula. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is nothing short of pork barrel politics?
James Wild
I agree. The figures simply bear that out. As a result of the settlement, council taxpayers in Norfolk—it is probably the same for my hon. Friend’s constituents—will bear the brunt through much higher council tax. Maximum council tax increases are assumed for the full three years of the settlement.
Let me touch on internal drainage boards, which are responsible for managing water levels and reducing flood risk. They play a vital national role in protecting key areas, including the prime agricultural land that is so important for our food security; yet the cost of IDBs falls on council taxpayers. In the borough council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, 40% of council tax goes towards IDB levies—costs that other local authorities do not face. Funding should reflect the nationally important role of IDBs. Additional support was introduced by the previous Conservative Government. It has been continued by this Government, but they are not uprating it with inflation to take account of the high energy costs that IDBs pay. We do not know if that support will continue in future years. If it does not, will the Minister commit to working with the local and district authority groups that have been set up precisely to find an equitable solution?
Of course, Norfolk is losing out further still because of the Labour Government’s decision to cancel the Norfolk and Suffolk mayoral election and the county council election—two political choices with which I fundamentally disagree. Not only have our elections been scrapped, but my constituents—and those in Suffolk—were due to benefit from an annual investment fund of £37.4 million a year, which the Government have now cut for Norfolk. We will lose out on £48 million in the next two years. Why? Because of decisions taken by these Ministers. It is another sign that this Government neglect the people of Norfolk.
I welcome the announcements on SEND deficits, but it is clear overall that this is not a fair funding settlement. There is an over-reliance on council tax increases for my constituents, there is no recognition of the true costs that rural authorities pay, and ministerial decisions will lock in inequalities for years to come. The Government should think again.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Life in my constituency is tough for many families. Too many live with the daily consequences of poverty, ill health and insecurity. Many people are vulnerable, and the impact can be soul-destroying. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for her work at Christmas time. She was the one who really started our campaign, and I pay tribute to her.
Healthy life expectancy in Knowsley is 50, and in St Helens, which is most of my constituency, it is 57, for both men and women—it was a shock when I read those figures. The call for significant healthcare support is tremendous, and starts much earlier than in some other places, but in St Helens housing and social care is integrated, which has helped with that increasing demand.
Many children do not benefit from the excitement of dance classes, gymnastics, trips out or holidays. Sadly, many are lured into county lines and drug taking. Many of our children need special educational provision, and some wait for a special and unique service. The cost can be enormous, and provision is rare and very often not local. Those children lose out, and their families watch and worry while they wait for the solution to arrive.
Revenue support grants are always complex, mysterious and hard to nail down. Added to that, 14 years of austerity did not help. St Helens borough council lost £127 million. We were capped in the poll tax, and we had to put the rates up by 2%—I was the leader of the council at the time. We were one of 21 areas that were capped. We had to deliver over £10 million overnight or we would have been surcharged. We had three months to deliver a new plan. We were very poor in St Helens.
Our councils are struggling to meet statutory responsibility in social care and SEND provision, not because of inefficiency in the councils but because the funding bears no resemblance to the actual needs of the people on the ground and the lives that they have to put up with. There are ever-growing numbers of people with complex needs, higher costs and a lack of provision. Two thirds of council funding in St Helens is spent on adult social care and children. We lost £127 million from Government, so we have either £9 million or £11 million left—that is what we have.
I have always said that we need a settlement that addresses the real pressures on health and disability, and provides care, attention, safeguarding and protection for the vulnerable, the aged, the abused and children in need. The council gets very little income from the Government now, so money has to be raised from council tax. More and more efficiencies have had to be made, but we could not get more efficient councils than those in Knowsley and St Helens. I go to the council meetings—I have been a councillor at St Helens for 39 years and I praise what I see in Knowsley. Those councils are so efficient and so focused on the people of the area. They are good employers, but they are not focused on the people who work for the councils but on how they can serve and care for local people.
Due to the deprivation of our area and the lack of assets that can be sold, which other councils have, we can raise only a fraction of the amount that councils in the south-east, London and the cities can raise. There is very little we can raise, so everything depends on council tax and our ability to be more efficient in new and different ways—what the council manages to do is ingenious.
The settlement that we were first presented with, which we consulted on, seemed fair and good, but I have to say that when the provisional announcement was made just before Christmas, I was horrified. Housing had been included in the index of multiple deprivation, but we are not suffering from that deprivation in Knowsley and St Helens. I am not saying that it should not be there, but it should certainly not be there with the weighting that it has. That is where our money went; it went down from the first figure that we were consulted on just like that. St Helens would have been high and dry, but I will not go into the details.
I have got the figures on what the impact would be for Knowsley, which are the same figures as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley. I knew that St Helens would be bad, but I could not get the figures. My hon. Friend went off and started the work, and we did what we could to get this going.
Although this is called “fair funding”, it is not fair funding, because we are all different. I have listened to what Members said about people living in rural districts, and I have sympathy. We need to have a system that really looks at what costs are the highest and what is needed. No one can criticise the people who have this extra funding now, but it will not be there forever.
Following sustained lobbying, we have 90% off our high-needs deficit. That is the deficit that we have on SEND provision. Knowsley’s high-needs deficit is tremendous—far greater than that of St Helens—so that will and does help. What goes on is just wonderful.
We will get £14.7 million through the recovery grant over the three years, but that does not resolve the problem, because it is not part of the formula. We will have to commence straight away looking at what we are going to do, because we would have been much worse off than we were already. That is just one council; I know that there will be others like it, so we need to look at that issue.
I pay tribute to Ministers for the work that has gone on, as well as local authorities, chambers and finance departments. I also pay tribute to MPs and councillors for the work that they have done. It cannot have been pleasant for them to see what they saw. Having looked at this matter, I know that they have recognised things, but we will need to look again at fair funding in the future.
I sincerely thank all those who have been involved in coming to help for some of the worst affected boroughs in the country. I can assure hon. Members that this has not been party political. We do not think like that—I certainly do not, and I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley and for Bootle (Peter Dowd) do not either. Our Benches are full of former council leaders from our area who have done this for many years. I have been in local government and Parliament for 48 years, so I know what I am talking about—I see what I am talking about—and it is not made up.
I will support this measure tonight, but that does not mean an end to the lobbying; we will obviously start again. I am sure that Ministers will listen to what other people have said. Maybe there needs to be flexing here and there, but we need to recognise the needs of each area. We cannot leave them to deprivation and deny their needs.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I am incredibly proud to have been a councillor until last year, because local government is the foundation of so much that matters in people’s daily lives. It keeps our streets clean, supports vulnerable families, funds social care, maintains roads, protects our environment, ensures that our children can get to school safely, keeps our bins emptied and keeps our potholes filled, but not everywhere. When councils are stretched to breaking point, it is residents who feel the strain.
I welcome the move to a multi-year settlement, which we have long argued for. Councils need certainty and to plan beyond a single financial year. That stability matters, but let us be clear: a longer settlement does not in itself fix a broken system. The Public Accounts Committee has warned that deficits could reach nearly £4 billion a year by 2027-28, and that is not sustainable.
On top of that, we now have rising demand, inflationary pressures, increases in the national living wage and the hike in national insurance contributions, and councils are expected to absorb all of this. Further, making any material changes—for example in the assumptions about the level of business rates pooling and effectively reducing councils’ funding allocation between the provisional and final settlement—will cause serious challenges for many councils, including Stratford-on-Avon district council, which could see a big cut of 5% or more of its total spending power. If I heard correctly, the Secretary of State pledged to refund those councils affected by this material change, and I would like those on the Treasury Bench to confirm that. Our constituents are the ones who are going to be impacted, and the provision of valuable local services will be affected.
I am deeply concerned about the impact on rural areas like mine. The shift to a need-and-demand model risks overlooking the real costs of delivering services across large, sparsely populated areas. Rural councils often receive less grant funding yet face higher transport costs, greater recruitment challenges and weaker public transport networks. That reality must be properly recognised in any fair funding formula.
In my constituency, I see the pressures on local government every day. Stratford-on-Avon district council, led by the Liberal Democrats, has shown what responsible local leadership looks like even in tough times. It has delivered the third highest recycling rate in England. It has rolled out natural flood management. It has installed solar panels on leisure centres to cut running costs and reduce emissions. It has allocated £600,000 to a cost of living mitigation fund to support our most vulnerable families. That is practical, sensible, community-focused governance. That is what can be achieved when councils are run competently and with a clear sense of purpose.
We can contrast that with the chaos we have seen at Warwickshire county council, now run by Reform. Last week, after a gruelling 10-hour meeting, the minority Reform administration failed to pass a budget. The Liberal Democrats put forward an alternative that would have invested £20 million in tackling child poverty, protecting youth services, improving home to school transport, and investing in infrastructure for the future. For an extra 39p a week, we could have protected services for thousands of young people and vulnerable residents. Instead, Reform doubled down on cuts that would hit families hard, including changes that could leave children walking up to five miles to school, often along unlit rural roads. Reform and the Conservatives combined to block that investment, and then still could not agree a budget of their own, leaving the council in limbo. This Tory-Reform stitch up is costing residents in Stratford-on-Avon and across Warwickshire. As we look ahead to local reorganisation in Warwickshire, these choices matter even more.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
On the point about Reform councils and the promises they made and the reality of that, in Lancashire they are trying to balance the books by initially consulting on closing 10 care homes and day centres and narrowing that down now to just the day centres. Does the hon. Member share my surprise that Reform MPs are not here to defend their record on what they promised versus the reality of a Reform-led council?
Manuela Perteghella
Yes, the Reform Benches are empty, as we all can see and as the British public can see, and this is really important because, as I have said, local government is the foundation of our places. It gives us our civic pride in our areas and is on the frontline of delivering services, so this is really disappointing, and there is chaos in Warwickshire; we are still without a budget. Stratford-on-Avon district council has made a clear case for a south Warwickshire unitary authority that reflects the real communities and keeps decision making closer to residents. Reform is pushing for a single county-wide super-authority that would centralise power, moving it further away from local people. At a time when trust in politics is fragile, we should be strengthening local democracy, not weakening it. We must keep local government local.
Local authorities are ready to play their part in delivering growth, tackling the climate emergency, insulating homes, improving air quality and building the infrastructure that our communities need, but they cannot do so if they are permanently firefighting. If we are serious about having strong communities and a strong economy, we must get local government finances right and not defund rural councils. We need to support them, so that they can deliver for their residents, rather than leaving them to pick up the pieces of national Government failure.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I first congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government on this settlement; it is a welcome change. I also thank the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for his work in both opposition and government to get us to this better place.
I am now the deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, and we recently produced a report on local government funding. I want to read out our cross-party conclusions:
“Local government finance is in a perilous state…Funding has not kept pace with population growth, demand for services, complexity of need, or the rising costs of delivering services. As demand for targeted services such as social care, special educational needs, and temporary accommodation has grown, there has been a significant reduction in spending on commonly used discretionary services, such as street cleaning and lighting, parks and gardens, and leisure services.”
That is a truth that councils up and down the country have experienced and dealt with for many years.
I congratulate councillors of all parties, in all councils across the country, for how they have performed during the years of austerity—they have continued to work, and to deliver efficiencies that some central Government Departments, as the PAC can testify, would do well to emulate.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State and his ministerial team for listening to my representations and those of my council. My experience of Tory Secretaries of State is that having them listen, let alone act, is about as rare as rocking-horse dung. The Opposition, who did not properly fund local government for 14 years, are now complaining and whinging about the position we are in. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is their responsibility, not the responsibility of this Government?
Mr Betts
Absolutely. I think that goes for both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, as my hon. Friend will understand.
This Government clearly face a serious situation, and we must say that they have got some things very right indeed. First, we have the multi-year settlement, which has been called for, cross-party, for many years—it was certainly something that we called for when I was on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and the Committee is again calling for it now. It is good that we have one; it gives councils a degree of certainty, so that they can look to the future and plan ahead.
Fair funding has always been a subjective term; one side will say that something is fair funding, and the other will say that it is not. I just point out to the Opposition that Greg Clark, when he was Housing Secretary 10 years ago, promised a fair funding review on behalf of the then Conservative Government. However, we are still waiting for that review in 2024. The Opposition had their chance, but they did not take it. We now have a review to deal with the simple matter of some figures and data in the funding settlement being at least 20 years old.
Natasha Irons
I join colleagues in thanking the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government for their work on this matter. We talk about outdated data; places like my Croydon East constituency, in an outer-London borough, have been treated as though we have an endless pot of cash, or are endlessly wealthy. However, my constituency has pockets of some of the highest deprivation in the country—an issue that this funding formula seeks to address. Does my hon. Friend agree that this fresh approach, which brings an end to Tory austerity, is exactly what our councils need?
Mr Betts
I certainly do. My next point was going to be that deprivation is properly recognised in the funding settlement. The problem is that councils that have deprivation either across their area, or in part of it, have borne the burden of the cuts over many years. Under previous Governments, both coalition and Conservative, councils with the greatest need—which previously had the largest grants to reflect that need—faced the biggest cuts. This funding settlement gives the biggest increases to councils that faced the biggest cuts under the last Government; we are getting some restitution for the funding reductions that we suffered. The recovery grant is right, because councils need recovery when their funding base has been decimated, after grants that they needed were taken away from them. My one challenge to my hon. Friend the Minister is that the recovery grant lasts for three years, so there is a danger of a cliff edge in 2029, when those councils that now get it may suddenly lose it. The Minister is obviously trying to think ahead, which makes a change from previous Ministers, so let us start to think about that problem before it hits us.
I welcome the settlement for Sheffield. I think the comments made by the leader of the council—which is a cross-party council—were about the council’s concerns and the challenges it faced prior to this funding settlement. The finance director of Sheffield council has said that
“The figures announced in the LGFS back up the Government’s commitment to redressing the unequal cuts seen during the austerity years of the previous Government, and its aim to deliver more funding to deprived areas of the country.”
I think that is a fair statement from the officer responsible for the council’s finances. In this funding settlement, Sheffield has got about £55 billion more over three years than was anticipated under the previous proposals, which sort of fills the hole. In the past, we have been making cuts to essential services, but for the first time in 15 years, we can start a budget process without immediately looking at cuts to those services. Year after year of cuts—that has been the situation. Now, the budget can be balanced without those cuts, which is a fundamental change. We can start to look at some improvements and preventive measures for the future that will bring about the sort of change we all want. I say well done to the Government for getting us to that position.
I also say well done to the Government for dealing with the ringfences—not just in the Minister’s Department but across Government, whether they be in transport, health or education. There are ringfences all around that restrict local councillors’ ability to do the right thing for their communities, so it is good that the Government have moved in the right direction. The current Select Committee and previous Select Committees have called for that change, and the Government have listened. To be fair, when Michael Gove was Secretary of State, there was an agreement that this needed to happen, but not much evidence that it did happen. I think we have moved in the direction that everyone wanted us to take.
This settlement is a good start. It steadies the ship after the cuts that councils with higher levels of deprivation have had to suffer, and it brings in a strong element of fairness. Now, I am going to challenge the Minister—I know she would not expect me to be completely complimentary. I come back to the point that the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), made about the need for change. This is a good start, but there is a need for radical change. We came in with a manifesto of change; we have a large majority, and with willingness, we can deliver on it.
There are major issues in social care. I am still disappointed that we will not make changes to social care funding until 2029, after the review. I think we could make them more quickly. We are clearly moving on special educational needs and disabilities, but we need to move on children’s social care as well. There are things that some councils can do to help themselves; for example, Warrington council has started to build its own children’s home, so that it does not have to send children to very expensive private homes.
Gideon Amos
We may not agree on the cuts, which began in 2009, but the hon. Member has not yet touched on the removal of the remoteness uplift. Does he agree, in a cross-party spirit, that including a remoteness uplift just for adult social care, but not for children’s services or any other services, is contrary to common sense, and affects remote rural authorities more than others across the country?
Mr Betts
I will not go through every detail of this settlement. There is always a balance to be struck in local government settlements, and Ministers have to make their own judgments about that. It is the overall impact that I want to judge the settlement by. For me, this is a fairer settlement for those authorities with high levels of deprivation and some of the worst cuts in the years of austerity.
Mr Snowden
It is all very well to say that this is a fair settlement. On balance, councils that have Labour constituencies benefit from it, and councils that are represented by Conservative Members do not. The fairness can be derived from that.
Danny Beales
I am an MP with a Conservative council, and a colleague from the Conservative Croydon council area—[Interruption.] Conservative Members cheer; unfortunately, it is a bankrupt Tory council, but luckily this Government are stepping in, have followed the deprivation and the need, and are properly funding that council, regardless of its political colour.
Mr Betts
Absolutely. Councils should be funded according to need, not according to political representation. [Interruption.] Before Conservative Members start, I do not know whether they are old enough to remember Dame Shirley Porter and Westminster council, and how they were stuffed with money over visitor nights, just to ensure Conservative victory at the local elections. But we will move on from that. That was a long time ago.
I say to the Minister that these are big challenges that need to be addressed. We have to get to grips with them. We also have a local government finance system that is fundamentally broken. The Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee commented on that in her excellent speech. Moreover, the Select Committee in the previous Parliament made the same recommendations as her Committee did. In the modern age, how can we continue to fund local authorities using a council tax system based on valuations from 1991? It is nonsensical. It is not sustainable. Imagine asking someone how the value of their new house had been arrived at, and them saying, “Well, this is a guess at what it would have been worth in 1991, had it been built then.” This is ridiculous, and we must change it. It is also regressive. Michael Gove, the former Secretary of State, said that the system was regressive, and it is. Poorer households pay disproportionately more in council tax. It simply is not fair.
In every year since 2010, council tax has taken a higher and higher share of local government funding, placing a greater and greater burden on that part of the funding settlement, which is regressive. When the Chancellor made commitments during the election campaign not to increase certain taxes, council tax was omitted. Therefore council tax has been going up disproportionately. It is an unfair, regressive tax that hits the poorest hardest. We simply have to do something about that.
This comes back to the democracy point that the Chair of the Select Committee made. While this is going on, poor families have to pay disproportionately more, but in terms of local government spending, more is going on social care, homelessness and special education needs—the things that are really important, but which most people do not receive. That means that most people, particularly those on lower incomes, are paying more tax every year and getting less in services, because of the cuts to other services, as the Public Accounts Committee recognised. That is not sustainable. It undermines trust in local authorities. People say to me, “The council has put up my council tax, but I am getting less for it.” This really has to change.
Mr Brash
In Hartlepool, 70% of every penny the council spends is on social care, and my constituents pay, as a proportion of their property value and as a proportion of their income, far, far more than the more affluent areas of the country. As my hon. Friend has said, they do not receive the services that they need. Is it not time to abolish the council tax system?
Mr Betts
The reform needed is so fundamental that the system would not be recognisable from what we have now. That is how we have to try to move forward.
We were promised business rates reform, but what we have had so far is not reform, but some minor changes. Yes, we have had good changes to try to help pubs and leisure facilities, but it is not fundamental reform. We could look at what Denmark and Australia have done to reform their whole system of council finances based on land values. That is one alternative. Let us at least have a look at it. Let us at least accept the need for change, even if we cannot agree at this point on precisely what that change should be.
In bringing about that change, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we should look at giving local authorities more power to determine their own levels of taxation. We are an outlier in Europe in how centralised our local government finance system is. That is another challenge. It partly comes from the great inequalities we have between different parts of the country, which are much greater than in most other European countries. I welcome the ability for councils to introduce a tourism tax, but that is a minute step towards more say for local councils about the money they can raise. It is a welcome but very small step.
I congratulate the Minister on the reforms and improvements to the existing system. Those are welcome, and my city and my constituents welcome them. However, big challenges lie ahead in making more fundamental reform to the system and giving more powers back to local councils to determine what money they can raise. The Minister will probably not stand at the Dispatch Box today and say, “We completely agree. We are going to get on with it,” but the Government should at least start thinking about it.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I will keep my comments brief, and they will be focused on council tax. The reason they will be brief is that I was hoping to intervene earlier on the Secretary of State. He said that he did not want to dodge difficult topics and wanted to talk about promises, but he did not take an intervention from me, probably because he knew what was coming.
I will talk about broken promises and about difficult topics. The primary one affecting my residents right now across Bromsgrove and the villages, as well as people across Worcestershire, is the Government’s collusion with Reform to hike council tax by a staggering 9%. That will be the highest council tax increase that Worcestershire county council has imposed on its residents. It will likely be the highest increase in council tax across the country this year, and it is reprehensible, because prior to the general election in 2024, the Labour party stood clearly on a manifesto that said it would freeze council tax. Labour Members know as well as I do that they have no will to deliver that.
Bradley Thomas
I will not give way, because the Secretary of State would not give way to me. I will not give way and be lectured to by Labour MPs who are not upholding their promises.
The Government stood on a manifesto to freeze council tax, knowing full well that they would not be able to deliver that. Worse still, last May, prior to the local elections, the Reform party stuffed leaflets through the doors of residents across Worcestershire and across the country pledging that it would cut council tax. Reform spoke about this DOGE—Department of Government Efficiency—programme for local government. It is interesting that not a single Reform Member of Parliament is here in the Chamber today to defend their record.
Where is this DOGE programme? Why has it revealed nothing? Reform thought that it could turn the sofa upside down, give it a good shake and £100 million would fall out. Well, that did not happen. Instead, I can tell the House what has happened in Worcestershire. Since last May, the overspend by the Reform administration has been £100 million. As a result, it has come cap in hand to the Government for emergency funding and for a council tax rise way in excess of inflation and of the 5% threshold for a referendum.
Mark Garnier
My hon. Friend and neighbour is raising incredibly important points about how our constituents were promised that their council tax would be cut and have been royally let down by Reform councillors. Can I embarrass my hon. Friend? It is worth remembering that many Conservative district councils do well. My hon. Friend led Wychavon district council within the last 14 years, and for five years it was deemed the most financially resilient district council in the country, and at the same time it did not increase council tax by a single penny. That is what Conservative councils deliver.
Bradley Thomas
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour; he is far too generous. I was leader of Wychavon district council in south Worcestershire for five years, and we proudly froze council tax for five years consistently without cutting a single service. Local government is lean. It can be run efficiently and effectively without duping the taxpayer.
But let us return to that dupe. The Reform administration on Worcestershire county council went cap in hand to the Government, and the Government have granted it emergency funding. They have agreed and, in effect, colluded with Reform. Two parties have agreed to put up council tax for residents when both had promised that they would not do so, and Worcestershire residents are paying the price. My message to the Minister is very clear: if we want to maintain trust and integrity in politics at all levels, it is important for such promises to be stuck to and abided by, or else not to be made in the first place.
Most importantly of all, in the last 48 hours more than 1,100 Worcestershire residents have signed a petition opposing this increase. It is crucial that the issue goes to a referendum, and that the people of Worcestershire have their say.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
May I start with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), who did not give way when I asked him to? I will happily give way in a moment should he wish to correct the record, but he said that the 2024 Labour manifesto on which we stood promised to freeze council tax. No such promise exists in that manifesto, and I invite him now to correct the record.
Bradley Thomas
Residents across the country knew ahead of the general election that the Prime Minister had made various very public pledges that the Labour party would freeze council tax should it come to office. If there is a mistake on my part and those words were not in the manifesto, I apologise for that, but—here I return to my point about trust in politics—if we want residents across the country to have faith in the political system, it is important for politicians to stand by their promises, whether they are written in a manifesto or uttered on television.
Mr Brash
I would say that if we want there to be trust in politics, we need to be accurate in what we say in this place, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s correcting the record.
The Minister understands exactly what I am going to say. I know how sympathetic and supportive she is in this respect, and I hope that in the coming days we will be able to deal with the issue that I am going to raise. I thank her for her support in recent weeks.
I want to be clear about what Hartlepool is facing, and about why I cannot regard the current settlement to be fair and also believe it to be self-defeating. Hartlepool now has the third highest number of children in care in England. That pressure has been made worse by other local authorities placing families in my town, leaving us with a £6 million overspend in children’s social care alone. My brilliant Labour council has already taken decisive action, halving that projected deficit in-year and establishing a robust, credible plan to eliminate it entirely. That plan is exactly what the Government say they want to see: it means fewer children coming into care, more early intervention, stronger families and better outcomes. It includes strengthened early help and family support, a dedicated edge-of-care team, a refreshed in-house foster care model, safe reunification pathways, wholesale SEND reform, enhanced support for care leavers, and better workforce planning. This is a serious, preventive change, not a sticking plaster solution.
But here is the problem: these reforms require short-term stability to succeed. The settlement does not recognise the sheer number of children in care in my constituency. It undermines prevention, which means that we are likely to see more children in care, more long-term costs, and worse outcomes. That is why I see this settlement as self-defeating. Ministers will rightly point to percentage increases in funding, but those percentages mean far less in Hartlepool than they do almost anywhere else, because our baseline is already so low. The cost of a child in care is exactly the same in Hartlepool as it is anywhere else.
When we look at it in cash terms, the reality is stark. The increase in the Government grant for Hartlepool this year is just £3 million, which is equivalent to funding around six children in care. After weeks of discussions and representations, the final settlement for Hartlepool has remained unchanged, yet down the road—this sticks in the craw for me—Reform-led Durham county council has received an additional £3.7 million this year, which means that it is reducing the amount by which it is increasing council tax. The increase in Durham’s final settlement is more than our entire increase this year. I cannot describe that as fair funding.
As we have heard from many Members from across the House, the unfairness is compounded by a broken council tax system. Hartlepool has one of the weakest tax bases in the country, with a high proportion of homes in band A. A 1% increase in council tax in Hartlepool raises a fraction of what it raises in wealthier areas, yet our residents already pay far more, both in real terms and as a share of their income, than those living almost anywhere else in the country. The settlement simply does not change that reality.
Governments of all stripes talk about core spending power, but half of that core spending power is achieved by raising council tax. That hammers the poorest communities the most, and it is a regressive tax. That is not fairness; it is entrenched inequality. To make matters worse, changes to deprivation measures and population assumptions mean that Hartlepool’s needs are being systematically underestimated. Official forecasts put our population at under 94,000, yet the Office for National Statistics data shows that it is already closer to 100,000—growth that is driven in large part by other councils discharging their homelessness duties into my constituency. Hartlepool is not asking for special treatment; we are asking for support to deal with a problem that is not of our making.
Mr Snowden
The hon. Member is touching on an important issue that affects a lot of councils across the north of England, including Blackpool, which neighbours my constituency. Larger metropolitan areas are effectively exporting their children-in-care problems to much cheaper areas, such as Blackpool and Hartlepool, which the hon. Member represents. Some kind of restriction on how far councils can move children who are being put into care might stop the dumping of children in care in areas where housing is cheaper.
Mr Brash
I thank the hon. Member for his comments, and I endorse them wholeheartedly. I have heard stories of London boroughs and Birmingham city council putting families in taxis with the threat, “Get in the taxi, or you’re homeless.” They do not know where they will get out at the other end, and they discover that they are in Hartlepool only when they arrive. It is left for our council to deal with the pressure and the additional SEND needs, and for our council to deal with the children, who sometimes end up in care. It is a disgraceful practice that should rightly be cracked down on. I know that the Minister is alive to this problem, and it needs to be dealt with.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
I thank both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for their comments. My hon. Friend is rightly talking about the financial consequences. Does he think—as I do, and as I am sure the hon. Member for Fylde does—that the abysmal outcomes for children are what we should care about? I am sure he agrees with me that this issue ought to be a priority.
Mr Brash
I absolutely agree. Just this week, there have been stories in my local press about a family with children who have been moved to a place where they have no connections, no familial links and no understanding of the local community. The Minister is absolutely right: those children are suffering as a result of the behaviour of councils.
Natasha Irons
I want to add my voice on this point. In Croydon, we find ourselves in a similar situation, in that inner London boroughs put their children into our part of London because the housing is slightly cheaper. I also have constituents who have faced exactly the situation that my hon. Friend outlined: being threatened with homelessness, with the council discharging its duty, if they do not take a placement in Birmingham. In some cases, that means people losing their job, their children losing places at school, and losing all connections with their family. There needs to be a holistic look at how we support councils to keep families locally, but also at how we prevent councils having to pick up the tab for these terrible situations.
Mr Brash
I absolutely endorse all that; part of that work needs to be taking a very close look at the funding settlement. We need to look at whether councils that may have done very well out of the settlement are still moving people out of their areas, even when they have extra finances from this Government.
Mr Snowden
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, as he gives me a chance to respond to the Minister as well as to himself. As a former police and crime commissioner for Lancashire, I saw at first hand the impact on communities of cities miles away in effect dumping children into high crime, high deprivation areas simply because the housing is cheaper. Dealing with the damage that has on children’s life chances—let alone the impact on communities already struggling with regeneration by adding to the problems—is paramount. I would be more than happy to meet the Minister and the hon. Member to discuss how we take forward this issue not only on the Fylde coast, but across the north.
Mr Brash
I will take up the hon. Member on that invitation. He mentioned Blackpool, and I know that the Members who represent Blackpool and Stoke—in the top three areas for the number of children in care—would also be very interested in his offer.
Without support to deal with the gap in our in-year funding for children’s social care, the risks are clear: prevention will fail, costs will rise, and vital community services such as youth provision, libraries and community hubs will be under threat. I fully support my Labour council colleagues, who have been clear that they are not prepared to make those cuts, which would be so self-defeating in the round.
This is a moment of profound seriousness for my constituency. Hartlepool has a plan for children’s social care that is aligned with the Government’s agenda, but we now need a settlement that gives us a fair chance to deliver it. I have spoken today with our council leader and colleagues in Hartlepool, and they are distraught, despondent and profoundly worried about what the future holds—in just a matter of days, when the budget is due to be set in Hartlepool—so I appeal to the Minister for any piece of support she can give me.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The settlement is unfair, and it is a disaster for my constituents. Wokingham borough council is already the lowest funded unitary authority per capita in the country, as it was under the Conservative Government for more than 10 years. As a result of this so-called fair funding review, the Labour Government are cutting a further £43 million from Wokingham borough council’s budget.
Wokingham is a Liberal Democrat-run council, and it has done its best over the last four years to balance the books while coping with massively growing adult social care costs. When I was leader of the council, I tried to improve the settlement, and my successor has continued to do so. These cuts will drive councils that are already struggling with rising costs for social care and children’s services to possible breaking point.
For 2025-26, Wokingham borough council allocated 39% of its budget to adult social care and 25% on children’s services. So much of the council’s budget is allocated to vital statutory services provided to residents, whether that is supporting SEND education, home-to-school transport or social care for vulnerable adults. The Government’s cuts to funding will have significant implications for these services—implications that need to be to be grappled with and planned for by councils. The settlement, though, provides little information for local authorities such as Wokingham on how to manage SEND costs until 2028, or on how existing deficits, which increase every day, will be resolved. I urge the Government to provide a clear timeline for when councils will receive certainty on the SEND deficit. Without a clear timetable, responsible financial planning is not possible.
We cannot just consider short and medium-term solutions. I have spoken to many local care providers, and I have seen through casework that there is a real problem with spiralling provision costs and availability. The Government must bring forward a fully funded long-term plan for adult social care reform, ensuring that local authority funding settlements are not determined by the escalating costs of a social care system that is bankrupting councils and placing unsustainable pressure on the NHS. Action needs to be taken now, after years of Conservative neglect.
From 2016, David Cameron and the five subsequent Prime Ministers promised reform to adult social care, and yet they achieved nothing. Ultimately, the Government need to re-think their fair funding review 2.0 if they want to avoid starving councils like Wokingham of much-needed cash to run their vital services.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
After 14 years of the Tories and coalition Governments, councils like mine in Knowsley were cut to the bone. When I was elected, my constituency was the third most deprived constituency in the country—we did not just experience pressure; we were absolutely stretched to breaking point—and deep and sustained cuts went hand in hand with a huge and rising demand for services. That is the legacy the previous Government left behind: unfair, fragmented and underfunded, and stacked against places like mine.
I welcome that the Labour Government are taking a fundamentally different approach, and one that sees local councils as part of the solution to rebuilding Britain, not part of the problem. It marks an important change, far from the days of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), boasting at a summer garden party in Tunbridge Wells about changing funding formulas to divert public money away from deprived urban areas like Knowsley; those days are over. Instead, areas like mine—those hardest hit by historic funding cuts—will see greater investment, based on need and deprivation.
I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for listening to me, to my colleagues in this place—including my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), who is in her place next to me—and to all those across the Liverpool city region, as well as to my council’s representations on the provisional settlement consultation, which would not have met the challenges we face in Knowsley. It was absolutely right that they engaged with us constructively and worked to address issues that would have left Knowsley struggling.
In Knowsley, after being battered by the Tory and coalition Governments and austerity for so many years, the pressures we face remain very real. People really need to feel better off in their everyday lives, with improved public services, children’s services and adult social care. They really need to feel the benefit of a Labour Government to truly demonstrate that austerity is over. We need to more, and I echo the words of so many of my Labour colleagues about the regressive nature of council tax.
Labour Governments invest in and improve lives in communities like mine: youth provision that gives young people safe places to go; positive role models and real opportunities; better support for the children who need it; help for families who have too often been left fighting the system alone; community spaces and parks, so we can feel pride in place and in where we live; and living high streets, libraries, leisure centres and more. I know the Government are committed to doing that for Knowsley and I know that progress takes time, so today I celebrate, but tomorrow—it will be no surprise to the Minister to hear this—I will fight again for better still.
I want to pay heartfelt tribute to Knowsley’s council leader, Councillor Graham Morgan, who was first out of the traps on what we needed. He has been relentless throughout the consultation, making the case for not just my borough but the whole of the Liverpool city region, standing firm to ensure that the settlement is fairer. His persistence and counsel, along with that of colleagues across Knowsley, gave me the arguments and evidence I needed to stand up for our community in this place. It was true teamwork in action—the benefits of Labour MPs and a Labour council working together. I also want to put on the record the work of our metro mayor, Steve Rotheram. He, too, fought for a fairer settlement for our city region with passion, clarity and determination.
This is the start of the road to a brighter future for Knowsley. Today marks a clear turning point from austerity, instability, cuts and neglect under the Conservatives to investment, fairness, partnership and certainty under Labour. I welcome the change of direction, but I will continue to fight for more and for better every single day for my constituents.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, which has had a number of distinguished contributions, not least from the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley). As she rightly said, at a time when the cost of living is biting so much on so many, people really need to feel better off.
The hon. Lady also highlighted the regressive nature of council tax, which is why it is so regrettable that this settlement is built on the basis of putting up council tax on everyone. It is exactly what the previous Labour Government did, too; they doubled the level of council tax over their 13 years in office. In contrast, over the 14 years of the Conservative Government, council tax grew only a little more than inflation, as it was held down for many years, although it did go up and down over time. That is the history: Labour puts up council tax. Its spokespeople speak about how terrible and regressive it is, and then in government it visits that on people in constituencies across the country.
The Government have used the expected 4.99% annual rise in council tax in all their figures to claim that there will be increased spending power. That is based on sticking up tax by 5%, and then another 5%, and then another 5%—it is compounding.
Graham Stuart
I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a while.
The impact for those in the cheapest or lowest-value homes in the East Riding—very often people in rural areas, with poorly insulated homes, costly transport and low income—will, by year three, be £200 a year out of already taxed income. That is the reality of what this Labour Government are visiting on poor people in my constituency and other constituencies around the country, while they crow about it being fair. There is nothing fair about it.
The local government finance settlement will mean only one thing for families in Beverley and Holderness: higher council tax bills, at a time when every other bill is soaring—thanks, again, to this Government. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is signing up for the most expensive deals imaginable and putting up the price of energy, while the jobs tax—one of the most economically irrational taxes imaginable—taxes jobs and brings in no money, because employers simply employ fewer people. That is what that £26 billion hit on the economy comes down to.
Graham Stuart
I will come to the hon. Gentleman, but I will make a little more progress first.
I know the reality from talking to my constituents. Jenny in Cherry Burton says that she cannot really afford to shop for healthy food as half her money is gone before she even gets home, forcing her to make choices that no family should have to make simply to get through the week. Andrew in Beverley faces rising energy bills, which I have touched on, and rising food prices, all while supporting his two children, who are at university and cannot find part-time work; previously, they would have done, but now they cannot find part-time work because those jobs have tended to disappear. There are fewer and fewer opportunities for young people to get on the jobs ladder and, for those at university, to supplement their income while they pile on student debt, which will only go up even more as time goes on.
These are not abstract pressures but lived realities, and this settlement will pour on yet more misery. The Prime Minister says that every minute not spent talking about the cost of living is a minute wasted, but warm words do not warm homes.
Mr Brash
The right hon. Member made a point about core spending power. I share his irritation at the use of core spending power, because such a large percentage of it is in council tax, but it was introduced in 2016 by the last Conservative Administration. The concept of core spending power including council tax was introduced by the Conservatives. What did he say about it at the time?
Graham Stuart
I do not remember the specifics of that, but I can say that, whereas the last Labour Government doubled council tax despite it being regressive, that did not happen under the Conservatives, whatever introductions there were. Those taxes were held down, because that is what conservatives do. They recognise that it is better to leave money in the pockets of people to make their own decisions, not take it away from them.
Families across the East Riding are now asking a very simple question, because they know that promises do not pay bills. How will this local government finance settlement, and the £200 council tax bombshell that follows it, help them cope? Let us be clear about what is happening: the Chancellor underfunds, councils are squeezed, council tax rises, and families pay. Council tax is, as many Labour Members have said, regressive. The lower the income, the heavier the burden. The smaller the home, the sharper the hit. At the very moment that household budgets are tightest, this Government tighten them further.
Nowhere is that clearer than in social care. In the first Budget since Labour came into office, the Chancellor allocated over £20 billion to health. Why did they not recognise that so many of the problems in the NHS actually come from the failure of funding in social care? It could so easily within the same spending envelope have eased the pressure on the NHS by better funding social care so that to keep those who are ready to leave hospital from occupying the beds that they do—they have for the past few years, and they do today.
The Government did not put sufficient additional money into social care, and in Beverley and Holderness, with an ageing population and rising adult care needs, that imbalance matters. Instead of funding care properly at source, Ministers shift the cost on to council tax payers—and then they claim that they have fixed it.
I saw the real-world cost of squeezed council budgets when I visited Sunk Island last month. On Sunk Island Road and Brick Road, residents endure patch upon patch of repairs that are never truly repaired. They are paying more yet still waiting for lasting fixes. This is the pattern: more tax, less certainty, higher bills, patchwork results.
Government should strengthen communities, not squeeze them, so I ask the Minister: when families are stretched to breaking point, why is this Government’s answer yet another bills hike? In Beverley and Holderness, the only change that this Government appear to deliver is the small change left in people’s pockets after the Chancellor has emptied them.
Ms Rimmer
What can councillors do to fund the statutory duties? People were given much better in the past, but we have to ration the services. They are quality services, and the integrated health has helped us with our social care. I do not want to go into party things, but the fact is that, under the Conservatives, St Helens lost £127 million a year from the support grant. We were left with something like £9 million or £11 million from the Government—that is all it was.
The only way councils can get the funds to provide services is from the Government and income to the councils. Where should we get the funds from? We have no assets to sell, and we get very little. Yes, we have low-paid jobs, so it is a hike, but what we should be doing is taking it from the broadest shoulders; they should be bearing the burden. It is inappropriate and incompatible that the people on the lowest pay the biggest proportion of their incomes on the necessities of life, while others have mansions—some people have a cottage and nothing else. We do not all have a mansion in London, so we need to look at wealth.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady, who always speaks passionately and with deep knowledge of her community. As she says, she does not make unnecessary party political points.
The one thing that unites the House, including the Government Front Bench, is a recognition that the funding system is broken. I spent many years campaigning, across different funding pots, on the distribution. Everyone looks at the quantum, but they do not look at the distribution. It is easy to get into a world of complexity, and the number of people who turn up for meetings on distribution gets very small, but it is actually critical. We need a new funding settlement, and how we deliver that, given the political realities, is to go in early and hard. Unfortunately, this Government have not done that. They are delaying and delaying, and as their political potency weakens, it becomes harder and harder to deliver. It is a bit like the police reorganisation we touched on earlier today. It is unlikely to happen in the dribs and drabs of a Government who are struggling.
We need a long-term settlement that is based on need. There is no perfect assessment of that, but what we have is complexity, as we heard in the brilliant speech from the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on the Lib Dem Benches earlier. The system has elements about how many pubs there are and what some level of cost was in 1991 and all sorts of other things. The truth is that, in this most fundamental set of services—my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) rightly identified 800 of them—for the constituents in the deprived areas of the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and in mine, nobody can see the transparency. Perhaps we should look on the Back Benches initially for a cross-party view on building a fairer funding system.
There is one more thing, and I do not know why no one has talked about it very much in my 21 years in this place. The fact that a £200,000 house in Beverley pays a lot more council tax than a £2 million flat in central London is absurd, and very rarely does anybody mention it. We need to fix things, but if we cannot fix something as absolutely inexcusable as that—and, collectively, we have not—it is no wonder the public are looking at us so askance.
I would be happy to talk to the hon. Members for St Helens South and Whiston and for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and others to see where we can make some common ground on having a more rational system, because at the end of all this, the complexity and lack of transparency end up in social failure. As the hon. Lady rightly and passionately says, it is those who are the most vulnerable and the least able who pay the highest price, and whether that is in her part of the world or in mine, that is not acceptable. We have all come here to make it a better place, and one of the things we need to fix is this.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I was first elected back in 2008, when I stood in a by-election for my local town council. I was 22. It was by chance, really, that the opportunity came up to put myself forward to stand to represent my local community. As it happened, I beat the headteacher of the local high school in that by-election. Up until recently, it was my favourite election win. I went on to stand for the district council a few years later, and a few years after that, I stood for Norfolk county council.
I ended up spending more than 12 years in all three tiers of local government in Norfolk, and what I found was a world of local government officers and local councillors working incredibly hard to serve their local communities and trying to save money and almost work the impossible by constantly striving for efficiencies by doing whatever they possibly could. Good councils and good councillors are a real force for good. They can achieve so many wonderful things, but they are overshadowed in many ways by national Government. I want to put on the record my thanks to local government. We saw this during covid, because it was local government, particularly, that really rose to that challenge to serve.
I was elected, as I say, in 2008, and for the vast majority of my time as a local councillor, we saw cut after cut after cut. Every single February budget-setting council meeting was a constant battle to try to save money. Both councils—Breckland district council and Norfolk county council—were Conservative-led under a Conservative Government, and we were cutting services constantly. We ended up with massively weakened resilience, and the services that bound our communities together were eroded. These were not just numbers on a balance sheet. In Norfolk, it meant we were closing children’s centres, removing support for disabled people, closing the youth service in Norfolk entirely, and selling off assets. It was just this constant battle. I understand the predicament the Government are in and have a significant amount of sympathy because it will take years to undo those constant cuts and the eroding of that resilience; it will not be easy to turn that around.
I want to make three points to the Minister. The first is about rural services. I am proud to represent South West Norfolk, a very rural constituency. I cover half of two districts: Breckland, and King’s Lynn and West Norfolk. They are very rural councils, and it is expensive to provide services to a rural community. I am pleased that social care in particular is being acknowledged as expensive. Social care is particularly expensive across the whole county of Norfolk, but other district council services in rural areas are expensive too, specifically planning. We are a Government that want growth. We want growth all across the country, including in rural areas. We massively need to support planning services in rural areas to achieve growth potential and not have lingering planning applications sat waiting on determination. It is difficult to recruit planning officers for rural district councils, and that is a barrier to growth in rural areas.
The other area is housing. I have been constantly shocked and concerned about the state of housing in my constituency. There are huge issues with rural housing, such as damp, mould and draughts—all sorts of challenges that we are dealing with in my office. Housing challenges in rural areas are expensive, and we as a council often have to transport people from one end of the county to the other or out of the county because there is a lack of suitable temporary and emergency accommodation.
The second point I want to make is around hidden deprivation. The council ward I represented was, despite being in a rural area, within the top 10% most deprived in the country. We had very low wages, poor health and low skills and educational attainment. I am concerned that intense deprivation in rural areas is masked by more affluent surroundings in so many Government metrics. I hope the Government come up with a system that properly accounts for and recognises intense deprivation in rural areas and does not just look at the overall council boundary.
The last point I want to make, which was touched on by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), is about internal drainage boards. I appreciate that it is slightly niche because this is relevant only in a certain number of constituencies in the country—certainly in Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire. These critical pieces of infrastructure remove water from significant amounts of land, both residential and agricultural. If we did not have IDBs, so much of our land, particularly agricultural land, would just not be usable, and it would weaken this country’s food security.
I have dozens of IDBs in South West Norfolk, and I have spent a lot of time visiting them. They do incredible work, but the finances of councils that have internal drainage boards in their areas are experiencing great impacts. In King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council, for every pound of council tax paid, 43p goes on IDB levies. In the 2025-26 financial year, the council is spending £3.7 million just on levies. Many councils obviously do not have that expense—they are unique pressures for those areas—but the costs of IDBs have gone up a lot because the electricity cost of manning the pumps is also going up.
My constituency has the largest pumping station in Europe at Wiggenhall St Germans, and there is a network across the area. That give me the opportunity to mention a pumping station in Welney that I visited a couple of weeks ago, where I met Ken Goodyer, Patrick Clabon and Carl Nunn.
My real concern about IDBs is that the infrastructure is 50 or 60 years old, costs a fortune to maintain, and will fail at some point. We need to invest in IDB capital and revenue costs. I urge the Government to continue support for councils affected by IDBs, because it is crucial infrastructure.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
We have heard a lot about the coalition years and austerity, to the extent that I began to wonder whether I had misread the title of the debate. Whatever the rights and wrongs of austerity, it was the conventional wisdom at the time. Had we been in coalition with Labour, I think the same thing would have happened, perhaps under another branding. At the time, I was living and working in the Republic of Ireland, which carried out a much more severe austerity, and its economy bounced back very well. Whether that was because of or despite austerity is an argument for the economists.
I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for her comments about not wanting this to be a zero-sum game, taking away from some at the expense of others. I very much agree with her and other Members who said that deprived areas and inner urban areas had been unfairly treated over a very long time. I wholly agree that something needed to happen, but not at the expense of rural areas such as the one I represent.
I applaud the Government for taking action on this issue—it had been kicked down the road for many years—including by writing off 90% of SEND deficits. That must have been a difficult decision, but it had to be done; those deficits could never have been paid for by local authorities. The Government are committed to centralising SEND spending for 2028-29, but we are not sure how far that commitment will truly go. Will it cover only the high-needs block deficits, or will it reflect other costs around SEND provision, such as home-to-school transport? In counties like West Sussex, where my constituency is, SEND transport costs have risen dramatically over recent years. Those pressures do not sit neatly in one budget line; they rip across children’s services and transport budgets.
We are still awaiting clarity on what will happen with education, health and care plans. Michelle Catterson, the head of Moon Hall school, has spoken clearly about how vital EHCPs are to families. Sustainability cannot be achieved by weakening the legal right to EHCPs, or by diluting councils’ duties to fund them. I am concerned that that is about to happen. When Ministers are asked directly about what will happen to EHCP protections, the answers are far from clear. Parents must have certainty. EHCPs must not become a back-door route to cost-cutting.
I also have serious concerns about the evidential basis for elements of the settlement. My local council, Horsham district council, was initially projected to operate with a healthy surplus, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies has now flagged miscalculations in the business rate valuations, and the council’s position has been inverted into a deficit. Many councils operating with business rate pools, as Horsham district council does, have found that funding formulas did not properly account for those arrangements until very late in the process. As the District Councils’ Network has warned, changing allocations between the provisional and final settlements because of revised policy assumptions is deeply destabilising. Councils are entitled to ask on what evidential basis those formulas are constructed.
Departmental research from 2018 suggests that population is often a more accurate predictor of need than deprivation alone, yet the settlement has put all the weighting into deprivation. Why? Can we see the justifications and rationales? Deprivation exists across the country, including in rural communities, such as mine. It may be in pockets, but it is still there, and it is felt just as deeply. We know that geography is a major cost driver for councils. Rural councils face longer travel times for care workers, higher transport costs for schools, dispersed populations, thinner provider markets and recruitment challenges, yet metropolitan councils are projected to receive significantly higher per-head funding increases. In some comparisons, Government-funded spending power rises by around 20% in metropolitan areas, but just 2% in rural areas. In county areas like West Sussex, when it comes to the funding increases, approximately 98p in every pound will have to be raised locally, as opposed to just 58p for metropolitan areas, which is a terrific difference. That imbalance raises legitimate questions about fairness between places.
That brings me to what may be the most fundamental inconsistency. The Government recognise remoteness as a cost factor in adult social care, so why is remoteness not consistently recognised in children’s services, school transport and wider service delivery? How can distance and sparsity increase costs for adults, but apparently not for children? If geography drives costs—in rural counties, it definitely does—then that must be reflected consistently across all funding formulas.
Finally, the reintroduction of the recovery grant is welcome in principle, but why is its allocation still based on deprivation indicators from 2019, when more recent data exists and has been used elsewhere across Government? When millions of pounds are being distributed, councils deserve clarity that allocations reflect current realities, particularly given the economic shifts of recent years. Without that transparency, we have mistrust. Councils stand ready to work with Government, but in return they must have fairness, clarity and clear evidence.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The final settlement for local government finance does not bring good news for Devon. Research by the Rural Services Network has shown that urban councils will have significantly more Government-funded spending power per head than rural councils.
By 2028-29, urban councils will have seen a 20% increase in Government-funded spending power, compared with an increase of just 2% for rural councils, yet on average, wages in the rural economy are lower than the national average wage. The settlement will place a significantly greater expectation on council tax payers in rural areas to cough up. Let us consider what effects that might have on residents of mid and east Devon by noting what things are already like for people living in one village in east Devon.
Dalwood is a village with a population of about 460. It is half a mile from the main road—an A road—and one of the two access routes to the village has been under water since November. I heard from one resident that the state of the road is so poor that she was charged £1,000 for car repairs as a result of negotiating the pitted, crumbling access road. She makes the point that east Devon residents pay some of the highest rates of council tax in the country. In a league of the highest rates in the country for a band D property, east Devon is rated 305 out of 350, where residents in the 350th local authority are paying the most.
The Government announced last month that they will be making available £7.3 billion for road maintenance over the next four years. When people in Devon hear numbers like that, they wonder whether officials and contractors are going to the cash machine, drawing out the money, mixing it with paste, using it to make papier-mâché and filling the potholes that way. The reality is that the money is not finding its way to Devon.
Devon has the largest road network in the country, at 13,000 km. Last March, the repair backlog for the roads in Devon alone would have required an extra £384 million. The reality is that Devon was able to spend little more than £60 million on road maintenance last year. To take another example, one resident of Sidmouth wrote to me recently to say:
“I for one have paid out for damages to my vehicles in five and a half years the sum of £5,100.”
They continued:
“Here we are living in the UK, an advanced country, with the lanes, A roads and B roads in an appalling state of repair”.
That is the context of the local government settlement as it relates to Devon.
The local government settlement has removed the remoteness uplift from the area cost adjustment. The settlement does this in all the relative needs formulas, with the one exception of adult social care. I am glad that the Government have acknowledged that adult social care costs more when it is delivered in a rural area, but they have shown themselves to be blind to the needs of rural communities by removing the remoteness uplift from other areas of local government, including road maintenance.
Councils in rural areas do not enjoy the same economies of scale as urban areas. The countryside requires more bases from which services can be delivered. It has fewer contractors and less competition. I urge the Government to think again about the remoteness uplift.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Prime Minister said that there would be no tax rises on working people. I imagine that the working people who are about to receive a £500-a-year increase in their council tax, the working people in Westminster expecting an 82% rise in their council tax, and those in Wandsworth expecting an 87% rise in their council tax as a result of this settlement will wonder if “working people” was a phrase that applied to them. Those in our business community who heard the Prime Minister say to them that a Labour Government would introduce “permanently lower business rates” will wonder where the massive rise in their business rates bill has come from.
There are things in the reports before us that give us the opportunity to make tweaks and changes, and make progress. I am grateful to the Minister for the interest that she has shown, for example, in the way that the local growth fund—the method of distribution of which is having a huge impact, particularly on colleagues in Northern Ireland—offers scope for some adjustment. However, it is very clear that the recovery grant that the Secretary of State spoke about still bears little or no relation to the pressures arising from the statutory duties on local authorities. As we have heard from Member from across the House, it leaves councils tens of millions of pounds short of the money that they need to do the minimum required of them by this Government, and that is before addressing some of the broader, more general issues.
We have two motions before us. One of them is on the report on local government finance, and the other is on the report on the referendum limit. I am sure that we have all noted the complete absence of any Reform Members in the Chamber. I pay tribute to the champions of Worcestershire, my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who spoke up for residents against an authority that, having been part of a party that promised no rises in council tax and cuts in office, is now looking to top the league table with the largest council tax rises in the country this year. It should be ashamed of its misinformation to residents during election campaigns.
Let me mention some of the things that I hope the Minister will address in her summing up. The first is what the measures in the report do to support housing delivery. We know from the recent report by Savills that 23 of London’s 33 boroughs report that the net figure for new homes being commenced this quarter is zero. Lambeth council has been very public about that, and has reported net zero new social homes. The Secretary of State and the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), are particularly familiar with that. It is clear that housing delivery is collapsing at a time when lofty ambitions are being set, and at a time when the grants for homelessness are cash-flat, as are care costs, and costs relating to vulnerable children and care leavers.
It is clear that for all the bluster, the smoke is clearing, and the mirror is not particularly shiny. The impact of the relentless rises in national insurance contributions and business rates, as well as an additional £750 million of costs to local authorities from changes to the emissions trading scheme, will put huge pressure on the ability of local authorities to deliver.
It having been said that the Secretary of State wanted to move away from a bidding process, we now hear that the funding that has been announced, without any detail, for special educational needs deficits will be the subject of a bidding process to the Department for Education, and there will be a requirement for a reform plan. It will be interesting to hear how that plan differs from the safety valve agreements that many authorities already have in place, which are reducing SEND deficits year on year.
What is clear in this settlement is that the Government are not meeting even their own standards on local government. Local democracy is paying the price, with elections cancelled and taxes relentlessly rising. This statement must be seen for what it is: it is a council tax bombshell; it is a business rates bombshell; it is part of a picture of a Labour Government who simply cannot manage the money.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
It is my pleasure to close this debate, despite the fact that I must apologise to the House. Many Members will know that I suffer from chronic migraine, and I have been having an attack over the past couple of days, so my contribution might not be as long as it might otherwise have been. In show business and in politics, the show must go on, albeit my speech might be slightly shorter than it would have otherwise been, but I think that will be a cause of joy for many Members—[Interruption.] Calm down.
The Secretary of State and I know what a difference the hard work of councillors, frontline staff and all our mayors makes, and we pay tribute to them for everything they do for their communities, as many Members across the House have done. But we also know the consequences of the unfairness of the funding system. The last decade and a half of austerity was felt by the most deprived local authorities, because the link between funding and deprivation was broken.
The shadow Minister seemed to imply in his remarks that he thought that the link ought to simply be with statutory duties, rather than any consideration at all being taken of the impact of deprivation. I would just say to him that those communities that suffered most, that were left out for far too long and that have struggled with the consequences of deprivation will wholeheartedly disagree with him. That is why today we are restoring the link with deprivation and ending the irrational inequality of the previous funding system. We are, as many have said, providing the first multi-year settlement in a decade, we are investing in changing our public services, and we are simplifying funding for local government.
Alison McGovern
The right hon. Gentleman has had ample time to contribute, and while I would normally give way with gusto and have a bit of political knockabout with him, today is not the day for that.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman and everybody else who has contributed today and also to thank those who contributed to the consultation on the provisional settlement and the Members who made representations to me directly. There could be no quick fixes. We cannot undo over a decade of damage overnight, but the settlement we are discussing today is our most significant move yet to make English local government more sustainable, and I am committed to going further in coming years to fix the pressures our councils are facing. The Secretary of State set out the various mechanisms that we are employing to do that in his opening speech. This Labour Government have backed local governments through action, and since coming to power we have made available a nearly 25% increase in core spending power in ’28-29, worth £16.6 billion.
I shall briefly turn to the points Members made. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) relayed the situation with regard to flooding on the Somerset levels. I send my support to his constituents and will work with the Flooding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), as required. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), and the former Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), told me to be bold and I will try, but I look forward to their support in persuading all our colleagues in this place to vote for whatever bold solutions we come up with. Members including my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) and the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) talked about failures in children’s care, and I feel sure that we will work together on that.
Many Members talked about their experiences of councils struggling yet often achieving, despite that struggle, to provide great innovative services on lean budgets, and we applaud them all for that.
Alison McGovern
I am determined not to give way, if that is okay—I think we need to bring this debate to a close. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) asks me about remoteness from a sedentary position. I have discussed this issue in detail with many Members on a one-to-one basis, and I repeat that there are other ways in which the settlement accounts for the actual costs of providing services, such as the area cost adjustment and other means. I do not agree with what has been said, but I do not want to detain the House any longer.
I had a wonderful January engaging with many Members across this House on the settlement; it was a fascinating opportunity to hear about the uniqueness of every area. I particularly thank my colleagues from Knowsley, St Helens, Gateshead and Banbury for the way in which they engaged on this settlement and contributed to how it looks today.
I thank all Members once again for their valuable contributions today. The Government are under no illusion about the scale of the challenge that local authorities face as they continue to deal with the legacy of the previous system, but our changes will make a big difference. They will get money to where it is needed most, creating a fairer and evidence-based funding system and—most importantly to me and many others—restoring the link between funding and poverty.
Question put.
Storm Chandra Flooding
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I am grateful for having secured this debate on the Government’s response to flooding as a result of Storm Chandra. Before I begin, I want to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of everyone involved in the flood effort in Somerset. I would also like to take a moment to recognise the impact that flooding has on people’s mental health. Victims of repeated flooding describe living in a “permanent state of anxiety”, and this has been palpable when hearing from residents across the Glastonbury and Somerton constituency over the last few weeks. There has been a feeling of déjà vu, and of “Here we go again!”
Between 26 and 27 January, Storm Chandra, hot on the heels of Storms Goretti and Ingrid, brought exceptional rainfall to Somerset: 50 mm of intense rainfall fell across large parts of Somerset causing widespread flooding and set new 24-hour rainfall records in many parts of the south-west. Somerset council acted swiftly, and declared a major incident as 50 homes across the county fell victim to floodwater. The major incident remains in place following persistent rain over the following two weeks, with yet more rain in the forecast and high spring tides imminent. Because the ground is fully saturated, local rivers are highly sensitive to further rainfall, while five flood warnings and 11 flood alerts remain in place across Somerset. Roads are still flooded and communities are cut off.
This issue will not disappear of its own accord. Climate change pushes the extremes, and Somerset, which is so often at the forefront of climate change, will see further extreme weather, with prolonged droughts and intense rainfall becoming common. The Environment Agency projects that there will be a 90% increase in properties at risk from river and coastal flooding, alongside an increase in surface water flood risk by the 2080s. Physical damage alone is estimated at £2.4 billion annually, and it could rise to £3.6 billion annually by 2050. Insurers are set to pay out £1.6 billion for weather-related property claims made last year alone, as the UK battles with the impact of climate change. The Government response to flooding incidents such as Storm Chandra must not just focus on helping the communities currently dealing with flood water, but on how we can better protect those communities and help them to be more resilient in future. Building flood-resilient communities is desperately important and it must be a priority, because these events are getting more frequent and more serious.
Before I move on, I would like to reflect on what we really mean when we discuss resilience. Constituents in Glastonbury and Somerton are dealing with flooding with ever more regularly. Louise owns GingerFred dance studio in Langport. She told me that she has been battling the floodwater that has been lapping up against at her dance studio door for the past two weeks. Despite questioning whether she might have to move her studio, which she has been running for 14 years now—that has been some hard graft—she is absolutely determined to fight on. She wants to fight on, but she also wants to learn how she can better understand flooding, be resilient to it, and help to protect other businesses and help her community.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I say respectfully that the friendship we have had over the past few years is one that I appreciate very much. In her time here she has been assiduous and hard working on behalf of her constituents, and tonight is an example of that. She will perhaps not be aware, but the storm hit Northern Ireland with ferocity and our schools had to close. The aftermath saw the loss of even more trees, which have taken a hammering in an unending list of named storms. That loss has had an impact on our natural flood defences and that was very clear in the aftermath of Storm Chandra. Does she not agree that natural flood defences need to be shored up, or we will create an unsolvable problem for the very near future?
Sarah Dyke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for his intervention. Indeed, nature-based solutions and natural flood defences are absolutely important—I know that the Minister is also an advocate for them—and I will come on to that later on in my speech.
In this place, I have advocated for communities to receive the support they need to develop their own bespoke extreme weather resilience plans. I pay tribute to the tireless work done by people such as Flood Mary in helping victims of flooding and raising awareness of flood risk and property flood resilience. Communities who regularly suffer flooding are resilient, but they deserve action and investment. Flood resilience in Somerset cannot be achieved on a shoestring budget and people deserve better. The Prime Minister has spoken about
“national security for national renewal”.
We must remember that resilience to flooding is part of our national security.
I thank the Minister for joining me in Glastonbury and Somerton yesterday. We visited Langport, Thorney and Drayton to see the impact Storm Chandra has had on the area. I am sure she would agree, after hearing from the farmer Mike Curtis, who took us on his tractor and showed us some of his land, that Somerset communities are resilient, but much more must be done to protect them from flooding. If flooding does happen, they must have the tools on hand and the support in place to help their communities mitigate it.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on the amazing work she does on her side of the Levels and Moors that span our two constituencies—I hope I do similar work on my side. She may be coming on to this point, but does she agree that one of the key messages I hear most strongly from residents in Stathe and Burrowbridge, some of whom have water lapping up against their houses right now as we sit in this Chamber and are frightened about what is going to happen tomorrow and the next day, especially with the long forecasts for rain, is that they need better communication, so they have the maximum information about what is happening with the Levels—when pumping will or will not start—as well as about the long-term plan that is needed after this flooding event to reduce flooding?
Sarah Dyke
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I wholeheartedly agree. Every flooding incident is different and sometimes it is difficult to dictate where flooding incidents will happen, but there is certainly a lot more we can do. The Minister and I talked about the trigger points with the Environment Agency yesterday, which it has committed to looking at. I also agree that communication with local authorities and a collaborative, joined-up approach should be better.
I also feel that communities should have better real-time information on flooding. There is a really good example of that in the River Cam catchment, where flood monitors have been put on bridges and an app tracks the flow of water so that communities within the catchment are aware of any significant increase in the water levels. I hope that that can be rolled out so that our communities can be better protected and can better protect themselves in these instances of terrific rainfall.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an exceptional speech. There was an excellent debate this afternoon in Westminster Hall on tree planting, with thoughtful contributions from a number of Members. Does the hon. Lady agree that tree planting is essential not just to biodiversity, lowering temperatures and carbon capture, but for preventing flooding?
Sarah Dyke
In a previous life, before being elected to this House, I was the lead member for climate change and environment on Somerset council. Somerset has a lower-than-average tree canopy cover at 8%, compared with the national average of 14%, so we committed in our 10-year tree strategy to plant more trees. There are lots of community groups doing that across Somerset, including Reimagining the Levels, which brings together volunteer networks to plant trees. I was out on Ham Hill a couple of months ago planting 3,000 trees for exactly that reason: once those trees become established, they can soak in more moisture and play their part in slowing the flow through those catchment areas. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady.
According to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report into flood resilience,
“the UK is not on track to be fully…flood resilient by the time”
the Flood Re programme ends in 2039. It further states that without clear standards, flood resilience is just
“a vague ambition rather than a deliverable goal.”
I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on what she means when she talks about resilience, especially at community level. Some communities have spent time and money putting in place property-level mitigations but still face flooding. How can they better understand what it means to be flood resilient?
The memories of the devastating 2013-14 floods are still painfully vivid in the minds of those who experienced them. Following those floods, the Environment Agency carried out what was, at the time, the single largest pumping operation ever undertaken in Somerset. Following flooding in January 2023, the EA once again put in place another large temporary pumping operation on the levels and moors.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this essential debate. Her speaking of 2014 reminds me of the previous great storm, which took out the railway lines in Dawlish. This January, we had three storms in quick succession, as we did last January, so there appears to be more of a pattern now —it seems to be something we can expect every year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need more Government funds to call upon to clear up areas after they have been hit so hard by these devastating storms, as Dawlish and Teignmouth were by the storms in January?
Sarah Dyke
I could not agree more. We need mitigation, resilience and protection, but we also need to support our communities through the aftermath. That is absolutely crucial. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
While it is yet to be confirmed, it looks like the ongoing pumping operation this year will once again supersede its predecessors that I mentioned. What does that tell us about flooding in Somerset? Despite the Government’s claim that they are investing a record £10.5 billion in flood defences, the reality is that these problems are critical now, and they are continuing to grow. Despite that, analysis by Flooded People UK shows that capital spending commitment is at a lower annual rate than the previous capital regime.
In Somerset, we need action and investment to ensure the availability of critical assets in emergencies, when they are needed to mitigate flooding. Every £1 spent by the Government prevents £5 in damage, and means £2 in direct savings to the Exchequer, yet national flooding budgets have been cut in real terms. It is crucial that the Government invest in cost-effective strategies relating to flood preparedness, prevention, traditional flood defences and nature-based solutions, so that communities like those in Somerset and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) are not left to fend for themselves.
Communities that are deemed to be at flood risk have long felt abandoned by Government and their agencies; the Environment Agency’s recent decision to withdraw from main river maintenance owing to funding shortfalls is a clear example of this. With no consultation, riparian owners in Somerset were issued with withdrawal notices last summer, and were left with the responsibility for undertaking maintenance work alone—a decision that has rightly heightened anxieties about further flood risks. Appropriate maintenance of main rivers reduces the likelihood that channel capacity will be exceeded or assets will fail. The likelihood, extent, depth, and duration of flooding, and the damage caused by it, is then significantly reduced. We do not need to go back very far to understand the profound impact that this can have. Main river maintenance reduced over several years leading up to 2012, and what followed was a catastrophic flood in 2012, and then, of course, the extreme flood during the winter of 2013. It has been evidenced that had regular main river maintenance been undertaken, those events would have had much less of an impact. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for an urgent review of the decision to effectively abandon main river maintenance.
We are also calling for a further £5.3 billion of investment to ensure that flood defences are built quickly and provided to all necessary communities to increase local preparedness and resilience. It is not in doubt that the cost of flood defences and resilience is significant, but the cost of getting this wrong or doing nothing is far greater. Some £6.1 billion in gross value added has been lost from downward pressure as a result of flooding in the last five to 10 years. Given that one in four properties nationally, and some 1,500 in Glastonbury and Somerton alone, will be at flood risk by 2050, the costs will only rise. That scenario opens up a broader question about communication and how different bodies—including the Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the EA, internal drainage boards, the Somerset Rivers Authority and Somerset council—work together with communities and individuals. In the meantime, many riparian owners are confused about what their responsibilities are, and more must still be done to improve communication and understanding. This lack of clarity is causing frustration and yet further anxiety.
I was pleased that the Minister found time to meet the Somerset internal drainage board with me yesterday. The board has called for a collaborative approach, but that must be backed with appropriate local and national funding to move it forward, and it must be sustainable. Any change will take time to implement, so it is paramount that the necessary main river maintenance works continue until alternative solutions are in place.
Alongside the importance of ensuring that dredging and regular maintenance take place, I would like to highlight the importance of natural flood management and its part in making Somerset more resilient to flooding. I am aware that the Minister shares my appreciation for such solutions, but as the Environmental Audit Committee report made clear, these interventions remain undervalued and underused in England, and must take their place alongside hard engineering projects.
The urgent need to build more homes has led to there being full or conditional planning permission for more than 7,000 new homes in England on previously undeveloped floodplain land. I am clear that new developments should not be built on floodplains, because they increase the speed of run-off and the risk of flooding downstream, putting homes and communities at risk. We desperately need new homes, but if Somerset is to hit the Government’s house building targets, the question must be: where do the houses go?
Surface water flooding is the fastest-accelerating risk affecting areas of the country that are not traditionally expected to flood. The Liberal Democrats have led calls to ensure that new homes are built with a range of measures to enhance their flood resilience, and to ensure that sustainable urban drainage systems do their job and are maintained properly. We also believe that older homes should be retrofitted to help mitigate the risk of flooding.
I pay credit to my constituent Tim Adams, the flood warden for Blackford, just outside Wincanton. Tim has undertaken research on the rapid run-off of surface water from the A303, which has often been recognised as materially increasing flood risk. His work has shown how attenuation ponds or wetlands could reduce peak flows, improve water quality and deliver biodiversity gains. In my view, it is essential to use citizen science, local knowledge and natural flood management techniques in a catchment area approach to flood mitigation.
We must also recognise the key role that farmers play in flood management by storing floodwater on their land, protecting those downstream, and consider building natural flood defences, because 58% of grade 1 agricultural land is situated on a floodplain, while 9% is at high risk of coastal flooding. If there is not appropriate insurance in place to compensate farmers for holding water on their land to prevent communities from flooding, we put those businesses under increased financial pressure after each and every flood event.
Yesterday, Mike Curtis told the Minister and me that he had reared cattle in Thorney for over 30 years, with his herd peaking at 750 head of beef cattle 10 years ago. He now keeps less than half that number, because his land spends so much time under water. While Mike’s land saves thousands of homes downstream from flooding, he is unable to access any Government compensation for these losses to his business. Sadly, Mike is not alone in facing this. Trish and Ron from Bineham City Farm near Knole also have hundreds of acres under water, and will run short of feed for their dairy herd before they are able to turn their cattle out this year. This is having a massive, catastrophic impact on their business. That is why farmers who store water on their land to protect housing or other critical infrastructure—they are providing a public good—should be properly recognised for doing so and compensated fairly.
Liberal Democrats would tailor the qualifying criteria for the farming recovery fund to reflect the realities of flooding for rural communities and farmers. We would also raise the environmental land management scheme budget by £1 billion, to support farmers in their transition to environmentally sustainable farming, and to recognise their key role in accepting and managing flood water.
Flood defences in Somerset cannot be run on a shoestring budget. We urgently need to ensure that critical assets are available and able to operate at capacity during flood events. We must use the multitude of flood defence techniques available to ensure that our communities are resilient to future extreme weather events. There is much work to be done to ensure that England has a strong framework that recognises the role of the multiple bodies and agencies that work together to make flood-resilient communities.
To conclude as I began, flooding can have a profound impact on mental health, affecting individuals and communities long after the waters recede. We must always remember the very real and persistent anxiety that flood victims experience; that must be central when considering future Government support for communities at risk of flooding.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for calling this debate, and for providing an opportunity for us to hear and discuss the steps that this Government have taken in advance of, and in response to, Storm Chandra.
Storm Chandra brought heavy and persistent rainfall to the United Kingdom between Monday 26 and Tuesday 27 January. For many communities, particularly in the south-west, this succession of storms has felt relentless. It has been a cycle of anxiety, disruption and uncertainty that has tested both infrastructure and resilience. During Storm Chandra, rain fell on ground that was already waterlogged. The consequences have been felt most acutely in Somerset and across the wider south-west, where three severe flood warnings were issued. This is the highest category of alert, signifying a genuine danger to life. Thankfully, all three severe flood warnings could be lifted by the afternoon of Thursday 29 January. However, the challenges have not ended, as I saw when I visited the south-west yesterday.
In preparation, local resilience forums stood up their response arrangements, and local partners have worked side by side to support residents—sharing information, evacuating households at risk, pumping water, patrolling flooded areas and helping vulnerable people. The Environment Agency operated its Somerset moors and levels flood plans at full capacity, deploying pumps and managing flood storage areas around the clock. As river levels rose, local authorities led evacuations in Dorset and Somerset. Their professionalism and compassion have been vital for affected communities. Work is ongoing with around 300 flooded households to determine when homes can safely be re-entered. Nationally, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs activated its emergency operation centre to co-ordinate cross-government activities.
Gideon Amos
The Minister is right to pay credit to the Environment Agency, which has rolled out pumps faster than ever before. One of the key questions I get asked is, could we not have permanent pumps? That would mean we did not lose five days bringing them down from Yorkshire. Apparently, the crane that puts them on site, which has to wait two or three days, costs £80,000 a day. The pumping stations were last built in the 19th century. Surely it is time to have permanent installations. We could save several days or a week, and that could create space for millions of cubic metres of water.
Emma Hardy
Yesterday, in the meeting we had with the internal drainage boards and the Environment Agency, the EA, recognising the importance of that issue, said that it would look at the costings.
The events of the past few weeks have brought back memories of the catastrophic floods of 2013 and 2014, when entire communities were cut off for weeks, and livelihoods were deeply affected. My deepest sympathies go out to every individual, family and business affected by this flooding. For some, it is the first time they have faced this disruption, but for many of us, it is heartbreakingly familiar. Flooding is not just an inconvenience; it is a profound emotional and financial shock. It disrupts daily life, damages treasured possessions, and leaves people feeling vulnerable in their own home. I want those affected to know that we are committed to supporting them, not only in the immediate aftermath, but in the months and years ahead.
As of this morning, the Environment Agency has reported that approximately 308 properties across England have been flooded, of which 16 have been on the Somerset levels and moors. An estimated 22,850 properties have been protected by flood defences, and assets have stood up well. The Environment Agency has not reported any issues or had any reports of asset failure resulting in flooding, but of course, the Department will carry out a post-event assessment with resilience partners to identify where lessons can be learned.
I want to express my sincere gratitude to the first responders, Environment Agency staff, emergency services, local authorities and volunteers who have worked tirelessly to keep people safe. Their dedication, often in the most challenging and dangerous conditions, has been extraordinary.
Although Storm Chandra has now passed, further rainfall has triggered Met Office yellow rain warnings across the south-west and other regions. We expect a sustained operational response to continue for several weeks on the Somerset levels and elsewhere. That will involve ongoing pumping operations, continued monitoring of river and groundwater levels, and close co-ordination between local authorities, emergency services and national agencies.
Yesterday’s visit to Somerset with the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton to see the situation at first hand was invaluable. We witnessed the extent of the flooding across the Somerset moors and levels. We spoke with Environment Agency staff; local farmer Michael Curtis; internal drainage board members, including Rebecca Horsington from the Association of Drainage Authorities, Iain Sturdy, the Somerset IDB chief executive, and Tony Bradford, IDB chair; and community representatives who are working tirelessly to protect homes, farmland and infrastructure.
I saw the impact of the 16 days of incident response, villages cut off by flooded roads and the impact on people’s mental health. I am pleased to say, following my visit, that the Environment Agency has committed to reviewing the issues around water level management in Somerset once this incident has come to an end. It will work closely with the internal drainage boards and the council as part of the wider recovery plan. The review will consider several important questions: when pumps should be activated, whether the current trigger points are right, and whether installing permanent pumps in certain locations could offer better value for money in the long term. I also acknowledge the vital contributions of Somerset council, Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service, the police and ambulance services, members of the IDBs, and anyone who has played an essential role in the multi-agency response.
Flooding of that sort was always going to happen, but we can shape how prepared we are. The Government are investing at least £10.5 billion by March 2036 to construct new flood and coastal erosion schemes and repair existing defences. That record investment is an average of £1.4 billion per year—an increase on previous investment—and will benefit nearly 900,000 properties. It includes a record £22.65 billion over 2024-25 and 2025-26.
Emma Hardy
We are taking that decisive action to halt the steady decline in the condition of flood defences under the previous Government by shifting an extra £108 million into the maintenance and repair of existing assets. We are also boosting the delivery of new defences by making available £140 million to 31 projects that are stalled because of funding gaps.
In October, following consultation, we announced major changes to our flood and coastal erosion funding policy. Those reforms will make it quicker and easier to deliver the right flood and coastal defences in the right place by simplifying our funding rules. The new funding policy will improve the balance of funding between building new projects and maintaining existing defences, and will ensure that deprived communities continue to receive vital investment. We will use Government funding to unlock investment from public, private and charitable sources, making every £1 of Government investment go further. We will invest at least £300 million into natural flood management over 10 years—the highest figure to date for the floods programme, although I am always keen for it to go higher still. Those new funding rules will be brought in for the new floods programme, and will take effect in April 2026.
I saw once again the crucial role that internal drainage boards play in flooding events. Our £91 million IDB fund supports greater flood resilience for farmers and rural communities. Ninety-four IDBs are delivering projects that are already benefiting over 400,000 hectares of farmland and over 200,000 properties. The Environment Agency estimates that the fund will avoid around £10 billion in economic damage.
Martin Wrigley
I deeply thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for highlighting the dreadful things that have happened in Somerset, and I join them in thanking all those who have responded.
I very much welcome what the Minister says about ensuring that the Environment Agency has the money to maintain assets and build new ones. My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of sustainable urban drainage systems, which we debated in Westminster Hall just last week. In that debate, the Minister talked about ways of maintaining SUDS. I asked for the maintenance of SUDS to be a statutory responsibility for the agencies set out in schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The Minister suggested that there was a route by which section 106 funding could be used to create permanent maintenance for SUDS. Might I ask the Minister how that could be achieved, given that section 106 money is finite and limited?
Emma Hardy
I think the best answer to that is for me to get the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is responsible for that policy, to give the hon. Gentleman a full answer. I recall from that debate that the Department is considering how the long-term maintenance of SUDS can be achieved, but I am mindful of the fact that it is another Department’s responsibility.
Through the internal drainage board fund, we are further investing in resilient infrastructure that can withstand more frequent and intense storms, supporting communities with clear information, accessible resources and long-term recovery assistance, and enhancing natural flood management by restoring wetlands—that is brilliant—improving soil health and working with nature to slow the flow of water.
In April 2025, the Environment Agency proposed pausing main river maintenance in certain low-risk areas of Somerset. However, it became clear, following a query raised by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton in November 2025, that the initial process did not provide sufficient opportunities for engagement with local communities and stakeholders. As a result, a new consultation period is now open, running until April 2026. This consultation will allow residents, landowners and local organisations to share their views and to help to shape the future of flood risk management in their area.
I fully recognise the importance of flood risk maintenance, particularly in areas like Somerset, where the landscape and hydrology create unique challenges. DEFRA and Environment Agency officials are already in discussion with key stakeholders, and this formed part of a wider conversation at December’s floods resilience taskforce meeting, which I chaired. These discussions are essential to ensuring that our approach to maintenance is fair, transparent and grounded in the needs of local communities. My letters to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) in February 2025 detailed the actions being undertaken in support of this.
The Environment Agency needs to prioritise its funding rigorously, and focus on those areas and activities that deliver the greatest overall benefits for people and property, including reducing flood risk and ensuring value for money. It is spending significant resources every year on pumping and managing the Somerset levels. Its work is essential to maintaining the delicate balance of water across the landscape, supporting agriculture, protecting homes and preserving the unique ecology of the area.
Sarah Dyke
I am pleased that the consultation is open, and that will be good news for riparian owners across Somerset. Should the consultation come back saying that riparian owners need to continue to do their own maintenance work, what support will be put in place for those who do not have the equipment or the wherewithal to support that? If we are looking at a holistic approach, then if one riparian owner decides not to do any maintenance, what will be the knock-on effect? How do we then ensure that our network of rivers is resilient and does not flood other areas?
Emma Hardy
The challenge that the hon. Lady sets out is the next step. For me, the first step is to see what the response to the consultation says and then we can continue the conversations. However, I recognise her point about riparian ownership and responsibility, and the challenge of what happens if everyone does not respond to the responsibility in the same way.
As we look to the future, we must ensure that the investment continues to be targeted, effective and sustainable. Beyond the technical and financial considerations, we must recognise the human dimension of flooding. Behind every statistic is a person—someone who has had to leave their home, someone who has lost possessions, someone who is worried about the future. Flooding affects mental health, financial stability and community cohesion. It can take months or even years for people to fully recover. That is why our response must be compassionate, comprehensive and long term.
We must acknowledge the broader context in which these events are occurring. The increasing frequency and intensity of storms like Chandra and Ingrid reflect a changing climate. While no single weather event can be attributed solely to climate change, the pattern is clear: we are facing more extreme rainfall, more volatile weather systems and greater pressure on our flood defences. This reality demands that we strengthen our resilience, not only through infrastructure but through planning, community engagement and environmental stewardship. That is why protecting communities from the dangers of flooding is a key priority for this Government.
This year has started with record-breaking rainfall, amounting to nearly twice the long-term monthly average in the south-west, which has been deeply challenging. Strengthening local and national co-ordination to ensure that agencies, councils and emergency services can respond swiftly and effectively is crucial, as is listening to communities, as we were yesterday, valuing their lived experience and ensuring that their voices help to shape future policy.
This Government’s record investment in flood defences will better protect communities from flooding right across the country. Not only that, but it will boost economic growth in local communities by protecting businesses, delivering new jobs and supporting a stable economy in the face of the increasing risk of flooding as a result of climate change. This Government are committed to acting to ensure that communities are better protected from flooding in the first place. We will continue to deliver and repair flood defences, improve drainage systems and develop natural flood management schemes.
The emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities, voluntary organisations and Government Departments stand ready, as ever, to support affected people in any future flooding event. This is a personal priority and it is a privilege to be the Minister responsible for flooding, and I will continue working to make sure that this Government respond as effectively as possible to floods.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
That the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 13 January, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 362 / Noes: 107 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft
Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Torsten Bell
The instruments that we are debating today seek to increase the value of one-off lump sum payments made under two no-fault compensation schemes administered by the Department through the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008. Although there is no statutory requirement to increase these rates in line with prices, there has long been cross-party consensus that we should do so. The Government therefore intend to increase the value of lump sum awards by 3.8%, in line with the September 2025 consumer prices index. These new rates will apply to those who first become entitled to a payment from 1 April 2026. That also means that the increase will once again be in line with the proposed increases to industrial injuries disablement benefit as part of the main social security uprating provisions for 2026-27, debated on the Floor of the House yesterday.
By way of background, the 1979 Act scheme provides a single lump sum compensation payment to eligible people with the diseases covered by the scheme. That includes pneumoconiosis and diffuse mesothelioma. It was designed to cover people who were unable to claim damages from employers because, for example, they had gone out of business, and people who have not brought any action against another party for damages. To be eligible for a lump sum award, a claimant must be awarded industrial injuries disablement benefit for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme.
The 2008 Act scheme was introduced to provide compensation to people diagnosed with mesothelioma who were unable to claim compensation under the 1979 Act. That may have been because they were self-employed or because their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 Act scheme provides no-fault support to sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma quickly at a time of their greatest need. To recognise the suffering that these diseases can bring to the whole family, claims can be made to either scheme by a dependant, if the person with the disease sadly passes away before being able to make a claim.
I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in recognising the continued importance of the compensation schemes offered by the 1979 and 2008 Acts. Finally, I am required to confirm that these provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights, and I am happy to do so. I commend the increases to the payment rates under these two schemes to the Committee and ask for approval to implement.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
We welcome the uprating for both the mesothelioma lump sum payments and the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act payments. This has been done on an annual basis and over many Governments. Today’s regulations specifically provide a 3.8% increase in line with the September 2025 consumer prices index rate. We welcome that inflation-linked increase so that the compensation amounts are more representative of today’s cost of living. That is especially important in this instance, given how debilitating these diseases can be.
Colleagues will know that mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive cancer with known links to asbestos exposure. Pneumoconiosis is equally serious, often affecting those who worked in heavy industries such as coalmining. What is cruel about both those diseases is that it can take years for symptoms to start presenting themselves, and therefore, by the time that someone receives a diagnosis, in most cases it is already advanced and leaves them with little time to react. The other issue with the latency of diagnosis is that many sufferers struggle to pursue civil claims against employers. These schemes help to address those issues and provide decency for people affected. They also underpin the point that our benefits system should be a critical safety net for the some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I reiterate that the Opposition welcome this compensation lump sum uplift today and support the Government’s proposals.
Torsten Bell
I thank the Opposition for their support for the regulations. I will not reiterate what I said in the opening beyond fully endorsing the case made by the Opposition about the importance of these payments and their uprating. Hon. Members will know that these schemes are only a part of the way that the Government provide support and compensation to people suffering from these diseases. The industrial injuries disablement benefit provides weekly payments as well, which are important for those who have had an industrial accident or developed certain diseases, including those covered by the lump sum compensation schemes that we are talking about today.
On the point about the nature of these diseases being caused by dust exposure, it is important to spell out the importance of the work of the Health and Safety Executive on the prevention front, and of the NHS in providing support to those who have had a diagnosis of these diseases. On the point made by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest about the importance of early diagnosis when possible, given the nature of these diseases, I want to refer hon. Members to the work of the national lung cancer screening programme, which exists precisely for that purpose.
We all believe that cross-party support on this measure is important—it continues as it has since 2010. It is an important part of how we provide support to individuals living with these diseases and their families. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT PNEUMOCONIOSIS ETC. (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION) (PAYMENT OF CLAIMS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.—(Torsten Bell.)
Petitions
Walsall Leather Museum
Westminster Hall
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Hughes Report: Second Anniversary
(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
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the second anniversary of the Hughes Report.
Although it is a pleasure to open this debate under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, I do so with a sense of déjà vu, because we have been here before, on the anniversary last year and in debates on the Cumberlege review before that. The issue of redress for the victims is a well-trodden road.
I start by paying tribute to the many individuals who have campaigned tirelessly for justice and change, and to prevent their experience from happening to others. I thank the Patient Safety Commissioner, Professor Henrietta Hughes, for the work she put into her report. She is with us in the Gallery today, along with many campaigners. I put on the record my thanks to Baroness Cumberlege for her exceptional work, before the Hughes report, to give voice to victims during the two years she led the Cumberlege review. I pay tribute to her for her continuing commitment to the victims.
We are here today because, two years on from its publication, the Government have still not published an official response to the Hughes report. No redress scheme has been implemented and no timeline has been announced. We have repeatedly been told that the recommendations are being carefully considered, yet there is no date, no framework and no mechanism for justice in place. To be clear, the Patient Safety Commissioner did not decide one day to write the report; she was asked to pull it together and to look at the options for redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh. The report was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care in late 2022.
In her foreword to the report, Professor Hughes was clear that, in accepting the commission,
“the case for redress had already been made by the First Do No Harm review so my report would primarily focus on ‘how’ to provide redress rather than ‘why’…Secondly, patients must not be subjected to an emotional rollercoaster, meaning that commissioning this work would inevitably raise expectations and that it would be profoundly unfair to do so if the government had no intention of providing redress.”
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. I secured a debate on the Cumberlege report 18 months ago; I said at the time that I hoped it would be the last time we debated this issue, yet here we are again. Does the hon. Member agree that the emotional impact on the women involved is hugely important? I was approached by a number of constituents in my constituency, including Debbie, who joined me for my debate. It is so important that the review’s recommendations are acted on.
Sarah Green
The emotional toll is significant. It is a daily struggle for some of those affected, and they are battling a system.
Right at the start of her report, the Patient Safety Commissioner was clear that she should not be asked to look into the options for redress for those harmed by valproate and mesh if there was no real intention or desire in the Department to make a redress scheme a reality. Why commission the report and raise the expectations of thousands of families if there was never any intention to follow through on the recommendations?
As colleagues know, 30,000 women and children have been harmed, through no fault of their own, by valproate and pelvic mesh. They are paying the price of the failure to keep them and their children safe with immense pain, agony, fear and guilt. Five years on from the Cumberlege report and two years after the Hughes report, the Government have still not confirmed plans to provide financial redress. Financial redress is unfinished business, and it is past time that the Government responded.
Let us not forget that of those affected by valproate and mesh, 85% report not being able to work, 73% report that their finance has suffered as a result, 91% report that their mental health and wellbeing are adversely affected—as the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) just said—and 88% report that their relationships have been negatively impacted.
Let me unpack that for a second. Those statistics represent my constituent Carol, a doctor by training who was forced to take long-term sick leave and see her health and her career deteriorate. They represent the valproate families who, on top of the physical effects, face the nightmare of child and adolescent mental health services and personal independence payment reassessments every few years, having to explain what foetal valproate spectrum disorder is to every clinician they encounter because it is not widely understood. They represent the heartbreaking situation of one victim who shared with me, in tears, the devastating impact that mesh has had on her ability to be intimate with the love of her life. The lack of a clear timeline for action by the same slow, dismissive system that harmed patients is further compounding their physical and mental pain.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Although financial redress is an incredibly important part of the Hughes report, it also lays out other important elements, such as healthcare and special educational needs and disability provision. My constituent Debra has two sons. It was only when her second son went to school that the school realised there might be something affecting both boys due to her taking sodium valproate. She had to battle against the system and is now having to drive her eldest son to university because, suffering from autism, he is unable to make that journey using public transport. Does my hon. Friend agree that those recommendations are also an incredibly important part of the Hughes report?
Sarah Green
I do agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for his intervention.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
This is about so many different aspects of support. One of the recommendations in the Hughes report that has been drawn to my attention is the one on housing, which is so crucial. My constituent was prescribed sodium valproate during pregnancy. Her son, who is now 25, lives with foetal valproate syndrome, requires 24/7 support, and will do for the rest of his life. My constituent said that even relatively modest adjustments to their home and some specialist equipment could make a real difference, but she has not found any way of getting funding for that. Does the hon. Member agree that housing is also a really important area for us to look at?
Sarah Green
I do agree, and I thank the hon. Member for raising it.
I know that many colleagues present have been championing this cause for years. There is a string of parliamentary questions going back to the launch of the report two years ago, asking for progress updates. The Patient Safety Commissioner herself used her statutory powers for the first time, in October last year, to ask for more detailed answers from the Department of Health and Social Care. The responses were published in November and just a few weeks ago in January. We now know that there have been meetings, roundtables and briefings, but no progress on redress. If I am reading between the lines of these responses correctly, it is the dead hand of the Treasury that is the issue.
Before I conclude, I wish to mention Carol. I have shared Carol’s story before, and I return to it today because it lays bare the cost of years of Government inaction. When I first met her online—I hope she will not mind my saying this—she was a physical wreck. She needed assistance to get a visa to the US during the pandemic for urgent medical treatment following a hysteropexy and rectopexy using surgical mesh. A procedure that was intended to resolve her pelvic organ prolapse instead caused devastating harm.
Carol was left with a serious autoimmune disease, struggling to walk and unable to live her daily life. Her prognosis was bleak, and she needed to have the mesh urgently removed. That treatment was not available to her on the NHS. While suffering from chronic pain, and with limited mobility, Carol accessed private treatment in the United States. A combination of determination, medical knowledge and personal resources allowed her to do so, and Carol is now mesh-free following a successful surgery.
Carol attempted to pursue a clinical negligence claim against the surgeons who harmed her, but multiple law firms declined to act because the same surgeons were advising them on other cases. Those conflicts of interest blocked Carol’s access to justice. In one case, the surgeon who caused her life-changing harm acted as an expert witness in an unrelated mesh case. The judge in that case found that the surgeon selectively chose evidence supportive of the defence, failed to provide balanced evidence, and failed in his duty to the court. That finding is on the record.
Such conflicts are not isolated. Conflicts of interest and the closing of ranks among professionals remain a structural barrier to justice for victims. That is just one of the reasons why an independent redress scheme is long overdue. The current system is failing these women, children and families.
I have two questions for the Minister. What conversations are she, her Department and her officials having with the Treasury and Downing Street to make redress a reality for the victims? Will she meet some of the affected families to hear directly from them why redress is so important to them?
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Order. This is an incredibly important topic. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak. Because so many Members want to get in, I would be grateful if you can try to stick to approximately four minutes each, to allow everyone to get a say.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for bringing this issue to the House. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her tireless commitment to this campaign and for her leadership in chairing the First Do No Harm all-party parliamentary group.
Like many Members here, I was present in the debate a year ago on the first anniversary of the Hughes report. Although it has been two years since the publication of the report, the Government have sadly still not responded to it, and justice has still not been delivered for the many women impacted by pelvic mesh and sodium valproate.
In the very first paragraph, Dr Henrietta Hughes makes it clear that the report must lead to Government action. We often hear that justice delayed is justice denied, yet we continue to deny justice to the women who have suffered. Redress must be delivered swiftly. The Hughes report recommends a two-stage non-adversarial redress scheme to provide both financial and non-financial support to women who have suffered avoidable harm due to pelvic mesh and sodium valproate.
Although financial compensation is of course vital—a two-stage scheme would involve a quick initial payment followed by a more tailored scheme for the payment of compensation—just as important is access to appropriate support, including specialist healthcare, and a formal acknowledgment, with an apology, of the harm endured by these women. Dr Hughes laid out in detail how such a scheme can be implemented, and it is for the Government to put one into effect as soon as possible.
Alongside delivering justice for the victims of the mesh and sodium valproate scandals, I urge the Minister and her Department to commit to doing everything possible to prevent future scandals of this sort and to better protect our constituents and communities. I also welcome the work of campaign groups such as Sling The Mesh, and urge the Government to consider making yellow card reporting mandatory so that potentially harmful products can be identified sooner, and action can be taken before damage is done.
I have a particular interest in this debate. Although I have constituents who have been affected, before becoming an MP I worked as a solicitor and specialised in representing women who had been given plastic polypropylene mesh implants for vaginal mesh surgery as a quick fix to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, without being properly advised by the doctors who gave the treatment. All those women did was trust a medical professional who told them they were receiving the gold standard of care, as we all would. The mesh then eroded, cut through vaginal tissue and caused chronic pain, loss of mobility and sexual disfunction, and often resulted in relationship breakdown. Many of those women were unable to continue working and suffered life-changing injuries. Their lives were ruined.
When pursuing legal claims for compensation for these women, I was always acutely aware that compensation and legal costs would ultimately fall on the NHS. A compensation scheme as recommended by the Hughes report would save the excessive costs of litigation that the NHS would have to pay out—money that could then be used for the treatment of patients. I would also like the Government to consider alternative approaches such as an insurance-style levy paid by companies when they bring new products to the market, which would create a dedicated fund for future claims and thereby protect our vital NHS resources while incentivising manufacturers to ensure that their products are of the highest safety standards.
We cannot leave these women in limbo waiting to receive the redress they so clearly deserve. I ask the Minister to please respond to the Hughes report, enact Dr Hughes’s recommendations and ensure that justice can finally be delivered for these women.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I will try to add something new to the excellent start to the debate by both the previous speakers, who showed a great command of the overall situation, by quoting my constituent Emma, who got in touch with me yesterday after learning that the debate would take place. I will briefly summarise her concerns, which she set out in the following way:
“In the main, the point is that so many have been injured, left on NHS waiting lists, paying for prescriptions and transport to and from appointments. Not being able to work—or restricted working hours. Limited access to PIP…Very little support for those who had mortgages due to the benefit system not supporting mortgage costs”
and
“loss of pension contributions, as none of us is getting any younger.”
This lady is exceptionally strong. Despite the injuries she suffered personally, she has been a rock and a leader for other mesh-injured women in or near my constituency. I hold her in the highest esteem; in fact, I salute her courage. What she has to say is, in a sense, an argument that has already been won. The Cumberlege report won that argument, and the Hughes report wanted to recommend what should happen next. I am delighted to see Henrietta Hughes in the Gallery—and seemingly acknowledging that I am right about that difference between the two reports.
Let me briefly quote from Henrietta Hughes’s admirably concise list of 10 recommendations. Recommendation 1 was:
“The government has a responsibility to create an ex-gratia redress scheme providing financial and non-financial redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh. This scheme should be based on the principles of restorative practice and be co-designed with harmed patients.”
Recommendation 3 was:
“The government should create a two-stage financial redress scheme comprising an Interim Scheme and a Main Scheme.”
Recommendation 4 was:
“The Interim Scheme should award directly harmed patients a fixed sum by way of financial redress. These payments should start during 2025.”
Recommendation 8 was:
“Both the Interim Scheme and the Main Scheme should be administered by an independent body which commands the confidence of patients.”
What is the point of an interim scheme? It is to recognise that there will be tremendous complexity in individual cases, but at least these mesh-injured ladies would get a minimum of help—I think £25,000 has been suggested—straightaway, while the more complex calculations can be done later. Yet despite that being the very point of an interim scheme—that we can do this quickly and work on the harder parts subsequently—we have seen no progress.
What does that remind us of? It reminds me of the Post Office. It reminds me of the infected blood scandal. What do all those things have in common? A large number of people who have been injured in some way or another—either physically, or with their character or freedom damaged, often beyond repair—and who are owed very large sums of money by way of redress or compensation. We know what happens in the end: there is enough public protest to ensure that there is action. I hope that the level of public awareness is no less for this cause than it is for other, similar scandals because all the victims were women. That would be even more disgraceful than that this all happened in the first place.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing the debate.
On behalf of constituents who have written to me, I want to begin by quoting the comments of the Patient Safety Commissioner for England, Professor Hughes, to the BBC when her report was released two years ago:
“These families weren’t listened to by a system that really turned its back, and fobbed them off with information which led to them not only being harmed, but thousands of others being harmed.”
The Hughes report has still not received a proper response—from either the Conservative Government or current Labour Government—and that is the key. That is deeply disappointing and a massive let-down for all those women and children affected by this scandal. I appreciate that this is an important issue, and it warrants due process, but there has been a two-year wait for a response, not to mention that the wait for the families affected has been so much longer.
Although the Patient Safety Commissioner’s remit extends to England only, this is a UK-wide issue. The regulation of human medicines and medicinal products is reserved. The report said that the Department of Health and Social Care should
“engage with the devolved governments”
on where and how the two-stage redress approach should apply across the UK. The UK Government have indicated that those conversations are taking place. That is encouraging, and I hope that it continues, but we in Scotland have been disappointed by this Government more than once. The well-worn saying applies: justice delayed is justice denied.
This Government promised change, and here is a case in point. The unreserved apology offered by the previous Government in July 2021 was welcome, as was the invitation in December 2022
“to look at what a potential redress scheme could look like.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 478.]
But that was more than three years ago. Of course, this Government rightly deserve praise for acting to redress the problem and offer compensation, albeit slowly in some cases, following the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal. Please do not add this situation to that of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, the nuclear test veterans and others, where successive Governments have taken a negligent approach.
In summary, I am speaking up primarily on behalf of my constituents. We need urgent action on this report and a proper system of redress for the countless families affected by this scandal. Please let us get on with addressing recommendation 4 of the Hughes report without delay. I hope the Minister will address that in her response.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing the debate.
I spoke in last year’s debate to raise the experience of my constituents Paula and Gillian, who had experienced the impact of having pelvic mesh fitted. Unfortunately, not much has changed since then, and Paula tells me she is still living with the devastation that pelvic mesh has caused in her life. She had the mesh implanted in 2012, and between 2020 and 2023 she experienced painful bladder stones that were linked to the mesh. She finally had surgery last year to remove a 3 cm bladder stone, which revealed that the mesh had completely eroded into her bladder. She will need further surgery to remove the remainder of the mesh, and will need to undergo a further recovery period. That story is like many others we have heard.
As I did when I spoke about valproate last year, I would like to thank Emma, Janet and the campaigners who are here today, who do so much in this area. With regard to the Hughes report, the Epilepsy Research Institute continues to ask the Government to allocate dedicated ringfenced funding for research into epilepsy drugs and to ensure that regulatory bodies act swiftly on safety concerns, and that pregnant women with epilepsy have access to the best possible information and care.
I will take us down a slightly different path now because, as some Members know, my wife and one of my daughters have epilepsy. When my wife and I tried to conceive, I saw at first hand the issues women have when they have to come off valproate. My wife was seizure-free for 12 years, and her life was turned upside down when she started having seizures again. Those resulted in her falling all the way down the stairs; falling into a bathroom cabinet and trapping her head—I had to try to disengage her; having a seizure in the bath, after which I had to resuscitate her on the bathroom floor; and having to surrender her driving licence. At one stage, she thought she would never go back to her teaching job, although she has now successfully gone back to it. She will be three years seizure-free this year, mainly because she has gone back on to valproate.
Those many years when she had seizures and other issues show why research is desperately needed for drugs to control epilepsy. Unfortunately, for many people, valproate is the only drug that allows them to lead a normal life. I have seen that; the rules are there for a good reason, but my daughter, who is 12 and who, as Members may know, has no mental capacity, has had to come off valproate because of the rules. We need to understand these issues and that wider issue, because for many people valproate is the drug they need to support them. That is not to disrespect Emma and Janet for the work they do to support those, including their children and families, who have been so desperately impacted by valproate.
I welcome the noises we have heard recently about forthcoming updates from the Department, but I also say, on behalf of my constituents and the wider community, that we need concrete measures for the implementation of financial and non-financial redress, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for this valuable and vital debate.
I pay tribute to all families who have suffered a miscarriage of justice, and in this case to all those who have been impacted by sodium valproate or pelvic mesh. I am especially grateful to my constituent Emma Friedman, and I salute her and her son Andy for educating me about this issue, and particularly about sodium valproate, but also for their real strength and perseverance and their unwavering commitment to justice.
Achieving justice should not really be so hard, but unfortunately it is. As the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned, we have seen this all before: 30,000 people were infected and affected in the contaminated blood scandal in the ’70s and ’80s; 700 hard-working postmasters and postmistresses were falsely prosecuted and their lives destroyed; and billions and billions of pounds were wasted on unusable personal protective equipment during a national emergency.
Sodium valproate is an effective drug. It was developed in 1962, and it has transformed the lives of countless people with epilepsy and bipolar disorders. However, it has always been known to cause serious harm when taken during pregnancy, and the risks are stark: around 30% to 40% of children exposed in the womb develop neurodevelopmental disorders and approximately 10% suffer serious congenital malformations, including spina bifida, cleft lips and other lifelong disabilities. The sadness is that 20,000 children in the UK are estimated to have been affected.
The concern is that evidence suggests doctors were aware of the risks from the early years. However, according to the minutes of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, it made the extraordinary decision in the 1970s that fully warning women may cause “fruitless anxiety”. The warnings were not given, and the fact that that decision was made after the thalidomide scandal makes it all the more shocking.
Some parents report that they were warned about the possible side effects to themselves, but never about those to their unborn babies. That pattern appears to have been repeated again and again. Clear warnings did not emerge until the late 1990s and were only strengthened around 2010. The first GP toolkit was published as late as 2015—and it still did not mandate direct, informed conversations with patients, so GPs simply did not have to tell patients.
As has been mentioned already, women were often dismissed. No long-term study was ever conducted; even today, some women are only discovering through their own research why their 30 or 35-year-old child lives with a disability linked to valproate. That is truly shocking, and it is still ongoing—it is not history. The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review chaired by Baroness Cumberlege published its First Do No Harm report in 2020. It concluded that women had been misled and ill-informed, and recommended an independent redress agency, specifically a compensation scheme for those harmed by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept those recommendations. In December 2022 the Patient Safety Commissioner was asked to explore options, and on 7 February 2024 the Hughes report clearly called for an independent two-stage scheme providing both financial and non-financial compensation. The Government have yet to respond.
Meanwhile, families continue to struggle. In many cases it is the mother, who may herself still be suffering with epilepsy, who is the primary carer of a disabled child. Many families are living in difficult socioeconomic conditions and they are barely surviving. We cannot even begin to imagine the emotional toll and the feeling of guilt that many parents talk about. Many feel that it is their fault. We cannot imagine their mental anguish.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I pay tribute to the people who have brought this issue so far. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the emotional toll he speaks of is living large in the lives of those families and that they deserve, at the absolute least, an apology and redress?
Shockat Adam
Yes—that is the least that we can do.
Sodium valproate is effective, as was powerfully demonstrated by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), and women must not abruptly stop taking the medication, as that can be seriously dangerous. However, this issue represents a serious failure of communication between regulators, GPs, specialists, fertility clinics and pharmacists. We must modernise the safety system, with better data sharing, digital alerts, clear warnings on packaging and, above all, mandatory one-to-one consultations so that every woman of child- bearing age understands the risks and the alternatives.
Mistakes will always occur in medicine, but how quickly we acknowledge them, learn from them and compensate those harmed is the true mark of a progressive society. The current Health Secretary, when in Opposition in February 2024, expressed frustration at how slowly justice was progressing. Those words must now be matched with action.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve here today under your chairship, Ms Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate.
I am going to focus on sodium valproate, which was prescribed for decades without proper warnings about the effect on unborn children. As a result, those children were harmed and, despite multiple Government-commissioned reports, families are still waiting for accountability and redress. Two years on from the Hughes report, that delay can no longer be justified.
Sodium valproate is a medicine used to treat epilepsy and bipolar disorder. It is a very effective medicine for many but, if taken while pregnant, it can cause serious harm. Those harms include major physical birth defects, developmental delays, learning disabilities and a significantly increased risk of autism. Many of the children affected will need lifelong care.
For years, despite those risks being known, women and prescribers were not given clear or adequate information about them. Even after the effects were more widely known, prescriptions continued without proper safeguards in place. At least 7,000 children have been affected by this medicine since it came on to the market in 1973, but the real number is quite likely very much higher because of the lack of awareness around foetal valproate spectrum disorder.
My constituent Nicola was one of the many women affected. Her children were profoundly harmed by exposure during pregnancy. Like so many others, Nicola trusted her doctor and followed proper medical advice. She was badly let down. She has explained to me just how immense the impact has been on her and her children and, of course, what a difference compensation would make to her kids’ lives.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a passionate case for her constituent. My constituent Gill has told me how she has suffered for around 11 years as a result of the pelvic mesh scandal. She is a member of the Sling the Mesh group. Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether on sodium valproate or pelvic mesh, such groups deserve to be listened to, and that we should pay tribute to them for campaigning for these courageous women?
Lizzi Collinge
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This scandal follows a pattern that we have seen far too many times before: early warnings ignored, information withheld or downplayed, measures to protect people not effectively enacted, and public bodies closing ranks rather than being open and honest when things go wrong. I have done a lot of work on maternity safety, and I have seen those patterns again and again; the parallels are really clear. Had concerns been properly addressed at the outset, so much harm could have been avoided, and so many more children would not have been born with lifelong, preventable conditions.
Their families have been waiting for far too long. There were initial recommendations for redress six years ago in the Cumberlege review, but the previous Government failed to act. Through the Hughes report, we have an even more comprehensive examination of what needs to be done to support those families, but they are no closer to getting even a formal response to that. That constant delay increases the cost, delays support and builds up ill-will with affected families, who have already spent their lives fighting for their kids.
I urge the Government to provide an interim payment for those families. We know that that is possible; Dr Hughes has outlined how to do it in this case, and we have seen it in the infected blood scandal. The main question for the Minister is this: when will we get a full response to the Hughes report? When will we actually see some action?
Like so many of my colleagues, I pay tribute to Emma and Janet from the Independent Fetal Anti-convulsant Trust, who are here today. Their children were affected by sodium valproate, and they have been tireless campaigners for compensation for affected families—I have known them for many years now. They have been invaluable in raising awareness about foetal valproate spectrum disorder. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), who has worked with In-FACT for many years on this and has been a staunch advocate for their campaign.
Despite all their hard work, progress from the Government’s side seems to have stalled yet again, and families are left waiting. We know that things go wrong in medicine, and that all drugs have side effects, but when a harm that is caused was preventable, and when the state fails to act on warnings, the Government must step up. We should do what we should have done years ago, and give justice and support to the families who have already paid a heavy price for our failings.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I remind Members that it is discourteous not to attend for the opening speeches and then to make interventions. As a result, those Members who have been here from the start and will be here until the end will now have a shorter time limit imposed on them. Because of the number of Members who have indicated that they wish to speak, with the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I am imposing a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of three and a half minutes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for giving us the opportunity to contribute, and allowing me to mention Northern Ireland and what is happening there. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place, and I thank her for all she does.
The Hughes report was for England only, but the ripple effect is UK-wide. As of February 2026, Northern Ireland victims remain in limbo. The Northern Ireland Department of Health has stated that its approach will be informed by the final position of the UK Government—right here—but their final position has not been determined. Because nothing has been done here, nothing happens in Northern Ireland, so we are being affected. I know that the Minister will be responsive, but I ask her to give us some indication of the timescale.
Patients continue to contact me and Members of the Legislative Assembly in an attempt to see the adoption of the report’s recommendation, and the phrasing is that families feel abandoned by the lack of progress and financial compensation. I can understand that the Department of Health (NI) needs guidance from Westminster; the UK as a whole is waiting to see what implementation and redress will look like. While financial payments are stalled, some progress has been made on the non-financial report, with the continued operation of specialist mesh centres and improved clinical guidelines for prescribing valproates. That is welcome but—to put it simply—it is not enough.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Women have been left in lifelong pain; children have been born with preventable disabilities; families have endured financial and emotional stress; many women have lost their jobs, their homes and even their marriages. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although financial and non-financial support are important, to prevent such issues in the future it is also important that the dots are joined up early and that early warning signs are not buried in bureaucracy?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. A specially accredited unit operates at Belfast city hospital, featuring a multidisciplinary team to treat mesh-related problems. If complex removal surgery is required, there is also the option to perform it locally, so we are doing our best in Northern Ireland to address the issue. Even so, advocacy groups such as Sling the Mesh Northern Ireland have expressed concerns over the conflict of interest in requiring the original implanting surgeon to sign off on referrals for outside treatment. All those factors must be taken into consideration, which was the very point my hon. Friend made.
Between 1998 and 2018, some 11,000 vaginal mesh implants were performed in Northern Ireland. Other Department of Health figures indicate that nearly 7,000 procedures occurred between 2005 and 2015 alone. With conservative estimates suggesting that between 5% and 10% of those patients experienced significant problems, the scale of the issue is clear.
For children affected, while the UK-wide estimate is roughly 20,000, specific Northern Ireland figures often have to be extrapolated. Reports for the Republic of Ireland, for instance, estimate that there are some 1,250 children affected there; those significant numbers down south are separate from Northern Ireland figures, but based on similar prescribing patterns. As of 2023, the Patient Safety Commissioner noted that even now, across the UK, an average of three babies a month are born having been exposed to the drug.
I will not take an extra minute for the intervention, Dr Allin-Khan, because I recognise that others need time to speak.
All those people, including the 600 members of Sling the Mesh NI, are awaiting action. On this, the second anniversary of the report, the stagnation of action is not acceptable. I take this opportunity to speak on their behalf, as well as on behalf of my and my hon. Friend’s constituents in Northern Ireland: I ask that we stop waiting and start moving on the compensation, providing help for those who are suffering this very minute, even as this debate takes place.
My request for the Minister is that we hurry the process, so that we in Northern Ireland can fall in behind what happens here in Westminster. Let us not see a third anniversary without fulfilment of the recommendations and of our word in this place.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
It is, as always, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan, but it is not a pleasure to be here marking two years since the publication of the Hughes report. Sadly, in that time, those recommendations seem to have been in a holding pattern somewhere in the Department for Health and Social Care.
Other Members have rightly spoken about the victims. Today, I think mostly about one of my constituents, who contacted me more than five years ago, raising concerns about the tragic loss of her son when he was 30. She believes that the sodium valproate medication that she took during his pregnancy was responsible for his learning difficulties and, ultimately, his early passing. Quite understandably, she feels let down by the state. She is also concerned about the profound effect that it may have had on her other children, and the fact that she was not alerted to the risks of this by the authorities.
What I find particularly disappointing, having contacted numerous Secretaries of State during that time, is that we have had no more than vague commitments and assurances that this issue will be addressed in due course. That does not cut it for my constituent; nor, sadly, does it do anything to assuage the guilt that she—wrongly, in my opinion—feels.
With other national scandals, such as infected blood and the Post Office Horizon system, the Government have eventually provided funding for mechanisms to compensate those affected, but they too had to wait decades. It is disappointing that the recognition that we all had at the time, that those systems were introduced that those delays had compounded the injustice, has not translated into any visible progress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh.
I agree with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that, in those schemes, the interim payment system has been seen as a way to get at least some measure of redress. I am disappointed that we have not been able to learn from that experience and use a similar system for the people we are talking about today. I have sympathy for the view set out by the Secretary of State that redress must be considered alongside that for other patient groups, but that does not justify inaction.
Those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh are frustrated by the delays and the obfuscation. The state has acknowledged and apologised for its failings. It has commissioned and published two reports on the matter, both of which have recommended that redress is provided to patients, but we have reached the point where reports and recommendations are not enough. It is time for the Government to act, and to provide the support that the many victims of this scandal deserve and need to manage their ongoing conditions. The can has been kicked down the road for too long; campaigners and those affected are understandably frustrated and anxious for change.
I would like to ask the Minister two things, echoing the questions raised by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green). First, can the Minister confirm whether there has been an estimate of the total cost of providing redress? If so, can she share that today? That might, at least, give campaigners some hope that things are actually moving forward. Secondly, can she confirm whether she has discussed funding redress with the Treasury for inclusion in future fiscal events? I look forward to the Minister’s response—or, if she is unable to provide specific answers today, to a commitment that she or a colleague will do so in future, and a clear sense those who have suffered are now being listened to.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Order. I know that people are keen to hear from the Minister, so I will bring the speaking time down to three minutes. If there are any interventions, I will have to bring it down even further.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this vital and timely debate. First, I want to recognise the victims of the sodium valproate and pelvic mesh scandals, their families and especially the women who are yet again, through no fault of their own, another example of the UK’s unacceptable gender health gap.
I have spoken about my constituent Mary on several occasions in the House. It is a pleasure to welcome her and other women affected by these scandals here to watch this debate. I thank Mary and other campaigning mothers, such as Karen and Deborah, who have already been mentioned, for their tireless work to bring foetal valproate syndrome to my and other Members’ attention, and to keep this injustice in the spotlight. Mothers such as Mary have had to reckon not just with looking after their children with complex needs, who regularly require round-the-clock care, but with continuing their exhausting campaign work to try to keep the focus on the plight of their children in an attempt to receive better support.
One of the points that Mary and other mothers with children affected by foetal valproate syndrome are clearest about is that this is an evolving disability. No one knows the true damage that the drug may be causing victims as they grow older; those symptoms are evolving as they do, and children’s complex conditions often deteriorate. That can make appointments with GPs and other healthcare specialists incredibly difficult and complex. The lack of awareness and understanding about the situation among the medical community simply exacerbates the issue, and makes it even harder for mothers to get on with helping their children. It is vital that measures are brought into the clinician training curriculum, and those absolutely must feature testimonies from victims of medical scandals so that the medical community truly understand what they are facing.
It cannot be underlined enough that all these challenges are not hypothetical questions to these women and their families; they are their everyday realities. For that reason, it is incredibly frustrating—and, to be quite honest, angering—for those mothers that, more than two whole years after the publication of Professor Henrietta Hughes’s report into sodium valproate and mesh implants, the Government have not only not responded but have, of late, been stating that they
“will respond in due course.”
I am sorry, but what a totally rubbish, useless and uncaring answer! Much is said about distrust in our politics and our politicians in this country; that sort of mealy-mouthed answer, I am afraid, does absolutely nothing to restore that trust. We must do better.
I have so much more to say, but I am conscious of time. I will just say that Mary told me this morning, “We are exhausted from fighting.” Her plea is for MPs to find out more, to do more and to raise more awareness. I leave that plea with the House. The Government have an obligation to support families like Mary’s, and I hope that they will do the right thing.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for introducing the debate. Like other Members, I was here last year on the first anniversary of the Hughes report. It is a stark reminder of how issues can drift. For those who have suffered, the passing year has not just slipped by quietly, yet we still hear the same language from Ministers about a response coming “in due course”. Those words ring very hollow to the victims whose patience has long since run out.
Ministers have previously said that this is a complex issue requiring action across multiple Departments. I readily accept that, but that is precisely why Professor Hughes recommended the interim scheme and those payments in 2025—and 2025 came and went with no response and no payments. Professor Hughes wrote that report, as she said, to drive action; she would not have done it otherwise. It is about how the compensation is paid, not whether it is paid, and it is extraordinary, frankly, that she felt she had to use statutory powers to go to No. 10 and the Prime Minister to drive progress on the issue.
In the debate last year, I spoke about my constituents Colleen and Andy, and other families who have been blighted by the scandal. When I met them they talked about their son, Byron. Colleen has epilepsy and was prescribed sodium valproate, but she was never warned that it could harm her unborn child. Byron lives with autism, learning disabilities, communication difficulties and epilepsy. The family’s experience is far too common. Families like them deserve decisive action from the Government. When I pressed the Health Secretary at health questions last month, he said that we were
“right to hold the Government’s feet to the fire”,—[Official Report, 13 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 753.]
He said that work was happening across Government and promised updates. But there have not been any updates.
The Health Secretary has previously spoken about the failure of the state to recognise and put right wrongs and its mistakes, yet two years on we are still waiting for some action. Victims do not need any more words; they need action. As Professor Hughes has said, the lack of a response feels devastating to those families. For the sake of the families who have suffered, the Government need to act now. There has been plenty of time to learn from other compensation schemes, to secure funding from the Treasury for compensation and to set out even just a timeline for redress.
I ask the Minister: when will interim payments finally be made to those affected and give families the relief they urgently need? At the very least, can the Minister commit that the Government will make interim payments this year? Otherwise, it would be an utter disgrace.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Thank you for your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) on securing this debate. I will put one family at the heart of my response: my constituent Catherine and her son Matthew, whom I mentioned in Prime Minister’s questions last February, 12 months ago.
When she was pregnant, Catherine did what any parent would do: she trusted the medical advice that she was given. She was prescribed sodium valproate, a medicine used to treat epilepsy. Matthew is now 24 years old, and as a result of that medical advice he has lifelong needs and a learning disability. He has done incredibly well, securing a part-time job and maintaining a level of independence while walking around the village where he lives.
Matthew was also incredibly proud to take part in the 2024 general election, and he voted in the hope that there would finally be redress for those affected by the valproate scandal. Matthew has since written to the Prime Minister; I put on the record my frustration at seeing how his correspondence was passed from pillar to post. It was only after several chases by me that Matthew received a response—a response entirely inappropriate for somebody with a learning disability.
Catherine and her family provide significant support to Matthew, and his life is all the richer for it. But that is not the case for all children impacted by sodium valproate, and there will come a point in time when Catherine will not be able to provide that support any longer. Catherine, and other families in the Public Gallery today, fear that day, and they want the state to ensure that specialist assessments, therapies, adaptations, lost earnings and round-the-clock care are provisioned for now, so that a secure future for their children is guaranteed.
That is why the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report is so important. It sets out a clear and workable route, and it is the responsibility of this Government to acknowledge that. Every month of delay is another month when parents are left to patch together support, fight for diagnoses, battle through fragmented services and carry costs that should never have landed on their shoulders.
Today I ask the Minister directly, as I asked the Prime Minister 12 months ago: will the Government commit to a clear timetable for implementing the Hughes recommendations? For Catherine and Matthew, the argument that the situation is complex simply does not land. Their lives are already complex—more complex than most of us can even imagine. What they are asking the Government to do is simple: accept responsibility for the scandal and act now while the redress can still be meaningful.
The question today is whether this Government—the Government who both Catherine and Matthew were desperate to see when I first met them, as a candidate—will match that urgency with action. I hope that the Minister will take seriously all the representations made today.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate.
We have had the findings of the Hughes report for over two years now. It called on the Government to provide financial redress to patients and families affected by the use of sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. The previous Government refused to act and increasingly it feels as though the current Government are also burying their head in the sand rather than confronting the scale of this injustice.
My constituent Nick is one of those living with the consequences of that inaction. His son Oliver was born with foetal valproate syndrome after Nick’s wife took valproate during pregnancy to control her epilepsy. Tragically, Nick’s wife has since died, leaving Nick to raise Oliver alone. Nick told me that it is hard for him to adequately explain how difficult Oliver’s life has been and how much he worries about his son’s future.
Valproate has changed Oliver’s life forever, and all Nick wants is answers and meaningful action from the Government. Quite rightly, Nick continually chases me for answers on when the Government will make a decision on the Hughes report. On behalf of Nick and Oliver, I ask very directly: can the Minister say when we will finally get a response to the Hughes report? How much longer do the Government need to “carefully consider” recommendations that have already been scrutinised, evidenced and endorsed? Families such as Nick’s cannot wait indefinitely while the Government deliberate.
I take this opportunity to say that it is also vital that we recognise the devastating impact of Primodos, a hormonal pregnancy test used until the 1980s. Primodos was not considered by the Hughes report, but it was part of the Cumberlege review of hundreds of children born with foetal abnormalities. Many of those affected are now older; tragically, some of them are dying without ever receiving acknowledgment, accountability or compensation.
The pelvic mesh, valproate and Primodos scandals are some of the most significant health scandals of modern times. They have disproportionately affected women, yet time and again we see the same pattern: warnings being ignored; evidence being dismissed; and victims being left to fight for justice on their own. These scandals have gone on for far too long, with little action from successive Governments. Those affected by valproate and Primodos are not asking for the impossible; they simply want those responsible to acknowledge the mistakes made and to take responsibility for the harms caused.
If we are serious about restoring trust in our healthcare system and serious about supporting women, we must start by delivering justice to those who have been failed so profoundly.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
We now come to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call Caroline Voaden.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate.
Last Saturday marked two years since the publication of the Hughes report—two years since Patient Safety Commissioner Dr Henrietta Hughes set out clear and compassionate recommendations for redress for those affected by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Yet two years on, families are still waiting, women are still suffering, children are still living with devastating disabilities, and the Government are still silent.
Like many other speakers this morning, I salute the courage of all those who have campaigned so hard on this issue for so long, many of them doing so while living with devastating injury. I would like to share the human cost of this scandal by giving an example of a life destroyed by a medical procedure that was badly performed and that went horrifically wrong. That has been the experience of my constituent, Susan. In 2009, Susan underwent a transvaginal tape procedure for mild stress urinary incontinence. The mesh was catastrophically misplaced, causing immediate and lasting harm. Within months, her health had deteriorated so badly that she was forced to close her Care Quality Commission-registered medical clinic, and to abandon a professional career that she had built up over three decades.
Believing the mesh to be the cause of her poor health, Susan sought help and was referred to a surgeon presented to her as an expert in mesh removal. She gave clear written consent for the removal of all remaining mesh. Instead—unbelievably—an additional reconstructive procedure was carried out without her knowledge or consent. It was never discussed beforehand and never explained afterwards. It was not even disclosed to her GP. Susan was then told that the mesh was “probably all removed”. It was not. Years later, specialist MRI imaging confirmed that substantial mesh remained embedded in her pelvis and abdominal wall. However, by the time the truth became clear, she was out of time to pursue a legal claim.
Recently, when Susan tried to pursue her case again, the legal system demanded over £10,000 for a barrister’s opinion. Given the loss of her high-end professional career, she no longer had the financial means to proceed. The financial ruin caused by the mesh injuries effectively barred her from accessing the courts and seeking the compensation that she so rightly deserves. Today, she lives with constant pain, severe incontinence, chronic infection and profound psychological trauma. Her financial losses run into the hundreds of thousands of pounds, and she is still waiting for a Government response that should have come two years ago.
I will share another constituent’s experience. In 2016, Caroline underwent mesh insertion. Within just three weeks, serious complications began, but what followed was not prompt medical care; it was six years of being repeatedly dismissed and gaslighted by multiple healthcare professionals, including the very surgeon who had implanted the mesh. When Caroline expressed concerns during an internal examination, the surgeon’s demeanour changed significantly for the worse. Her symptoms continued to be disregarded and for 12 months she had to self-advocate persistently before finally being referred to a specialist mesh complications service.
The specialists identified that the mesh had twisted, leaving Caroline with no option but full mesh removal surgery. That surgery took place in July 2023, more than seven years after the original procedure. The impact on her life has been devastating. She has endured years of significant physical pain and declining health. She has been forced to become financially dependent on her personal savings, as her ability to work has been severely limited. Universal credit and NHS travel support are means-tested, leaving her out of pocket for essential medical travel and other related expenses.
Susan’s story is not just one person’s story, and neither is Caroline’s. Across the country, thousands of women are living with that reality every single day. Women are living with chronic pain, infections and life-altering complications from pelvic mesh implants. That mesh was supposed to help them, but instead it eroded into their organs, caused urinary problems and bleeding, and left them unable to work, exercise or have intimate relationships with the people they love—in short, unable to live normal lives.
As well as that, children are living with devastating neurodevelopmental disorders and birth defects caused by sodium valproate exposure in the womb. Parents are at breaking point, struggling with the emotional, practical and financial burden of caring for children whose conditions were entirely preventable. As Janet Williams and Emma Murphy, two mothers of children with foetal valproate syndrome, wrote to the Prime Minister and Chancellor:
“Families affected by sodium valproate exposure do not have the luxury of time. The children are growing, their care needs are increasing, and their families are at breaking point.”
Let me remind the House of the timeline of this shameful delay. In July 2020, the Cumberlege review recommended urgent redress. The Government refused. Two and a half years later, they finally tasked the Patient Safety Commissioner to look at the issue again. On 7 February 2024, two years ago last Saturday, Dr Henrietta Hughes published her report. It was unequivocal in calling for an independent redress scheme, including £100,000 interim payments for valproate victims, and comprehensive medical and financial support for mesh survivors.
Those were not radical demands; they were the minimum response required to address preventable tragedies that have devastated thousands of lives, yet the response remains a hollow promise of careful consideration. There was no published response from the previous Government, and 18 months into this one, we are still told that action will come in due course. The delay is not just a bureaucratic failure, but part of a disturbing pattern seen in the Primodos and infected blood scandals. It is a pattern where women and vulnerable patients are ignored, evidence is dismissed and recommendations are left to gather dust. Running through it all, as Susan and Caroline’s cases demonstrate so starkly, is a persistent culture of cover-up and denial. Compensation alone is not enough. We must ensure that such harm is never inflicted again.
The Liberal Democrats are calling for a policy response that protects patients from the horrors of mesh implant side effects in absolute terms, with a full and continuing moratorium. Far too often, the recommendations from inquiries into medical scandals are neglected. There should be annual reporting to Parliament on progress, including on how the Government are addressing every issue highlighted by the Hughes report.
Central to preventing future scandals is ending the culture of cover-up that has been exposed time and again by medical scandal inquiries—the culture that allowed Susan to be told her mesh had been removed when it had not, and Caroline to be gaslighted for six years by the very professionals who should have helped her—and the doubtful legal procedures outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham.
That is why we support the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—which will enshrine a statutory duty of candour on all public authorities and provide bereaved families with equal legal representation at inquests. The collapse of the Bill at the eleventh hour was deeply disappointing. Ministers now need to listen to the Hillsborough families and urgently bring forward a solution that ensures that everyone, including the security services, is covered by this law.
However, a duty of candour must go hand in hand with protection for brave individuals who speak up when they see harm being done. We strongly oppose the Government’s decision to scrap key patient safety organisations, including whistleblowing and speak-up programmes such as the National Guardian’s Office. We also oppose moves to remove patient voice, including the proposed abolition of local Healthwatch organisations.
The sodium valproate and pelvic mesh scandals represent fundamental failures of our healthcare system to protect vulnerable women and children. It was a major failure of the previous Conservative Government not to deliver compensation, which was recommended by not only the Patient Safety Commissioner, but the Cumberlege review that preceded it. The Liberal Democrats have consistently called for every recommendation from the Cumberlege review to be accepted and for a full response to the Hughes report setting out how the Government will provide redress for these terrible injustices.
Two years since the Hughes report is long enough to wait. Four years since Cumberlege is far too long. For women like Susan, who have been waiting since 2009 for justice, 16 years is unconscionable. Families deserve answers. Women deserve compensation and corrective surgery where appropriate. Children deserve the support and care they need. They all deserve justice. Everyone affected by the valproate and vaginal mesh scandals should have an apology, compensation, corrective surgery where needed, and psychological support.
I ask the Minister again: what active conversations are currently being held with the Treasury about redress payments? I urge the Government to commit today to publishing a full response to the Hughes report, implementing its recommendations in full and ensuring that no family or individual affected by medical negligence ever has to fight this hard or this long for basic recognition of the harm that was done to them.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. On behalf of the Opposition, I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing today’s debate. She has campaigned tirelessly on this issue, giving a voice to thousands of women who have been let down by the state. I also thank Henrietta Hughes for the Hughes report.
Thousands of pregnant women were prescribed sodium valproate between 1973 and 2017 despite growing evidence of harm. In 1972, scientists found in animal studies that it was harmful to foetuses, and in 1984, foetal valproate syndrome entered the medical literature. Studies in the 2000s highlighted the link between valproate and birth defects. I remember, as perhaps you do, Dr Allin-Khan, learning about it at medical school. Yet it was only in 2018 that the valproate pregnancy prevention programme came into force, which was too late for more than 20,000 children with entirely preventable disability.
Over 10,000 women in England were harmed by pelvic mesh. Mesh kits were issued in the 2000s to treat urinary incontinence and prolapse, despite a lack of long-term safety data. Women suffered hideous complications: mesh tearing through tissue, bleeding, infection and sexual dysfunction. Shockingly, it took until 2018 for NHS England to suspend the routine use of these implants.
I want to raise the case of a lady, now in her 30s, who had a mesh implant put in to prevent a hernia in her abdominal wall, something that is often missed from the discussions about mesh. She describes how she is unable to leave her home because there is a hole in her stomach wall where the mesh has eroded. It cannot be removed. The surgeon described it as being stuck in there like chewing gum. She described her wish for a family. She described the smell of the constant infections. She described the fear of waiting for the next infection and wondering whether the sepsis from it will kill her. Yet there seems to be no way for her to get this mesh removed.
The previous Government did not sit on their hands. The former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), commissioned the independent medicines and medical devices safety review after hearing from over 700 affected people and medical stakeholders. The previous Government issued a formal apology to victims and appointed a Patient Safety Commissioner. They began to establish a network of centres to provide treatment, care and advice for those affected by the implanted mesh. I would be grateful for an update on that from the Minister, particularly in the light of the case that I described.
In 2022, the previous Government asked the new commissioner to report on options for compensating victims. Dr Henrietta Hughes did so in February 2024, a full 24 months ago, and that report set out what justice should look like for victims: an interim redress scheme and a permanent one to follow. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, it was a package of clear, practical steps to right the wrongs done to so many women. Yet two years on, we are no further forward.
After the 2024 election, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked the Government when they would respond to the Hughes report. The response was that the Government would consider the recommendations and meet with the commissioner. In January 2025, when asked by Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick, the Government said they were “carefully considering” report and would provide an update “at the earliest opportunity.” In March, in this very room, a Government Minister said that recommendations were being actively considered and that a report was coming “at the earliest opportunity.” In that debate, the Minister suggested that research by Dr Rebecca Bromley was material. Can the Minister update us on that research?
In October, when the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) asked whether funding had been allocated for redress, a Minister said that recommendations were being carefully considered and a response would come at the earliest opportunity. In December, when the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), asked whether financial support was forthcoming, the Government said that recommendations were—still—being carefully considered. Last month, when my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) asked whether funding was forthcoming, a Minister said the Government were “carefully considering” the report and an update was coming “in due course”.
What we have heard from Ministers is so frustrating. For 18 months, Members have asked what is being done, and time and again, this Labour Government have refused to give a clear answer. I note that the previous debate was responded to by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), and both she and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), have answered questions on the matter. We have a different Minister today, and it is a delight to see her, but perhaps she can confirm which Minister takes responsibility for this issue in the Commons.
I have some further questions for the Minister. On which date did work begin on a response to the Hughes report? How many civil servants are working on the response? Have there been any conversations with the Treasury about the costs of the redress scheme? If work has been taking place, why is it invisible? If, in fact, nothing has been done, why have the Government persisted in telling Members that a response is forthcoming? Why, despite Dr Hughes visiting the Department in December, has nothing materially changed? Will the Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) asked, make an interim payment this calendar year?
Over the weekend, the Patient Safety Commissioner told ITV:
“This is a disgraceful way that patients and families are being treated by those in power.”
She is absolutely right. The state’s No. 1 duty is to protect the public from harm, yet after inflicting harm, the state has failed to make things right. This is part of a pattern under Labour whereby systemic failings, particularly those affecting women, go unresolved. Every day that victims of mesh and valproate do not receive justice, confidence in health professionals is undermined.
We know that the Chancellor is fast running out of other people’s money, but it is wrong to balance the books on the backs of those who are suffering. Justice is the state’s duty. It is not optional. It is not something just to be carefully considered for years on end, indefinitely, while women and children suffer. The Government can respect the victims and the work of the Patient Safety Commissioner today by answering our questions, or they can continue their parade of platitudes and evasions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under you chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House following the second anniversary of the report by the Patient Safety Commissioner, Dr Henrietta Hughes. I pay tribute to her work and, as others have, to Baroness Cumberlege for her work in the lead-up to that report. I also thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate. It has been a thoughtful and constructive debate on an issue that is highly sensitive for Members across the House, for campaigners and people who are here today, and for people watching online.
To answer the question from the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), I am responding to this debate on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). He is the lead Minister for this area, but unfortunately cannot be here today—as Members will understand, that is often an issue, but I am happy to stand in. This is a matter of great interest to him personally. As colleagues know, he is a clinician, so has valuable insight into patient safety and how it works from a clinical perspective.
My hon. Friend wanted me to be clear that he is very happy to meet campaigners, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked, to discuss our work in more detail. He met the Patient Safety Commissioner in December to discuss the Department’s ongoing work in relation to her report. Since then, he has continued his engagement with the commissioner on how we can do more to address the immediate needs of those affected by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. As we have heard, and as many of us know from constituents—I know that many other Members have affected constituents but were not able to attend the debate—some of these women’s lives, as well as those of their families, have been changed forever because they were misled about the effects of sodium valproate and surgical mesh.
Many examples have been given in the debate, and constituents of mine have shared the most intimate details of the impact of sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. It has been truly harrowing for me and many other Members to listen to those details, as I am sure it was for those women who bravely shared them with a stranger, their Member of Parliament. That point was made well by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), who spoke on behalf of her constituents.
We owe honesty, transparency and contrition to all the women affected, and we are determined to make sure that the lessons are learned and to keep patient safety at the heart of the reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) rightly highlighted the issue of trust in the system, which is so important as we go forwards. Our focus remains on building a system that listens and that acts with speed, compassion and proportionality. Everybody who has suffered complications from sodium valproate and pelvic mesh implants has my deepest sympathies. I express my gratitude to Dr Hughes and her team for the report that was published two years ago, and I am grateful, too, for her continued engagement with the Department as Patient Safety Commissioner.
Caroline Voaden
The Minister said that she supports a system that acts with speed. Could she give us an idea of when there might be a response to the report?
Karin Smyth
I want to address the main concerns and, as I said, the Under-Secretary of State is very keen to talk with Members and campaigners.
We remain committed to working alongside Dr Hughes and her team to better support patients and ensure that steps are taken to prevent similar harm in the future, both in this area and across the wider patient safety landscape. That is obviously crucial. Many Members mentioned the importance of women’s voices being heard in this area, and many of us were involved in the campaign in the previous Parliament. We must make sure that women’s voices are better heard in the health system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) said, the campaigners are doing that, and I pay tribute, as she did, to In-FACT, as well as Sling the Mesh and the very many other patient groups that have raised this on behalf of women. They should not have to, but I commend their work.
I assure Members and people listening to the debate that we remain committed to advancing this work across Government and to looking at lessons from any cases in which patient safety has been affected. I fully understand why colleagues are asking for an official response to the Hughes report here and now. It is important that we get it right, and we need to carefully consider all options and the associated costs before coming to a decision on the report’s specific recommendations. I am sure that many Members have seen the letter that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State wrote to the Patient Safety Commissioner in November, and I reconfirm, as he wrote, that that work includes looking at the costs.
We must take forward the lessons learned from this work—including, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) highlighted, work on similar areas—and the Government are doing that. We must ensure that our approach provides meaningful, often ongoing support to those who have been so profoundly affected.
The Government have to consider options for financial redress collectively, with input from a number of Departments, and we started that work immediately. As was mentioned, the previous Government did not respond to the report when it was published, but we have picked up that work. Initially, Baroness Merron was the lead Minister, and it is now the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West.
I assure the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) that my hon. Friend recently met the devolved Government Health Ministers to discuss their respective positions further. He will continue to do so across all devolved Government areas; as Members have said, patients there are affected too. We have to proceed with care to ensure the correct approach. We are committed to providing updates at the earliest opportunity, once all relevant advice and implications are considered.
Karin Smyth
I will continue, if I may.
On non-financial redress, the Department is committed to meeting the needs of current patients with clinical requirements via three principal avenues. The first is improving clinical services and treatment to patients, and the second is commissioning further research and development programmes on sodium valproate and pelvic mesh to address the remaining knowledge gaps. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for sharing again his personal experiences and for laying bare the deep complexity and the need for more research and development, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is committed. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), with his clinical knowledge, also added useful experience to the debate. That is absolutely what my hon. Friend will be taking forward. The third avenue is initiating longer-term preventive measures that will help ensure that the system can pick up on adverse trends in patient care and act more quickly in the future.
I will take each avenue in turn. On improvement of clinical services, although the number of women up to the age of 54 who have been prescribed sodium valproate has nearly halved since 2018, there is a significant group of patients already affected who have complex and varied needs, and the health system has to ensure that that cohort receives high-quality and tailored care. NHS England has committed to a pilot project on foetal exposure to medicine in the north of England, involving multiple clinical specialties and a wide range of clinical experts, that will undertake a comprehensive review of the service. Eighty patients have been seen as part of the pilot, representing 560 appointments and 650 clinical hours. We have received feedback from patients on the value for their quality of life of being seen by clinical experts and wider multidisciplinary teams. We are considering options to commission this service further nationwide.
NHS England has also completed an internal review of mesh centres across England. Mesh centres undoubtedly offer a valuable and impactful service, with nearly 3,000 patients now seen since their introduction. However, as a relatively new service, distinct areas for improvement remain, and we will look closely at the results of the internal review and promptly deliver the necessary improvements.
With regard to further research and development, the National Institute for Health and Care Research has been commissioned for a £1.56 million study to develop patient-reported outcome measures for prolapse, incontinence and mesh-complication surgery. In the longer term, those measures will be integrated into the pelvic floor registry, which monitors and improves the safety of mesh patients. Further research is also taking place in this area, and we will ensure that future work takes into account the recommendations of the pilot project and of the mesh centre audit.
On longer-term prevention work, recent discussions with NHS England and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency indicate that longer-term improvements in digitisation will help position the UK as a world leader in reducing valproate-exposed births and applying the insights to other teratogenic medicines. The Department will explore increasing centralisation and visibility of the annual risk acknowledgment form across care settings, as highlighted in the Hughes report, and may consider expanding the medicines and pregnancy registry to better link data with research outcomes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Karin Smyth
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East.
Seamus Logan
I appreciate the complexities of the steps that the Minister is outlining. Nevertheless, in repeated contributions, Members have asked for a timescale, so will the Minister respond by the end of the Session? Will she respond by the autumn? Will she respond by the end of the calendar year? Can she give us some clarification, please?
Karin Smyth
I am happy to answer that at the end of my comments, but first I will take the intervention from the right hon. Member for New Forest East.
Sir Julian Lewis
I appreciate that the Minister does not have primary responsibility for this area, but it worries me that we are hearing an awful lot about process. What I fear is really going on is that Ministers have been told at the highest possible level, by the Chancellor or a Treasury Minister, that the money for redress will not be made available and they have to take that as their starting point. She may not be able to confirm this now, but I would like an answer as to whether a conversation of that sort has taken place.
Karin Smyth
I thank both Members for their comments. Experienced parliamentarians will know what I will be able to say. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, outlined in his letter, costs—I think that is what the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East was alluding to—are part of the overall consideration, along with the complexity, in the work that he is leading on behalf of the Department across all Government Departments.
Karin Smyth
I am going to close by emphasising again that we are profoundly sorry, of course, for the enduring harm experienced by women affected by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Their pain, which we keep in our minds at all times, and the life-altering consequences they have suffered are truly heartbreaking. We recognise the immense toll, much of which we have heard about again today, that this has taken on them and their families. We have listened closely to calls for clarity, speed and decisive action on the report’s recommendations. To be very clear, we are committed to setting out our response at the earliest credible opportunity while ensuring that it is both robust and deliverable. I think that, as we have heard again today, Members here and people listening recognise the complexity of that. I assure those listening that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is determined to progress this matter, and he is willing to meet campaigners and discuss that in more detail, as Members have asked us to do today.
Sarah Green
In his November letter to the Patient Safety Commissioner to which the Minister referred, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), states in reference to redress:
“Additional information is still required on the practicalities of further action on this area. This includes approaches to cost and affordability, legislation and scope of any potential redress. No final timetable has been agreed at present.”
The thoughtful and insightful contributions we have heard today show that Members are not going to stop asking the question. In tribute to the many families and campaigners, who are so inspiring and yet exhausted, I hope very much that we are not here in 12 months’ time dusting down the same speeches and chasing for progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the second anniversary of the Hughes Report.
New Medium Helicopter Programme
(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
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I will call Adam Dance to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the New Medium Helicopter programme.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the Minister for coming to answer pressing questions. I recognise how hard he and his team work and the headache that we must be giving him by going on about the new medium helicopter.
After retiring the Puma from service last year, the UK currently has a capability gap. We have no medium-lift helicopter ability for our armed forces, which means there is a clear requirement for helicopters to transport troops, equipment and supplies over long distances and difficult terrain on a wide range of missions. Although we hear a lot about the future of warfare, in the age of drones and even greater technology development, crewed helicopters are still key to a joint force that will allow our military to respond effectively to the ever-growing threats we face.
We have a gap that needs to be filled. That is what the new medium helicopter programme is for. As the last remaining bidder for the £1 billion contract, Leonardo is ready to fill that gap by offering the AW149 helicopter, built at the home of British helicopters in my constituency of Yeovil. The Minister will tell us that it is far more complex than many people outside defence may realise, but I think he can appreciate that it does seem quite simple. There is one bidder in a contract; that is a win, win, win. It fulfils a capability requirement, will help to boost defence spending and modernise our armed forces. It will provide investment in the British jobs and apprenticeships in Yeovil, which is what the Prime Minister told me he is determined to deliver.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is right to highlight jobs in his constituency and further afield, because many other companies depend on this work. Does he agree that this contract is crucial for replacing the RAF Puma HC2 fleet, and is critical to national security? The Minister and Government must prioritise and fund the replacement accordingly. The dithering must come to an end and action must be taken.
Adam Dance
I agree that we need action. We need to ensure that we arm our forces with the correct equipment now. By contrast, not awarding the contract is lose, lose, lose, particularly for my constituency.
The future of the new medium helicopter is the future of Yeovil. Leonardo has been clear that if the programme does not go ahead, it will need to seriously consider the future of the Yeovil site. That puts more than 3,000 skilled jobs at the Yeovil site directly at risk, alongside 12,000 in the regional supply chain and the £320 million contribution to local GDP. It would also lead to a huge loss of investment in my community—starting with £1.2 million to Yeovil college, which does fantastic work training the skilled people we need in our defence sector—and the loss of the Westlands entertainment centre, and would leave a new solar farm unfinished, and so much more. It will be the death of my town. Local businesses have told me that they will shut overnight if Leonardo goes. House prices will fall and young people trained in Yeovil will leave.
Not awarding the new medium helicopter also has a knock-on effect for our country’s defence. That point gets a little lost in jargon of sovereign capability. If the site in Yeovil closes, we risk losing our country’s ability to build our own helicopters from start to finish, at the exact time that the world is becoming unstable and insecure. Put like that, as people back home tell me, it sounds insane not to get on with the programme and secure the future of the Yeovil site.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. He will know that many people who work at the Leonardo site live in West Dorset and commute. The company is responsible for providing training and apprentice opportunities for thousands of my constituents. I feel like every strategic defence review about the urgent need to speed up procurement—that is repeated ad nauseam. Even the most recent one recognises that the uncertainty around procurement undermines national security. My hon. Friend has rightly identified that there was a sole bidder, and that the programme is vital for the UK’s sovereign capability. Does he agree that unless the Government start to show that they are serious about speeding up procurement in the defence sector, we will lose vital industries, such as those that secure our ability to make helicopters, as well as thousands of businesses in the supply chain that support them?
Adam Dance
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. This issue affects not just our constituencies but many constituencies in the south-west. Leonardo is the backbone of our area, and we must secure the contract, but the effect on our area is not the only knock-on effect. The site in Yeovil is making fantastic progress on the Proteus uncrewed helicopter, which was recently successfully tested. Even though we are one of the few nations leading on such technology, if Leonardo cannot sustain its current workforce, skills and funding, we will lose those skills and could potentially lose Proteus. Once those skills are gone, they are really hard to get back, so not awarding the contract will undermine the Government’s drive for greater autonomy in our armed forces.
Given all that, why the delay? As far back as June last year I was told to “listen out”. I have heard so little since that I was worried that I might have lost my hearing—but don’t worry: I had my ears checked and they are working just fine. It seems that the problem is getting the defence investment plan to work. We were told that the DIP would answer all. It would set out the Government’s plan for spending on our defence and armed forces, including on the new medium helicopter, but at this point we might as well call it the delayed investment plan.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The new Chief of the Defence Staff told me, as a member of the Defence Committee, that the medium helicopter programme was still very much on the armed forces’ priorities list. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to ensure that it is in the defence investment plan, because the service chiefs are asking for it? It is not all about uncrewed capability; we will always need crewed capability. This programme needs to be prioritised now, even before the defence investment plan comes out, because the Minister will tell us that they are still working it through. The Treasury and the Ministry of Defence need to get their act together and reinforce the programme to save the 3,000 jobs, plus those in the supply chain of SMEs that enable Yeovil to deliver it.
Adam Dance
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I will come on to that point and his question to the Chief of the Defence Staff later in my speech.
In a response to my last urgent question on the defence investment plan, the Minister told me that it will be published when it is ready. That is the real problem, as Leonardo’s best and final offer will expire in March this year. Even more worrying are the reports of the £28 billion funding gap for our armed forces over the next four years, which suggest that the money for the new medium helicopter is not there. That raises quite a few questions that I will ask the Minister—I apologise in advance; he should please grab his pen and paper. I will not bother asking when we will get an announcement on the new medium helicopter, because we all know that the answer will be, “Wait for the DIP”, but if the Minister would like to show me up on that point, he should please do so.
First, the Chief of Defence Staff told my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) at a Committee hearing that, although the new medium helicopter is not at the bottom of the investment list, how high it is up that list is
“ultimately…a matter for Ministers.”
Will the Minister tell us how much of a priority the new medium helicopter is compared with other programmes that his Department is considering?
Secondly, if the new medium helicopter is a priority, then we can only assume that the problem is the money. That begs the question: why did the Government press ahead with the tender as it was, if they knew that Leonardo was the only bidder and that the money was probably not there? One billion pounds is not the kind of money we might lose down the back of the sofa, is it?
That leads me to what my constituents really want to know: what is going on now to solve this? Is the Minister’s Department committed to making sure that the deal does not time out? I know that he cannot comment on the endless rumours about who is causing the delays in the DIP, but will he tell us how many conversations he has had in recent months with colleagues from No. 10 and, importantly, the Treasury on the DIP and the future of the new medium helicopter?
Will the Minister also tell us—yes or no—if his Department has had any discussions with Government and with Leonardo on how changes to the scale or timeline of the new medium helicopter programme could make it workable? If the Minister cannot answer that, will he at least consider the Liberal Democrats’ calls for issuing defence bonds? That could raise up to £20 billion for capital spending on defence over the next two years. Does he recognise that the MOD could make greater savings by improving its counter-fraud work? Between 2021-22 and 2023-24, the MOD was getting a return of only 48p for every £1 spent, when public bodies should save £3 for every £1 spent on counter-fraud. That is money that we are losing and that could surely be going into funding programmes like the new medium helicopter.
Finally, can the Minister tell us what he is doing to manage the fallout from all this uncertainty? Importantly, will he clarify what steps his Government will take to protect the factory site and jobs in Yeovil and the south-west, and to reassure businesses and international partners that the Government are doing all they can to put increased defence spending to work in our fantastic factories? I am worried that the Government’s inability to get a contract agreed with only one bidder has undermined confidence in that.
I hope that the Minister can properly answer my questions, because we need clarity on the future of the new medium helicopter programme. It is good for the future of our armed forces and good for Yeovil and the south-west. If the Minister needs more motivation, I will finally stop annoying him about the new medium helicopter contract—that alone has to be worth it; it will be one headache off his books.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
It is good to see you in your place, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for scheduling this debate. I am afraid that he will know some of my answers to his questions, because he has asked me them before, and I will give him broadly similar answers to those he has had before. In relation to his challenge, I will try not to show him up on the questions that I have already answered previously. I appreciate his passion for this topic, and I commend the Westland Helicopters tie that I have spotted he is wearing—we seem to be at a Putin-esque table in this debate, with one person down at the far end away from the other, but we have much in common on this issue, as he knows from our private conversations.
I welcome the opportunity to talk about the contribution that Leonardo UK makes to our armed forces and our economy, especially at a time when we are reassessing every pound of defence spending and investment that we are making. Our intention is very clear, as we set out in the strategic defence review and the defence investment plan: we need to fundamentally rewire defence and build a stronger, more lethal military, which can deter and, if necessary, defeat, those who threaten us. As such, we are looking at the whole programme of defence spending.
Let me get straight to the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. He will not be surprised when I say that I cannot announce a decision on the new medium helicopter programme today, but I can assure him that we will announce that decision as soon as possible as part of the defence investment plan. I am acutely aware that the contract decision is of great consequence, not to just Leonardo and its workforce at Yeovil but the wider community. As a fellow south-west MP, I can assure him that the importance to the wider region is not lost on me.
I also remind the hon. Gentleman that when we discussed this in the main Chamber, I committed that we will not allow the decision to time out. He is right that the best and final offer price has an expiry date, but we have committed as a Government that we will not time out—that is, it will not simply fail at that point; we will make a decision ahead of that, as part of the work we are doing on the defence investment plan.
Adam Dance
I thank the Minister for reiterating that point. My concern is that we do not have a date for when the DIP will come out, and he has just said that the new medium helicopter programme will be in the DIP. Is he therefore saying that if it is not out by the end of March, he will make a decision outside of the DIP on the new medium helicopter programme?
Luke Pollard
I have been pretty clear on a number of occasions in the Commons that we are not letting this decision time out. Therefore, a decision will be made, which is consistent with what I have said before.
Ian Roome
This is a really important programme, and I see that the official Opposition have not even bothered to turn up to the debate. I asked the Defence Secretary about the DIP, and he told me it would be out by the end of December. Now it is going to be March. Can the Minister guarantee that it will be March? What is the hold-up? Is it that the Treasury and the MOD cannot agree the finances? Could he be honest and let us know what the delay is in getting the DIP out?
Luke Pollard
As a Department, we are working flat out to deliver the DIP. It remains one of the key actions that we are trying to deliver as a Department. As a Defence Minister, I would prefer to get it right to getting it done quickly, with decisions that may not be as comprehensive or clear as we would like them to be. We have committed that we will get it out as soon as we can. I have also said a number of times that we will not let the decision on the new medium helicopter time-out. In the spirit of commenting on ties, it is good to see the hon. Gentleman wearing an RCDS tie; as a graduate of the Royal College of Defence Studies, which I know he is as well, it is good to see that.
I want to set out the engagement we are having with Leonardo, because it is important that we tell the story about what is taking place while we are looking at the new medium helicopter programme, as well as the wider record that we inherited. We have been engaging closely with the management team at Leonardo in both the UK and Italy, and we have stressed throughout that the company remains a vital strategic partner to UK defence. In fact, the Defence Secretary spoke to Leonardo’s global chief executive, Roberto Cingolani, last week. I continued those discussions in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia this week, when he and I were at the world defence show, where I met with both Roberto Cingolani and the managing director of Leonardo’s helicopter division, Gian Piero Cutillo.
Last month, the Secretary of State visited Leonardo’s radar and advanced targeting system centre in Edinburgh to confirm the award of a £453 million contract to manufacture upgraded and new radars for the Eurofighter Typhoon fleet, which is a huge investment in cutting-edge British technology with Leonardo. That investment will support 400 highly-skilled jobs at Leonardo’s site in Edinburgh and Luton, as part of a network of nine main sites that the company operates across the UK, employing more than 8,500 people. The Secretary of State’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), is sitting behind me. The Leonardo site in her constituency will also benefit from that contract, which reinforces the fact that contracts are about not just the point of manufacture but the supply chain across the entirety of the UK—a point that I know has been made in a number of these debates.
It is important to reflect on the challenges as we came into government. We inherited a procurement system that was overcommitted, underfunded and fundamentally unsuited to the threats that Britain faces today. Reforming, refinancing and restructuring that programme for a new generation of warfare is a challenging task but a necessary one, and it is one that we are tackling methodically and thoroughly. This is the first line-by-line review of defence investment for 18 years, a period in which our armed forces have been increasingly hollowed out and yet the world has become a far more dangerous place.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that we inherited a situation where there are far too many platforms across all our forces, which complicates servicing, operations and interoperability—the warfighting effect they can have—and does not create the inter- changeability that we are looking to deliver, as set out clearly in the strategic defence review.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is no longer in his place, but in his intervention he spoke about the Puma helicopter, which is a really good example. Those helicopters were on average between 43 and 50 years old. It is hard to make the case that the Puma helicopter was at the cutting edge of military aviation. It was also an incredibly expensive helicopter to keep up. As we made decisions about removing old technology and investing in new technology, we announced that platforms like Puma would be retired. Retiring old equipment and bringing in new equipment is the right decision, and that is effectively the work we are trying to do at the moment.
Edward Morello
I do not disagree with the points the Minister is making, and Lord knows I am happy for us to dedicate the rest of the debate to bashing the previous Administration for their failures. He talks about the need to future-proof decision making. Part of the problem that we have with defence procurement is the length of time it takes to get from a decision to deployment. That means that we end up changing the spec of what we are asking for, which ends up with the Ajax disaster that we are all looking at. In the remaining time, will the Minister speak to what the plans are to speed up defence procurement to make quicker decisions on both smart tech and dumb tech and on crewed and uncrewed, so that we can get to that war footing as quickly as possible?
Luke Pollard
I had noted the hon. Gentleman’s question and was coming to it in a moment, but as he has invited me to, I will deal with it now.
Since the general election, we have signed 1,100 major defence contracts as a Government, and 84% of those have gone to British companies. Where we do buy from international companies, we do so either because the technology is solely available from international supply or because it provides a military advantage in terms of timescale, price point or interoperability function with existing technologies. That is a necessity. I want to see more of our rising defence budget spent with UK firms, and that includes international firms that are based in the United Kingdom, creating jobs and growth opportunities.
Adam Dance
I thank the Minister for that comment, because that is so important. As he knows, Leonardo, which is based in Yeovil in the south-west, is the only end-to-end helicopter factory left in the UK. Surely, that is definitely a win-win. I hope that when the Minister said he would not let the decision time-out, a positive decision will be coming.
Luke Pollard
I would be surprised if the hon. Member was advocating for another position on that point.
At the risk of getting another intervention from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), I will finish the point on procurement. In the defence industrial strategy, which is a good read if he has not been through it, we have set out the ambition that was mentioned in the SDR of improving our procurement times. That means large, complex programmes that take five or six years on average going to two years; two-year programmes going to one year; and one-year programmes going down to a few months to six months. That is a big change in terms of how we procure, and it is a fundamental part of the decisions that will be coming out of the defence investment plan.
Rather than looking at the procurements that started under the previous Government—and as the House will know, the new medium helicopter began in February 2024—we continued. That is because, once a procurement policy has started, it is best practice to continue it with the rules of the road that were in place at the point where the procurement began; otherwise, it can be opened up to legal challenge and so on. To address the point that the hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned about pressing ahead, we pressed ahead with that procurement because it had begun and it was in train. That was the right thing to do, because the sense from industry and from the MOD was that restarting it carried greater risk than bringing it to a conclusion. The framing, setting, financing, financial arrangements and specifications were all set by the previous Government in relation to the new medium helicopter.
Finally, I will deal with the intervention from the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), before returning to the point raised by the hon. Member for Yeovil. The challenge about whether we will always need crewed helicopters is a live one. If we look more broadly at our transition from crewed systems to autonomous systems, the SDR sets out very clearly that, at this period in time, the Government will invest in a mix of crewed, uncrewed and autonomous systems with a greater drive to autonomy, which not only increases lethality and mass, but provides jobs and growth opportunities. We know our adversaries are investing in similar technologies, so the question about the crewed, uncrewed and autonomous mix is a live one.
That brings me nicely to the point that the hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned around Proteus, which is a brilliant example of how investment in new technologies can deliver more change. It is a good project, which was funded by the Ministry of Defence through our work with UK Defence Innovation and was delivered by Leonardo. It is a sign of our strong partnership with Leonardo that we collaborated on the Proteus project, which experiments with a future rotary wing uncrewed air system. I have spoken to Leonardo about not naming helicopters after our ships. I would also like to get to a point where we stop naming things after bad guys in science-fiction movies, such as Skynet from “The Terminator” films, which is the name for our satellite communications systems, or giving things existing names.
However, the technology is outstanding. That is an area that provides huge growth opportunities for British industry, including, potentially, for Leonardo, subject to the usual competitive tendering processes around Proteus in the future. It is a good example of how an autonomous full-size helicopter can be demonstrated, but the mix that we are looking for in the strategic defence review is a mix of crewed, uncrewed and autonomous systems as we move in that direction. The investment that Leonardo has made in uncrewed and autonomous systems is to be welcomed.
Adam Dance
I am worried that if we do not get the new medium-lift, and if we should want Leonardo to be a bidder for Proteus, its job force might not be there—the company has that concern—so Proteus may not come. I am glad the Minister has said that he wants a mixture of both; that sounds promising.
Luke Pollard
The strategic defence review sets out very clearly the mix that we are looking for, partly because the technology is not currently available. In many cases, there is not an off-the-shelf product that we can simply buy from UK, or largely international, firms. It is something that requires the innovation that we are looking for.
The work we are continuing to do with Leonardo recognises the opportunities for growth in the defence sector, the importance of sovereign capability, and the importance of different military capabilities within our overall force picture. Given the defence knowledge present in the debate, the hon. Member for Yeovil will appreciate that there are different and changing priorities, and that we are learning lessons from Ukraine in terms of what capabilities we need.
Some of the programmes that we inherited from the Conservatives, who are not represented in this debate, were unsuitable for modern conflict, and unfunded. A key part of the defence investment plan is ensuring that every programme that is in our programme of record is sustainable, funded and can exist in reality, not just on PowerPoint. That is a big difference to the previous Government’s approach. As we move to warfighting readiness, which is my No. 1 mission as a Minister, I need to ensure that the equipment that we are purchasing and supporting can provide the deterrent ability that we need to deter aggression, but also has the ability to defeat it if required. That is why we are preferencing battlefield-ready technologies and those that give an increase in lethality.
I appreciate the passion that the hon. Member for Yeovil has for his hometown, and the importance of the contract. I will commit to continuing to have conversations with him and MPs from the wider region, and we have frequent discussions with our colleagues from Leonardo.
Edward Morello
I am aware of the time and it sounds like the Minister is wrapping up, but I did not want to be the only Member in the debate who had not been complimented on their tie.
Luke Pollard
I am afraid I did not bring my long-vision glasses, so I cannot spot everyone’s tie.
Adam Dance
The Minister made the point about funding; is a lot of this tied up with the money for the contract not being there from the Treasury?
Luke Pollard
Unlike in previous Governments, our Treasury colleagues are aligned to our defence mission. We are working more closely with our Treasury colleagues than I have ever seen before. The close co-operation that we have, on the preparation of the SDR, the DIS, and the work that we are doing with Treasury colleagues on the DIP, is a good example of how the MOD with a different approach can find a close friend in the Treasury, which will ultimately help support the growing defence budget that the Chancellor and Prime Minister have announced for the Ministry of Defence.
There is £5 billion extra in our budget this year, and there is not a single person who has ever served in our armed forces before with a decade of rising defence spending ahead of them. What we spend that money on—and, importantly, how we spend it—is the debate around the defence investment plan. I welcome that debate, because there needs to be more discussion about how we can not over-spec, as the hon. Member for West Dorset suggested, and then change the specs during procurement. That is something that we have embraced fully, learning the lessons from the last Government, where that was not the case.
I have committed, earlier in the debate and previously, to not letting the decision on the medium helicopter time-out. We will continue our conversations with Leonardo, and I am happy continuing conversations with the hon. Member for Yeovil in a constructive manner to ensure that the points he raised on behalf of his constituents can be taken on board as part of the broader defence investment plan work.
Question put and agreed to.
Woodland Creation
(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
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of woodland creation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on woodland creation, which my hon. Friend the Minister just described as the most wholesome debate we are going to have this week. I secured it because I really benefited from the beautiful blue and green spaces that I grew up alongside, and it is important to provide opportunities to benefit from accessible, beautiful blue and green spaces to everyone across the country.
Green and blue spaces are not just a luxury but essential infrastructure for our climate, nature and people’s everyday lives. Trees and woodlands cool our towns and cities, reduce flood risk and revive biodiversity. They support both medical and physical wellbeing, strengthen social connections and give people access to nature close to home. We have many missions as a Government, but I think providing good blue and green spaces, including through the creation of new woodlands, is one way we can help to support them all.
When green and blue spaces are planned well, they demonstrate that growth and environmental responsibility are not opposing forces but natural partners. I believe my home city is living proof of that. It is a new town created by the Harold Wilson Government of the 1960s, and from its very beginning the city was designed around green and blue corridors, with parks, woodlands and waterways woven into the fabric of daily life. That founding principle continues to shape the city today. Modern development sits alongside ancient landscapes, historic waterways and diverse habitats for wildlife. As a result, Milton Keynes now benefits from over 6,000 acres of parklands, rivers, lakes and woodlands, supported by more than 22 million trees—my fantastic city has 80 times more trees than the number of residents.
Over time, the city has protected and enhanced its natural assets. Ancient woodlands remain accessible and cherished, while parks and waterways connect neighbourhoods. Nature is not pushed to the margins but placed at the heart of the city. Many places are now trying to retrofit that approach, but Milton Keynes understood it from the start.
I have previously spoken to the Minister about the wetland arc project, led by the Parks Trust in Milton Keynes, with support from a National Lottery Heritage Fund grant. Once completed, this uninterrupted blue and green corridor will significantly enhance one of our city’s greatest assets. It supports wildlife, provides vital flood mitigation and carbon capture, and gives residents access to nature on their doorsteps. As the impacts of climate change become far more visible in our communities, the importance of wetlands and woodland creation cannot be overstated.
According to the 2025 global wetland outlook, around 22% of the world’s wetlands have been lost since the 1970s, placing immense pressure on biodiversity and increasing flood risk. The wetland arc will stretch across the north of Milton Keynes, covering 355 hectares, which is around 500 football pitches of parkland. What excites me most about the project is the understanding of wetlands as multifunctional spaces: they are not only habitats for wildlife but places that protect communities from flooding, support active travel and connect local people.
Under the stewardship of the Parks Trust, another great invention of the Milton Keynes Development Corporation, the wetland arc has the potential to become a distinctive and accessible landscape for the whole city, strengthening biodiversity while remaining open to everybody. We must not only create new woodlands for today, but think about stewardship into the future. I was reminded of the power of the Parks Trust’s local stewardship just last month, when I joined the trust to plant trees in Stanton Low Park. Among them was a “tree of hope”, a sapling grown from the Sycamore Gap tree. Only 49 of them were gifted across the UK, and I am proud that one now stands in my constituency.
Elsewhere in my constituency, Linford wood offers another powerful example of how woodland can be protected and enjoyed within a city. This 97-acre ancient woodland, with its network of footpaths and carved timber sculptures inspired by woodland wildlife, is deeply loved by local residents across the city. It shows that ancient woods are not just a relic of the past, but living spaces that continue to enrich modern communities. What makes places like Linford wood so valuable is not only their ecological importance, but their role in people’s day-to-day lives. Families walk in the wood at weekends and runners use it for shaded paths. It is part of the route I am using to train for this year’s London marathon —the Minister is welcome to sponsor me, to support my local hospice.
Woodlands are not just abstract environmental assets but part of the rhythm of community life. I hope that, throughout the debate, we talk just not just about the woodlands in rural parts of the country, important as they are, but the ones that exist in and support urban contexts.
We might feel instinctively that spending time among trees lifts our mood and clears our mind, but the evidence increasingly backs that up. Aviva’s latest “Picture of Health” research, published in September 2025, highlights a growing shift across Britain towards embracing nature as an essential part of maintaining wellbeing. In a survey of 2,000 UK adults, 65% said they actively seek out nature to support their mental health or manage stress, 80% said nature boosts their happiness, and 74% reported a reduction in stress and anxiety after spending time outdoors. The research also found that regularly spending time in nature is linked to higher energy levels, improved concentration and better sleep. After the week some of us have had, I think we would appreciate all those things.
The findings underline an important truth: access to nature is not just a luxury or a lifestyle choice, but a fundamental part of supporting the nation’s health and wellbeing. If more people are turning to green spaces to support their wellbeing, it becomes all the more vital that we protect, create and sustain the natural environments they rely on. Woodlands in particular offer accessible, restorative spaces close to where people live. Investing in their creation and long-term stewardship is therefore not only an environmental priority, but a social one, ensuring that the physical and mental health benefits of nature are accessible to everyone and not just a fortunate few.
Woodland creation must sit at the heart of our national approach to environmental recovery. After 14 years of Conservative drift, England was left with a serious deficit in woodland creation and forest resilience, with tree planting falling to a 20-year low before Labour took office. The Government are turning that around, and planting rates are now at their highest level in more than two decades. More than 7,000 hectares were planted last year, with 10.4 million trees planted in 2024—a 46% increase on the previous year. We are back on track to reach 16.5% of woodland cover by 2050, meeting the Environment Act 2021 target. Backed by £1 billion of investment over this Parliament, it is the largest tree-planting and forestry programme that England has ever seen. The investment supports not only planting but long-term stewardship, skills and apprenticeships, nursery capacity and access to nature.
The announcement of a new national forest across the Oxford-Cambridge arc, where my constituency sits, is fantastic news. I hope the Minister will consider that with reference to the forest of Marston Vale, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). That would be a fantastic position and is obviously close to Milton Keynes.
Milton Keynes shows what is possible and what has worked. I think I owe such a good start in life to the fact that my city provided so many things for me, up to and including fantastic access to green spaces and nature. I want to ensure that everybody right across the country has that same access. If we are serious about leaving a better environment for future generations, we must continue to invest in woodland creation, tree planting and new forests so that the benefits seen in Milton Keynes today can be enjoyed across the country for decades to come.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
If Back Benchers could keep their speeches to five minutes, that would be most helpful.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall for consideration.
I declare an interest as a landowner and farmer: I own land down at Greyabbey and Kircubbin in the Ards peninsula. I have told this story in the House before, but it is important that I declare it. I planted out an area of my farm; it could have been used for cattle, but we felt it was important to plant trees, because the hedgerows are disappearing and the habitat is not what it once was. We planted some 3,500 trees, with the help of my son, under the Woodland Trust scheme, and that will be beneficial in the years to come. Had the scheme not been in place, it would never have crossed my mind to diversify in that way. If a scheme was available again to pay the costs of the saplings, for instance, I believe landowners would take the time to plant out their land. Such buy-in among local landowners can be only a good thing.
Over the past six weeks, with my other son, we have been trying to plant out some hedges. In the last six weeks we have planted some 600 of them, as well as apple trees. There is nothing quite like an apple off a tree when you have grown it yourself. I think the apples are sweeter—maybe they are not, but I believe they are.
I want to highlight the case for my local council, Ards and North Down council. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I want to share some of the problems we are having back home, to give a Northern Ireland perspective. The council is making real efforts to make a difference in the creation of areas of biodiversity. I understand it is actively engaged in significant woodland creation and tree-planting initiatives, most notably through its STAND4TREES initiative, which aims to plant one tree for every resident by 2032. We have 160,000 residents in the council area, so it is quite an ambitious scheme. Guided by the trees and woodland strategy for 2021 to 2032, the programme focuses on enhancing biodiversity, increasing the native tree canopy and promoting community engagement in environmental stewardship.
A problem has occurred, and other Members might be able to demonstrate whether it is a one-off. When the council recently attempted to purchase land to facilitate tree planting, it was outbid at an astronomical rate. This is a real concern. It is not simply about the price of the trees and the manpower—or the womanpower, because we both participate. With the price of farmland hitting an all-time high, this could be a very costly venture. In Northern Ireland, an acre of land currently costs £15,202, which right away puts any ideas about tree planting at a disadvantage. It is the first time the overall average has exceeded £15,000.
Councils whose purse strings are already tight are trying to work out how they can be involved in planting at an affordable price. I should have welcomed the Minister; it is lovely to see her in her place. We are pleased to have her here and I know, because she loves this subject, that she will encourage us all with the answers to our questions. It would be a pleasure to hear from her about what can happen if councils want to plant, but are restricted by the price of land.
Leading by example is always a good thing, yet unless the Government come alongside our local authorities, it will be left to individuals to bite the bullet themselves and plant out the bottoms of their gardens on hilly land. For us to really make a substantial difference, we need greater help—for local authorities to purchase land and for landowners to get the trees to plant out. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—Northern Ireland’s equivalent of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—has the small woodland grant scheme for new native woodlands, and the forest expansion scheme for larger projects of three or more hectares, but the costs are not close to being met. It sounds terrible, but sometimes we do need help to enhance, encourage, coerce or, perhaps, persuade others to do that.
We all know that trees provide more than beautiful scenery. They provide the very air that fills our lungs, and we sometimes need to be reminded of that. They sustain an ecosystem that most of us do not even know about, never mind value. I know that I do, but I am not sure if everybody else does—not because they are any less smart than I am, but because of how important it is. The Government and the Minister know the value. We must do more to fund the future and to fund woodland creation in a greater way.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
Woodland creation is, at its heart, hopeful work. It is about climate action, nature recovery and public good. It is about taking long-term decisions for future generations. I also like that we know it is doable, because we have examples right across the country. At a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for woods and trees, I saw a fantastic slide that showed the national forest in the midlands going from 6% tree cover all the way to 23% or 24% tree cover. It was fantastic to see that visually displayed. That woodland is supporting animals, birds, walks, trails and 5,000 tourism-related jobs every year.
That is why I back the Labour Government’s ambition to create three new national forests, including one right in the centre of the growth corridor, in my part of the world and that of the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). That is the kind of growth everybody can get behind—from seed to sapling to towering trees. We can already see the Labour Government’s first new national forest getting under way and taking shape. A friend who lives in that part of the world says that so many fences have been erected to protect the new trees it now resembles a prisoner of war camp. Those fences are really important, because protection in the early years matters for trees. Saplings are vulnerable. They need time, protection and sustained care.
The Minister and I recently discussed young tree survival in an Adjournment debate that I very much enjoyed, so I am back for more. That debate focused on urban trees, but I want to talk about woodland trees today. There are a lot of similarities, but also some differences. The similarity is, of course, that we need to get the right tree in the right place. They all need water, though less so in woodland environments than in urban environments because the soil naturally retains more moisture. In woodlands, weed control is particularly important, as is making sure that the saplings are planted well, healthy, British grown and disease free. The first three to five years are so important for establishment. We have to move beyond the “plant, plant, plant” mantra to “establish, establish, establish” because that is what really matters. Success is measured not by trees planted, but by trees thriving.
Thinking about the very early years of trees means thinking about having thriving domestic tree nurseries supplying the right trees, at the right time, in the right quantities. With our ambitions rising significantly, domestic supply needs to keep pace to avoid reliance on imports, which increase pest and disease risks and weaken resilience. Planting native species gives the greatest wildlife benefit. How will the Government better align tree supply with planting grants? Given that nurseries need to plan so many years in advance, how do we ensure long-term stability?
We also need a focus on skills and workforce. Growing trees is skilled and technical work and the nursery sector faces big skills shortages. This week is Apprenticeship Week. I have met lots of apprentices, but none planting trees. How do we make sure that we have a real pipeline of talent in forestry skills and horticultural training? Investment in people is investment in resilience.
As the Minister knows, I back the “Strong Roots” report’s recommendation for British-grown tree certification. The idea behind that is to grow market identity, transparency, investment and confidence—and pride, too. It is totally on brand for this Labour Government to establish “Great British Trees”. Will the Minister push that with her Cabinet colleagues as we seek to change the country and create landscapes that endure?
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. It is also a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer).
I congratulate another constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), on securing this important debate on woodland creation. As he knows, my Mid Bedfordshire constituency, which he mentioned, is home to the community forest of Marston Vale, which is one of a handful created in the 1990s to help to establish and enhance woodlands. The forest has had a tremendously positive impact on the environment in Bedfordshire, with 16.9% tree coverage across the forest area, up from only 3.6% in 1991, and nearly 3 million trees, shrubs and hedgerows planted. That has transformed a Bedfordshire countryside scarred by our historic brickmaking industry into a beautiful place to spend time, yet Bedfordshire is still in a nature and biodiversity crisis.
Our countryside, particularly our ancient woodland, is under significant threat from development, due to both the increasing numbers of people roaming our area as a result of population growth, which brings its own challenges to local nature, and development proposals, including that at Keepers Place, with which the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North will be familiar as it straddles the boundary between our constituencies. That is just one development among the thousands of houses proposed to be built across the area of the forest of Marston Vale in coming decades.
Our ancient woodlands are at their best when surrounded by nature. The community forest has done fantastic work introducing reafforesting and sustainable woodland management practices across Mid Bedfordshire, but we cannot support our woodlands through reafforesting alone. That is why I hope that the Minister will set out, in her response, how this Government plan to ensure that our ancient and newly created woodlands alike will be protected over the short and long term. I endorse the Woodland Trust’s recommendation that the Government should ensure that our ancient woodlands are protected, including through designation as sites of special scientific interest. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that.
I conclude with a request to the Government on a topic about which hon. Members have already spoken. I welcome the Government’s ambition to create a new national forest in the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. Mid Bedfordshire sits at the heart of that corridor, alongside the constituencies of the hon. Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard and for Milton Keynes North. Mid Bedfordshire has the forest of Marston Vale at its centre, and has the expertise to deliver a new national forest that can be enjoyed across the growth corridor. I have made a number of representations to Ministers already, and I believe that the new national forest should be built on the forest of Marston Vale by expanding southwards through my constituency. It would be of value to people right across the region, would provide a lasting benefit to the growth corridor and would help to support the continued restoration of one of Britain’s most nature-depleted landscapes.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell.
The state of England’s woodland paints a clear picture of national decline. The elms are gone, the ash is dying and even the English oak is at risk from the existential threat of climate change. We have far less woodland cover than many of our European neighbours and what woodland we have is in poor condition: just 7% of it is in good health. Many of our oldest trees—living legends that have been part of our landscapes for generations and that can each be home to thousands of species—are still at risk. A lack of diversity in size and species, and a lack of open, sunlit glades for young trees to grow in, has left our ecosystems fragile and degraded. That does profound harm to the wildlife that our voters love. Iconic species such as hazel dormice and our beloved red squirrels are disappearing into the pages of the history books and the number of woodland birds has fallen by 37% over the past 50 years. It must be said that although the wealth generated from tearing down woodland for shipbuilding, agriculture and construction was tightly privatised by a small, wealthy few, the consequences of the nature crisis are and will be felt by all.
We are on track to miss nearly all our targets for nature recovery. We have already lost half our biodiversity and one in six species are teetering on the brink of extinction. Those are not abstract targets that we can shrug off but missed opportunities to save species whose haunting absence would impoverish the lives of every generation to come. Unchecked, such decline will have disastrous consequences. Nature is not only the essential foundation for our economy but a source of joy to millions of people, and an irreplaceable ingredient of our national identity and culture. The Joint Intelligence Committee has warned that nature decline creates “cascading risks” to our food security and national security. To be frank, wringing our hands about nature’s decline in these debates while signing up to an economic model that treats nature as something to exploit, or destroys if it is in the way, will no longer cut it. The depoliticised niceties and doublespeak have to go.
We need to have the honesty to call out leadership that treats nature as an obstacle to progress, rather than a measure of it. Every politician loves ancient woodland until it is home to one of the world’s rarest bat species and is threatened by the latest grandiose project dreamt up in Whitehall. At that point it immediately becomes a blocker and a convenient scapegoat for the insane cost overruns of our model of outsourced and subcontracted infrastructure delivery, which so often rips off the public purse. We would not destroy historic cathedrals or royal palaces in this way, but, only a few years ago, we proved once again that even one of the best-loved trees in the country—every bit a work of art in its own right—can be destroyed in the pursuit of higher GDP. If we fail to do better, the public will not forgive either this Government or our political class more widely.
There are two tasks ahead for reversing the national decline of our woodlands. First, we must take a bold approach to woodland creation—on which subject much has already been usefully said today. I pay tribute to the Woodland Trust for its leadership in driving the northern forest, which will reach across Hull into Liverpool and surge into our cities. That is how we grasp an opportunity not just to rescue ecosystems, but to enrich communities, foster happier, healthier lives and reconnect ordinary people with what is collectively our greatest national inheritance.
As the Labour Government rightly focuses on building an economy with secure, highly skilled and meaningful work for all, here is an enormous opportunity. Essential woodland management—coppicing, pollarding, thinning, restocking and the rest—will require a new generation of tree surgeons and forestry workers, potentially offering brilliant careers right across the country. However, even the Woodland Trust or my hon. Friend the Minister—talented though they are—cannot recreate ancient woodland, nor restore other irreplaceable habitats or species once they are lost to extinction. Therefore, as we pursue woodland creation, we must also defend the protections we already have. The Woodland Trust has long argued that loopholes in the national planning policy framework leave ancient woodland vulnerable to damage and deterioration from development.
We should be strengthening those protections alongside an ambitious programme of nature recovery. Instead, the nature sector has been left fighting endless battles with the Government simply to stop things getting worse. That is why I led more than 60 MPs and peers alongside major nature charities, including the Woodland Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Wildlife Trusts, in opposing proposals to weaken the habitat regulations recommended in the nuclear regulatory review. We must be clear: if someone cares about our woodlands and woodland creation, they cannot advocate for repealing our most important nature protections. Planting trees while weakening the habitats regulations is like planting flowers at one end of a field, while a bulldozer rips it up at the other. We need a joined-up approach that protects what we have and restores what we have lost. That is why I am calling for red lines for nature. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting this campaign in the coming months.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) for securing this worthwhile debate.
Scotland is home to some outstanding examples of both natural and created woodland. In my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire North, which is a mix of urban and rural geography, we have the Boden Boo woodland hidden below the Erskine bridge, which spans the River Clyde. I also love to visit the Finlaystone estate with my daughter. It is a vast woodland area on the border of the neighbouring constituency, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), and it sells Christmas trees during the festive period.
Woodland creation brings so many benefits, and I want to bring them to hon. Members’ attention today. We have all recently seen the devastating impact of flooding. In some places, woodlands can help to naturally manage flooding. They help slow down water reaching watercourses and ease the pressure on catchments. Growing trees trap harmful carbon dioxide and at least temporarily reduce the impact of our emissions from fossil fuels. Woodlands can provide a habitat for thousands of native species, from insects to small mammals and birds. They are especially important for pollinators such as bumblebees and butterflies, providing a safe refuge all year round and supporting insects with a reliable food source thanks to a rich diversity of pollen and nectar-producing plants.
There are very few communities around the UK that could not benefit from more woodland, and I am glad to lend my voice in support of long-term, ambitious commitments to woodland creation. Woodland creation is not just an environmental issue; it is about climate delivery, economic resilience, rural jobs and national security. The UK currently imports over 80% of the timber it uses, leaving us exposed to global price volatility and supply shocks.
However, there is a problem with the planting of conifer trees. Since 2010, broadleaf woodland has increased, but conifer woodland has declined in England. Only around 12% of new woodland creation has been conifer—far below the minimum of 30% that is widely cited as necessary for net zero and timber security. That matters because only fast-growing conifers will lock up meaningful volumes of carbon by 2050, and softwood provides the bulk of the timber the UK uses. Home-grown timber is strategically important to national resilience and security. Global supply is tightening and future demand is projected to outstrip supply, increasing international competition for timber.
In my former profession in the property industry, decarbonising construction has been a key priority over the last decade or so. I believe the property industry has leant into the environmental challenges ahead of the curve and used innovation to find solutions. Timber can reduce embodied carbon in buildings by 20% to 60% while storing carbon in long-lived products. Yet only 9% of new homes in England are timber-framed, compared with over 90% in Scotland—a major missed opportunity.
Timber is so important to jobs and growth—a priority of this Labour Government. Expanding productive forestry and domestic processing supports skilled rural employment, strengthens UK supply chains and keeps value in the United Kingdom. Nature and timber are not in conflict. This issue is too often framed as biodiversity versus timber, but the evidence is clear: this is not a binary choice. If we are serious about net zero, we must be serious about woodland creation. That means planting productive conifers as well as native trees. Without home-grown timber, the climate maths, the housing challenge and our economic resilience and national security simply do not add up.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) for securing this debate. He set out perfectly the value of woodlands to both nature and people, and his city is clearly a living example of that.
I appreciate that hon. Members might wonder why, as the Member of Parliament for Cannock Chase—a constituency famed and named for its forest—I might want to speak in a debate on creating new woodlands, but my answer is this: “You can’t have too much of a good thing”. Woodland creation is central to building a greener, fairer Britain, and the Government have set ambitious targets, aiming to increase woodland cover in England to 16.5% by 2050. Our current woodland cover remains significantly lower than many of our European neighbours at 13.5%, compared with an EU average of around 38%.
In Britain, describing somewhere as “leafy” usually is shorthand for “wealthy”, which says a lot about how access to nature reflects inequality on multiple levels. The Woodland Trust’s tree equity score clearly demonstrates that the many benefits provided by trees are disproportionately enjoyed by wealthier communities. Even in my constituency, that disparity is evident. Chadsmoor is one of the most deprived areas of Cannock Chase and is also among the most nature deprived. By contrast, more affluent areas like New Penkridge Road in Cannock benefit from significant tree cover despite being less than two miles away. That contrast shows that the communities that stand to gain the most from access to green space are too often those with the least access to it.
Planting trees is often the easy part, but explaining to residents why an unmanaged woodland has suddenly appeared at the end of their road is considerably harder. In Hednesford, an urban woodland was established on Bradbury Lane with positive intentions, but insufficient maintenance generated understandable complaints from residents—an important reminder that successful woodland creation requires sustained stewardship and community involvement.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to funding not just planting, but long-term management and skills development. However, on the flip side, I have heard concerns about newly planted trees on housing and commercial developments not being properly cared for and subsequently dying, or even not being planted in the first place. Although the national planning policy framework makes it clear that planning decisions should require aftercare, councils need to ensure that those conditions are attached and enforced.
Alongside expanding woodland cover, it is equally important that we improve the quality and resilience of the woodland that we already have. In December, I visited Birches Valley in my constituency, where I met the Forestry Commission’s agroforestry woodland officer to discuss the restoration of ancient woodland. Plantations on ancient woodland sites—often referred to as PAWS—account for around 17% of the nation’s forests. Forestry England has set an important ambition to restore those sites to resilient native woodland, but achieving that will require a doubling of the rate of restoration.
The work is ecologically vital. Moving woodland from predominantly non-native canopy cover towards native broadleaf species strengthens biodiversity, increases resilience to pests and diseases, and helps to ensure that our woodlands are better able to adapt to climate change. The Climate Change Committee has recommended that two-thirds of new woodland should be broadleaf and one-third conifer, to maximise climate and biodiversity benefits while reducing the risks associated with monoculture planting. However, foresters have highlighted concerns such as the impact of pests such as deer and grey squirrels, and the long-term financial sustainability of restoration. I therefore welcome the Government’s funding for Forestry England’s PAWS restoration programme.
As we expand woodland creation, we must also carefully balance environmental ambitions with the needs of our farming communities. Agroforestry—integrating trees into productive agricultural land—presents significant opportunities, including improved soil health, enhanced biodiversity and increased flood resilience. Here, the Government’s approach recognises the vital role that farmers and rural communities play in environmental recovery. Many farmers are already boosting natural flood management by increasing woodland cover, as well as natural water storage areas.
Concerns have been raised, though, particularly in upland areas, about productive farmland being taken out of use or tenant farmers being displaced in pursuit of woodland creation targets. It is vital that environmental policy retains the confidence and support of our farming sector, particularly the 50% of farmers who are tenants. Schemes such as the sustainable farming incentive present an opportunity to strike that balance by encouraging tree planting on less productive land or areas already identified for nature recovery, or intercropping with arable crops, allowing us to increase woodland cover without undermining food production or rural livelihoods.
In closing, I note that woodland creation and ancient woodland restoration are not competing priorities. They are complementary pillars of a broader strategy to restore nature, improve community wellbeing, strengthen climate resilience and protect our natural heritage. Not only that, but in representing Cannock Chase, I am contractually obliged to be enthusiastic about trees at all times. Thankfully, trees are one of the few policy areas where we can improve air quality, biodiversity, public health and community pride simultaneously, which in policymaking terms is about as close as we can get to a unanimous win.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) for securing this important debate.
Many people move to Cornwall precisely because of our natural beauty and our woodland areas. For us Cornish, those areas represent a vital aspect of Cornish wellbeing and our identity. Many of our woodland areas are globally significant, and include Cornish native mountain ash and Cornish elm, and our high Cornish hedges are home to entire ecosystems. But on the evening of 8 January this year, residents across Cornwall received alerts on their mobile phones of a red weather warning. Winds reached up to 111 mph in some locations, blasting roofs from buildings, bringing down telephone lines and ripping huge trees from their roots to the ground.
Tens of thousands of trees were toppled in west Cornwall alone, as the storm blew in from the Atlantic. Some of them had stood for 90 years, surviving the second world war and even the great storm of 1987. The first to suffer some of the most severe damage were on the Isles of Scilly, including the island of Tresco, which I know well, where trees—huge, ancient trees—were brought down in the world-famous, tropical Abbey Garden. St Michael’s Mount lost around 80% of the trees on its northern slopes, with many more so badly damaged that they will now have to be felled. Considerable damage extended across my constituency, into and around Mawnan Smith, Trebah garden and Glendurgan.
While our communities and those charged with protecting our unique woodland areas have shown remarkable resilience, Storm Goretti has brought into sharp focus the urgent need for future-proofing and for increased support for planting, maintenance and long-term woodland recovery after what are likely to be ever more frequent storms. Though organisations such as Forest for Cornwall have established thousands of trees across the duchy in recent years, we need a comprehensive woodland creation strategy—and the funding to support it—for mitigation, resilience and long-term woodland protection. It must recognise the vulnerability of Cornwall’s position on this island and our unique landscape, and ensure that our woodland areas are restored, nurtured and protected for generations to come.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on securing the debate.
Like many Members, I am a lover of woodlands, both ancient and new. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) said earlier, “You can’t have too much of a good thing”, and the creation of new woodlands—and the Government’s ambition to do so—should be celebrated. Just adjacent to my constituency, we have a 400-acre site that mixes ancient woodland with relatively new parkland. The old favourites of oak, ash and thorn are around the place, and I have spent many hours walking in those woodlands, greeting ancient oak trees as old friends. I am a self-confessed tree-hugger—I literally will hug a tree—and there is something to be said for the calmness that this brings; the understanding that we are feeling sometimes centuries of life coursing beneath our fingers. I strongly support the transfer of that from one generation to the next.
Our woodlands are a key feature in the protection and preservation of wildlife. They support creatures big and small, and knowing and naming those creatures is a pure joy for anyone who is, like myself, a keen amateur naturalist. I remember hearing a nightingale in our local woodlands, which was the real highlight of a walk. Sadly, as Members will be aware, that is a vanishingly rare thing to hear and see. Supporting the creation of woodlands will ensure that we keep these native creatures for generations to come.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady refers to some of the vanishing bird life in her area. In my constituency there are a number of farmers and substantial landowners who have taken an initiative to bring back the yellowhammer, which is also very scarce in many parts of the United Kingdom. Projects in Ballywalter, Lord Dunleath’s in Rosemount, in Greyabbey from the Montgomerys and in Tubber from the Gilmores mean that for our neighbours not too far away and ourselves in a much smaller way, the yellowhammers are back. If we make the effort, bird life will return.
Jen Craft
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is key to recognise the role that farmers can play in rewilding and embracing biodiversity. In Thurrock, there are farmers who are doing excellent work in rewilding some of their land to make sure that species can thrive and continue to grow. It is not only on farmland but an RSPB nature reserve near me has seen, thanks to investment and focus on regrowing blackthorn, the brown hairstreak butterfly make a remarkable comeback. Apparently it was a record-breaking count for them at the weekend. Creatures such as butterflies and invertebrates do not always get the praise that they deserve in this place, but they are key to the survival of nature—and of ourselves. Initiatives such as those are vitally important, and we must continue to support them.
The creation of woodlands is to be welcomed. I would like to highlight a couple of the threats to new and juvenile woodlands. One of the biggest is not from humans or climate change but from invasive species, such as roe deer. I know the Minister is keen on rewilding and reintroduction of species, having been a vocal advocate for the reintroduction of beavers. That is an important way to lean in to giving nature a helping hand in our natural recovery.
It has been suggested that the reintroduction of the lynx—an apex predator—is one way to keep down numbers of roe bucks and prevent overgrazing. It would keep them on the move in what is known as an ecology of fear, which hon. Members might feel familiar with in this place. It means that herds keep on the move and it prevents overgrazing, allowing vegetation and tree saplings to take root and grow. I wonder whether the Minister might consider that—leaning into nature and giving a helping hand to encourage recovery in a natural way by returning some of our lost species.
It is vital that while we look to grow new woodlands, we protect our ancient woodlands. Old species such as oak, ash and thorn are under threat, and it is vital to protect them where possible. In my constituency, the planned lower Thames crossing will unfortunately see the loss of an ancient woodland known as the Wilderness. Although the decision about that road has been made, I urge the Minister to work with her Government colleagues to ensure that there is no net loss to biodiversity through the scheme, and that mitigation and compensation for lost or damaged habitats are fully taken into account.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), I do not take such a pessimistic view on prospects for nature versus investment; I believe that the two can and must co-exist. Unless we encourage development and growth, mitigation of our ancient woodlands and the species that thrive there, we will see continued loss through climate change. I welcome our commitment to growing new woodlands and the benefit of being among trees.
“I think that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree.”
That line has never seemed so apt. Many more people deserve to enjoy forest bathing, enjoying the cool, calm reflective benefits that nature can bring.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on securing this timely debate and his thoughtful and heartfelt opening speech.
Who does not love trees? They enhance our lives so much. In the past 18 months, morning walks in the woodlands below my house have helped to keep me sane-ish. On a London day, I can take a walk among the urban trees along the South Bank—not quite the Cotswolds, but it will do. Never has woodland creation seemed more important. As our climate changes and nature declines, trees are not a luxury—they are part of the solution. Done well, woodland creation enhances biodiversity, captures carbon, improves flood resilience and supports local economies.
Yet, we are not where we need to be. Although canopy cover has increased slightly, we consistently miss national planting targets. The overall quality of our woodland remains generally poor and, according to the Woodland Trust, is in decline. In England, just 13% of the land area is covered by trees, compared with an EU average of 38%. Only about 7% of native woods are in good condition. Meanwhile, in a heartbreaking statistic, nearly 70% of our ancient woodland has been lost or damaged.
We have a stated ambition to reach 19% cover by 2050 but that is looking increasingly challenging on current trends. If new woodlands are to thrive in the changing climate we must focus not just on quantity but on quality. As has been pointed out, planting alone does not necessarily create woodland. Saplings need careful aftercare, long-term management and protection. That means not just boasting about how many trees we have planted, but how many trees actually survive. Along the A14 in Cambridgeshire, around 860,000 trees were planted, yet 70% died soon after completion. It was admitted that they were probably the wrong species, in the wrong place and planted in the wrong season—other than that, it went really well.
As the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) said, the correct metric is not trees planted, but trees thriving. Also, saplings planted in one place are not an adequate replacement for mature trees in another place. Nature works to its own rhythms and it does best when we work with it, not at odds with it. Strategic woodland creation should also prioritise areas with low canopy cover so that the benefits of trees, such as cooler streets, cleaner air, flood protection and improved wellbeing, are shared more fairly. Access to nature should not be a postcode lottery, particularly as hotter summers make urban trees ever more essential. Anybody who has been out door-knocking on a hot summer’s day on a new estate, longing for the shade of a tree, will know exactly what I mean.
In my South Cotswolds constituency, housing targets are placing intense pressure on a district where 80% of the land is protected landscape and much of the rest is floodplain. People care deeply about the woodlands and green spaces that shape our identity. New developments must show that we can meet housing need while also expanding tree cover and strengthening biodiversity. Long-term stewardship and environmental sustainability must be embedded from the outset; without that commitment, we risk repeating past mistakes.
I am pleased to report there are encouraging examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) has championed the Somerset tree strategy, a 10-year plan to protect and expand treescapes in areas where canopy cover in some neighbourhoods is below 10%. Increasing canopy cover reduces storm water run-off, prevents flooding and creates vital habitats. In the South Cotswolds, I am proud to say that many of our farmers understand that. Trees slow the flow of water, shelter livestock and protect the integrity of soil. They are an important part of a working landscape. I welcome the development of the Western forest, alongside the various other forests that have been mentioned today. It is the first new national forest in 30 years and will stretch across Bristol, Somerset and into parts of my constituency in Wiltshire and Gloucestershire.
Community stewardship is also important. In my constituency, groups such as Fruitful Malmesbury are leading what I like to call tree roots efforts, rather than grassroots efforts, planting and nurturing local orchards and woodlands. When communities feel ownership, the survival rates of trees rise, and so does social value and community spirit.
On the economic benefits, orchards provide habitats for pollinators and wildlife while sustaining livelihoods. The south-west cider industry partners with more than 300 farmers, manages more than 15,000 acres and produces around 670 million litres of cider each year—truly a benefit for nature and humanity. A new orchard may take seven years to break even, but it can yield environmental and economic returns for many decades. That is sustainable land use—patient investment for long-term gain.
We still import nearly 80% of the timber that we use. We could expand and actively manage domestic woodland, thereby supporting skilled jobs and making our supply chains more resilient. As construction increasingly moves away from high-carbon materials, we need renewable home-grown timber that stores carbon in our buildings and is backed procurement policies that support British growers.
The Liberal Democrats are committed to binding targets to halt nature’s decline and double nature by 2050, expanding protected areas, restoring habitats and increasing woodland cover. We support planting at least 60 million trees a year, alongside the aftercare already mentioned to ensure that they flourish. Will the Minister comment on the urgency with which the Government are acting, or failing to act? Continued subsidies for biomass power, including at Drax, rely on primary forests and undermine our environmental credibility.
Jen Craft
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning biomass power, as I have a specific issue in my constituency, where the fuel that is used to power a biomass generator has unfortunately generated a significant amount of dust, causing a heavy amount of air pollution in the local area. It is a form of green energy, but it unfortunately has a local impact on the air quality that residents in Tilbury can expect. Does the hon. Lady support me in saying that the Government should look again at how much we rely on this kind of energy generation?
Dr Savage
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, and we are launching an inquiry into the importance of air quality, which needs to be addressed when we take a holistic view of how energy, humans and nature can thrive alongside one another.
COP30 offered an opportunity to demonstrate leadership on deforestation. The Liberal Democrats urge support for the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, which is designed to provide permanent funding for conservation by rewarding countries for protecting forests. It was a golden opportunity to turn ambition into action, but, sadly, the Government chose not to commit public investment at that point. I hope that they will in the future.
The saying goes that the best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago, but the second best time is today. I know that the Minister has a genuine love for nature, as do I. Some people might think of me as more of an oceans person, given my past story, but these days I find that I am more and more drawn to hills and trees. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we all have a responsibility, both locally and globally, to protect and restore the forests on which we depend for so much. If we get woodland creation right, we do more than just plant trees. We invest in climate resilience, thriving wildlife, strong rural economies and healthier communities for generations to come.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on securing the debate and clearly setting out the key benefits for us all of our woodlands, in both rural and urban areas. We have had a good debate, and all of the many contributions were about the strength of support for our vital woodlands.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke of his own experience planting trees—he is clearly a man of many talents. The hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) highlighted the importance of young trees and the need for trees to thrive. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) is a fantastic local champion, and put forward strong arguments for expanding the forest of Marston Vale. We heard about the opportunities for tree planting and the areas for greater focus to protect and grow our woodlands. I am grateful to all hon. Members who shared the special and vital woodland areas in their constituencies.
There has been welcome cross-party consensus about the benefits that woodlands bring to communities and our environment. As the Member of Parliament for Chester South and Eddisbury, I see those benefits at first hand: I have the privilege of having Delamere forest in my constituency. It is 927 hectares of woodland—the largest woodland area in the county of Cheshire—and a wonderful example of one of our most diverse natural ecosystems and habitats.
Beyond removing and storing carbon, woodlands such as Delamere provide a home for thousands of species of mammals, birds, invertebrates, plants and fungi. Oak trees alone can support more than 2,300 species, and 326 are entirely dependent on oak for their survival. Delamere forest also supports our local economy through its appeal to visitors and tourists, and is home to a wide range of species, including beavers, which have been reintroduced into a nature reserve on the edge of the forest—demonstrating the vital role woodland plays for nature, climate and local communities alike.
The previous Government recognised the importance of woodland, publishing their England trees action plan, which set out a blueprint for how to protect, enhance and restore nature. The nature for climate fund was backed by £750 million to support peat restoration and woodland creation and management. The current Government have committed to establishing three new national forests in England, planting millions of trees and creating new woodland. What we need to see now is their delivery.
It is estimated that the global demand for wood products will treble by 2050, while supply is set to drop in the next 20 to 30 years, increasing pressure on supply chains. As hon. Members pointed out, the UK imports 80% of its timber, making it the second largest net importer, with only China importing more. The Forestry Commission is clear that that situation must be improved. With that in mind, what action is the Minister taking to increase the percentage of productive species, as requested by the Forestry Commission and Natural England, to protect rural employment and reduce import reliance?
Wood can also act as a substitute for more carbon-intensive materials, such as concrete and steel, making timber equally vital for decarbonising the construction industry, which contributes 37% of global greenhouse gas emissions. How does the Minister envisage timber helping to reduce emissions when the UK is so reliant on importing it? Does she agree that bolstering domestic supply should be a priority, bringing benefits for the environment and our economy?
The Government tell us that they are pursuing an economic growth agenda, although I have to say we have seen little evidence of that ambition coming to fruition—in fact, quite the opposite. One reason for that is the Government’s persistent tendency to fall back on bureaucracy and red tape—or, in this case, green tape—which stifles ambition and actively disincentivises woodland creation. In the light of that, what assessment has the Minister made of enabling planting on lower-value uplands? Has she given any consideration to revising planning policies to enable such planting, or to reviewing the weighting given to archaeology when determining or refusing forestry consents?
With the benefits that forestry brings, such as timber, habitat and amenity, landowners should be incentivised to plant and grow trees, and advantageous tax benefits are a key method of encouraging forestry. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will look to incentives for tree planting as part of the future SFI scheme, when it reopens, as the previous Conservative Government did? His Majesty’s official Opposition are clear: the family farm tax and the family business tax should be scrapped in their entirety. The Government’s partial U-turn does not go far enough, so what assessment has the Minister made of the benefits of withdrawing the family farm and business taxes on tree planting?
Finally, some have shared their concerns that the voluntary woodland carbon code does not provide businesses with a sufficient financial incentive to plant more trees. Including trees in the emissions trading scheme can see the price of an individual credit rise by up to 67%. I understand that that has the potential to remove and store up to 19 million tonnes of carbon emissions from our atmosphere. As I understand it, the Government have acknowledged that they hope to include nature-based carbon removals, which I hope will include woodland creation, by 2028. I ask the Minister to prioritise that work to avoid any delays.
It is in all our interests to create a more resilient, productive and nature-rich landscape, and securing a diverse range of forests and woodlands will help to achieve that aim. Woodlands and forests have always been part of our country’s landscape. They have inspired writers and composers, supported our economy, and been playgrounds for our children and places where we can all connect with nature. They are part of the fabric of our community and the fabric of our country, and with that in mind I hope the Minister can reassure us that the Government are alive to the threats facing woodlands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell, and what a lovely debate we have had. It has not been the best part of my week—that was releasing a mother beaver and her three kids on the National Trust’s Holnicote estate in Somerset yesterday—but it has been the second best. We have had a lovely debate, with constructive and thoughtful contributions from many colleagues.
Where are we having this debate? In Westminster Hall, which is home to northern Europe’s largest medieval timber roof, built in the 1390s from 650 tonnes of English oak. It was saved from the blitz fires by former Cabinet Minister Walter Elliot, who directed the firefighters to allow the Chamber to burn but, whatever they did, to save that roof. What an amazing piece of foresight that was, and what a piece of foresight it was for Winston Churchill to demand that oaks be chopped down across England ready for the reconstruction of the main Chamber we sit and debate in. And how wonderful it is, for those of us who have had the privilege, to stand at the Dispatch Box, which was a gift from the people of New Zealand. People knew that we needed timber after world war two, and the Commonwealth—the empire, as it was then—stepped forward and stepped up.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on securing the debate. How lovely it was to hear him talk about the “tree of hope” coming out of the Sycamore Gap tree. Last year, I visited Northumberland to see where the Sycamore Gap tree stood and to hear about the national park’s plans to honour and memorialise it. The power that trees have to speak to us across the centuries and across generations cannot be overstated.
It was lovely to hear about the wetland arc in Milton Keynes. I know Bedfordshire well because I taught at Cranfield School of Management for seven happy years. I also did quite a lot of canvassing in a variety of by-elections in Mid Bedfordshire and found some places that I had not known about.
The trees and woodlands of England and the United Kingdom are more than just part of the landscape; they are part of our national identity. They filter our air, they cool the cities and they shelter our wildlife. We talked about leafiness and how it was associated with wealth, but when we walk in a city and see a glorious display of cherry blossom, we almost have public art in the street. That display of luxuriance and beauty is there just because it is there; it is not performing any function apart from providing a visual display. It is absolutely glorious to see some of the urban planting going in across our cities, and when I cycle around places, as I often do, I am always thinking, “When they designed this place, what were they thinking about for the future?” It really makes you think about how councils think about their constituents.
Trees are part of our shared national culture. They stand as symbols of endurance, wisdom and renewal. In Japan, forest bathing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) talked about, is prescribed by doctors to prevent anxiety, lower stress and help heal depression. I heard about that on a visit to Wakehurst—I recommend a visit—which has done experiments on different tree scents. The Japanese cypress gives off an odour and oils that are a mood enhancer, lifting the mood and clearing the mind, as my hon. Friend said. I think I will steal that idea for the future.
Growing up in Coventry, I played every weekend in the War Memorial Park, the city’s great act of remembrance for those we lost in world war one. Every tree has a plaque beneath it remembering the people who died—a living memorial to the lost.
As forestry Minister, I regularly see the majesty and benefit of woodlands up close. I met the social enterprise Forests With Impact, launched at His Majesty’s prison Haverigg in Cumbria, which upskills prisoners to grow trees for onward planting. One of the comments from the Ministry of Justice about the prisoners who grow the seeds is that they want to know where the seeds are going. As they imagine their lives on the outside, they want to know where they can visit and say, “I grew that seed,” or, “That might have been a seed that I handled,”. I pay tribute to the last Government for some of the work done in prisons on that intimate connection between environmental justice, social justice and the criminal justice system.
I have stood beneath the spruce and pine of Kielder forest with the people who manage it, and I have heard about Forestry England, which is the largest provider of parkrun in the country, with 220,000 people a week running through our national forests. I was of course passionately against the coalition Government’s attempts to try to sell off England’s national forests—that was 16 years ago, but some of us have very long memories.
The Government’s plan for change sets out how we are going to build a stronger, fairer, greener Britain, and I gently say to the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth)—I am not sure whether she is standing in or she has had a promotion, but if it is a promotion, then many congratulations.
Mary Creagh
She is standing in—very good. However, I gently say to her that while trees have a key role to play, we have done six interest rate cuts, and inflation is set to come in on target, so the economic plan certainly seems to be going much better than it was in the days of Liz Truss.
Let us talk about woodlands. They stitch our habitats back together, and they provide corridors for our birds, bats and beetles. All Government-funded woodlands must be designed and planted to the UK forestry standard. That world-leading technical standard for sustainable forest creation and management ensures a diverse mix of species, which will not only benefit wildlife but make woodland more resilient to climate change and the ever-changing risks from pests and diseases.
Jim Shannon
There is no doubt that every one of us, including the Minister, is keen to encourage the planting of more woodlands but, by its very nature, having more woodlands, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) mentioned, means pests increasing in numbers, and that includes deer and grey squirrels. As someone who has never shot a deer or a grey squirrel, although I have shot many other things, including birds, I ask the Government to consider working in tandem with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Countryside Alliance and individuals who are insured to ensure that deer numbers—we do want to see deer—are kept at a level where they do not become a pest and that grey squirrels are, to be honest about it, eradicated, so that red squirrels can survive.
Mary Creagh
I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised that subject, which I was coming on to. Native wild deer are an important component of our landscape, and they play a role in healthy forest ecosystems. However, excessive browsing, foraging and trampling by deer put pressure on woodland ground flora, damage trees, and inhibit the natural regeneration of existing woodland and, crucially, the growth of new trees through natural colonisation. Trees will get on and do it themselves if we just leave them, but they cannot do it if they are constantly being yanked up by deer or grey squirrel populations.
We have to manage the impact of deer and grey squirrel populations, and it is our intention to outline plans to do that. We published our squirrel strategy last week, and the deer plan is imminent. We provide grants for capital items such as fencing and for the management of deer by lethal control. That is done through countryside stewardship grant funding where the land manager has been advised by a Forestry Commission deer officer that such action is needed.
We are funding projects relating to reducing deer impacts, and I am particularly concerned about the muntjac deer and the Chinese water deer, which are a particular feature of the east of England. They are alien, invasive species, so there are risks about hybridisation with our own native deer. One of the two—I cannot remember which one, but I think it is the muntjac—can breed three times a year, so it is constant breeding. Covid has had a very bad impact on deer management. We do not really have research on deer numbers, but anecdotally they are high, so we need to take action. I am particularly anxious about the east of England, and the steps needed there.
I want to say something about the British quality wild venison standard. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) may not have shot a deer, but I have certainly eaten quite a lot of venison. That wild, organic meat is really healthy and plays a part in creating that ecosystem. Some charities, such as the Country Food Trust, are doing really good work in that area.
Blake Stephenson
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) mentioned the potential introduction of the lynx as an apex predator, but active deer management is already under way in my constituency through culling. Do the Government have a preference on culling versus introducing an apex predator, or a combination of the two? What thought are the Government giving to deer management?
Mary Creagh
We have given some consideration to the question of introducing the lynx. At the moment, they are classed as a dangerous wild animal under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, and all dangerous wild animals have to be kept in a fenced enclosure. A massive fenced enclosure would be needed for a lynx. At the moment, the policy in the legislation makes it challenging. We need to balance that and work with stakeholders. Like beavers, they are animals that need a range, a habitat and the ability to roam around and breed. The question is: what happens when they breed and produce offspring? One pair of lynxes could end up being eight or 16. What is the management plan going forward? There are certainly some policy wrinkles in that—I will come back to deer, but that would need to be in very large forests with a lot of room to roam.
To go back to Kew Gardens, I had the pleasure of spending an hour with Kevin Martin, who is the head of tree collections at Kew. He has been going over to Kazakhstan in central Asia to collect tree seeds and do research on the seeds of the future and what our changing landscape will mean as we have hotter, drier summers and warmer, wetter winters. I also went out with somebody to look at trees, and we looked at this amazing lime tree with all its heavy nectar. He said to me, “For bees, that is like having a meadow in the sky.” Our city trees and the lime trees that grow along the embankment might be a bit of a nightmare from an allergy and pollen point of view, but for the bees of our capital city, and all our great cities, they are meadows in the sky.
Alison Taylor
Does the Minister have any comment on the lack of conifers being planted and the need to have them alongside broadleaf trees?
Mary Creagh
We need woodland creation of all types. In 2024, the proportion of conifers being planted went up to 12% of tree planting, from 9% the previous year. We need productive woodlands as part of that. Non-native forests can provide biodiversity benefits and vital seed crops for mammals, red squirrels and birds. We are working towards increasing the rate of conifer planting because, as colleagues have said, its importance to timber in our construction industry cannot be overstated. We aim to publish a new trees action plan in 2026, which will set out how our Government’s £1 billion investment into tree planting and the forestry sector in this Parliament will be used to achieve the new 2030 interim tree cover target and improve the resilience of our trees.
Jen Craft
The Minister will not have failed to notice the spectacular redwoods at Wakehurst on her visit there. Will she support Forestry England’s measures to make sure that one in five new trees planted are novel species such as the redwood and the cedar, which are predicted to cope much better with changing climate?
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The redwoods and the cedars are glorious, iconic species that can thrive in incredibly hot weather. They also give us year-round colour, because they do not drop their leaves, so less resource is needed to manage the leaf fall. Forestry England has published a list of 30 priority tree species selected for their ability to withstand extreme weather and resist pests and diseases. Of course, we have to think now about what will be able to survive 30 or 70 years into the future.
We have heard about how great trees are in towns and cities. They can reduce urban heat by between 2°C and 8°C, making a huge difference during hot weather. Those are not soft benefits; they are real public goods with real public value. Last year, tree planting in England reached its highest level in over 20 years with 7,000 hectares, or 10,000 football pitches, of new canopy. As we have heard, though, our tree cover is well below average, and we are the second largest net importer of timber in the world. Our environmental improvement plan, published in December, set a new interim tree canopy and woodland cover target that requires a net increase of 43,000 hectares from the 2022 baseline under the previous Government.
As I said, we announced the creation of the first new national forest, the western forest, stretching from the Cotswolds to the Mendips—that is really important for flood protection; I was in Somerset yesterday, looking at the fields under water—and spearheaded by the forest of Avon. Some 20 million trees will be planted across the west of England over the next 25 years. Last November, we announced the creation of two more national forests. The second one will be in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor.
The expression of interest process for community partners closed on 30 January. I am sure that the forest of Marston Vale will have applied, as will others. I shall remain completely neutral, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North encouraged that application. We will launch a third new national forest competition, for the midlands or the north of England, by July 2026, so hon. Members should watch out for that. We will see millions of trees bringing peace, shade and joy to people around the country.
As we have heard, Milton Keynes has a long history of integrating trees into its living space. We must demonstrate how natural infrastructure can work alongside national infrastructure. It is very disappointing to hear about the A14 and the trees that have died. The tree-planting season is from November to February, and there is plenty of water around at the moment; we should not be planting them in the summertime.
Integrating trees into agriculture through agroforestry allows farmers to reap the many benefits that they provide, while maintaining and in some cases improving agricultural output. Our England woodland creation offer is tailored to encourage woodland creation where it is best suited, exemplifying the concept of public money for public good.
I will say a final couple of things. First, the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, asked a specific question about APR and tree planting. I will write to her on that, because I would not want in any way to mislead the House. We do have the woodland creation planning grant, which makes thousands of pounds available to fund the groundwork before the first sapling goes in—the right trees in the right place.
Last month, we published the grey squirrel policy statement, saying how we will reduce the grey squirrel’s impact on red squirrels, as well as on our trees and woodland. I will just say that, for many of us, a cheeky grey squirrel—or five—is the only bit of nature we see in our garden, so I am not sure that they will be eradicated from towns and cities, but we need to ensure that we protect and create secure areas for our red squirrels to thrive.
We know that forestry supports rural economies, creates green jobs, supplies sustainable material and is important for tourism. We updated the “Timber in construction roadmap” last year, and we committed to planting, harvesting and using more sustainable timber at home. The Department for Education has a really good system for timber-framed buildings. I visited a timber frame production facility called Innovare—just outside Coventry—which told me how quickly it can get in and build these schools and extensions, which is particularly important for children with special educational needs who are very upset by things changing every day. Putting a frame up and then building from the inside out is a really good way to deal with that problem.
As a Government, we are supporting the Forestry Commission and University of Cumbria-led three-year paid forestry apprenticeship programme, with 21 apprentices graduating from this degree-level forestry apprenticeship just last November. Our investment in degree-level apprenticeships and training will boost rural employment.
Last year, Forest Research, which is part of the Forestry Commission, mapped England’s trees outside woodland by satellite and laser and made the results freely available for the first time. That showed that trees outside our woodlands make up 30% of the nation’s tree cover. I invite people to have a look, to log on and see what trees they have, and to check our satellite mapping; we always need citizen science feedback on all that.
Last year, I was honoured to open Forestry England’s newly upgraded seed processing unit in the constituency of the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, in Delamere forest. The building is timber made and will be net zero carbon in operation. It has been named in honour of a long-serving member of Forestry England’s seed supply team, the late Vernon Stockton. It is the largest in the UK, and it will process cones, fruit and berries from across Great Britain, carefully selected for their genetic potential, each year producing four tonnes of top-quality seed. The forests of the future are being made in the Delamere forest tree seed processing centre.
However, we must not neglect public safety. Four months ago, following a Westminster Hall debate in the wake of the tragic death of Chris Hall, I wrote to local councils reminding them of their statutory public safety obligations and highlighted the guidance available to them on how to manage trees safely.
To conclude, I commend the work of the Parks Trust in Milton Keynes, and it is great to see a Labour Government, like the one that created that great city, and the Parks Trust carrying on with the great vision of trees, woodlands, parks and gardens close to where people live. At the end of last year, the Secretary of State visited the Parks Trust and heard more about its wetland arc project, which is bringing together local volunteers for community tree planting, increasing nature and climate resilience.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North said, we face a nature crisis, but we are not out of solutions yet. Trees are one of our fastest, strongest and most dependable tools. I am pressing the Climate Change Committee and the emissions trading scheme, which is independent of Government, to include the woodland and peatland carbon codes as part of their future emissions trading scheme; they will make a decision on that at some point this year.
Tomorrow’s towns and cities must be richer in woodland, smarter in their use of wood and contain woods that are resilient, well designed and well connected. We will plant for the long term, knowing that what we plant today leaves a legacy for tomorrow. I thank everyone who came to this debate, everyone who loves trees and everyone who is out there right now, in the pouring rain, digging and planting these little sticks that will turn into something magical and powerful, creating a greener, fairer Britain.
Chris Curtis
I thank everyone who has contributed, including my hon. Friends the Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Thurrock (Jen Craft), for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor), as well as the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson).
People like me often talk about the importance of building new homes and infrastructure in this country, and no one in Government should apologise for housing targets in places anywhere across the country—but I do not think, nor will I ever believe, that that is in conflict with improving nature. My city is proof of that. Derek Walker, the chief architect of Milton Keynes, said that for the city to be a success, it needed to be
“a forest city that would be greener than the surrounding countryside”.
He achieved that.
The reason I am so supportive of the Government’s nature strategy is that it would allow that sort of thing to happen again as it supports outcome over process. I would like to see the Department go further in ensuring that, when we enhance nature in this country, we focus on outcome and not on process, so that, for example, when we are building a railway line across this country and there is a £120 million to spend, it is spent on ensuring that we can enhance and protect forests, and not on a pointless bat tunnel that does absolutely nothing to enhance nature.
When we think about an energy strategy for the future, as was recommended by the nuclear regulatory taskforce, we acknowledge that building nuclear power stations is one of the best ways of enhancing nature in this country because it means that, within a very small geography, we can produce a great deal of energy. Anybody who cares about protecting nature should support the Department in implementing those measures in full.
I conclude by returning to the topic of trees and woodlands. They say that planting a tree is the greatest act of altruism. The time spent digging and planting is a small act, but it will shape the Earth for future generations. Consider the people who planted the 22 million trees in Milton Keynes; Fred Roach, the guy who led the development corporation, died a few years before I was born, but the city he built, the trees he planted and the green spaces he created were enjoyed by my family, especially me and my brother as we were growing up.
This Government need to show that same altruistic attitude, planting trees and forests so that this country can remain a green and pleasant land for centuries to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of woodland creation.
Rural GPs: 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
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered GP funding in rural areas.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about this important topic. Statistics show that, as of 2024, 17% of England’s population, equating to 9.6 million people, live in rural areas. For these communities, accessing healthcare can be challenging. The challenges are well known: rural GP practices serve elderly and often isolated populations, and are tasked with delivering complex care in large and often sparse geographical areas. The demands have long been accounted for in our funding formula for GPs, the Carr-Hill formula. The model was introduced in 2004 and was designed to ensure that GP funding reflected variations in workload and local population characteristics, including a measure of rurality.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
Sherston in South Cotswolds is in imminent danger of losing its surgery. There is an enormous local strength of feeling, with 2,850 out of 3,000 patients signing a petition. As the right hon. Lady mentioned, people who need doctors’ surgeries by definition tend to be elderly, ill or parents with small children, so does she agree that the NHS should prioritise the provision of GP surgeries for small rural communities such as Sherston?
Esther McVey
The hon. Lady raises a very relevant point, and I agree wholeheartedly. People in lots of areas in my constituency cannot get to a GP and are bereft of a GP surgery.
Until now, we have had a measure of rurality, but this Government have instructed the National Institute for Health and Care Research to review the funding model and examine how working-class areas could benefit under a new model based on deprivation rather than workload.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on bringing this subject to Westminster Hall. I am always glad to come along and support her, because she leads great and very pertinent debates. I am a resident of a rural area, and the pressure that my local GPs are under has to be seen to be believed: only three practices cover the whole Ards peninsula, which has a growing population. Does the right hon. Lady agree that funding must be available to give surgeries the potential to have physio rooms, nutrition advice and perhaps even pharmacies that provide first-stop medical advice? The cost of such facilities needs to be met by Government, because there will be savings in the long term.
Esther McVey
It is always good to have my hon. Friend—and I do call him my hon. Friend—intervene on me. He makes very good points. It is also important that a local GP chooses, and can see what their local constituents require and what is best for their health outcomes.
The move to a new model based on deprivation rather than workload is, at best, an act of ignorance that fails to acknowledge the significant challenges of running GP practices in rural areas; at worst, it represents yet another example of Labour’s assault on rural life. Measuring pressures on GPs solely through the lens of deprivation would ignore the complex, distinct demands faced by rural practices. Rural communities have older populations. In 2019, the House of Lords Rural Economy Select Committee found that the average age in rural areas was almost six years higher than in urban areas, and a quarter of the rural population were over the age of 65.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for securing this important debate. Dr Richard West MBE and Dr Daniel James, general practitioners in Woolpit in my Suffolk constituency, have been awarded the Royal College of General Practitioners East Anglia Faculty GP prize this year in recognition of sustained contribution to rural mental health and community-focused general practice. Does she agree with me that we must do all we can to look after the mental health of the rural population, particularly isolated farm workers?
Esther McVey
The hon. Member raises a very good point indeed. I congratulate his constituents. The pressure that I know the farming community is under and the impact that the family farm tax has had on the mental health of the rural community and farmers has been significant.
Life expectancy is longer in rural areas, placing greater demands on GP practices. Statistics published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggest that people born in mainly rural areas in 2018 to 2020 were expected to live two and a half years longer than people born in urban areas. Older populations place greater demands on GP surgeries, presenting with complex healthcare needs and higher levels of chronic illness and frailty. The Rural Services Network analysis shows that GP-registered patients over the age of 75 account for 11% of rural GP patients, compared with just 7.5% in urban settings.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
My right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is making a wonderful speech. Is she going to come on to the pressures of house building? There is huge pressure for new homes, and many of our rural areas already struggle with insufficient infrastructure. I am working with our GP in Handbridge, where their site is now too small and not fit for purpose given the larger population that the practice now has. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as pressure for more homes is put on constituencies like ours in Cheshire, it is vital that existing residents have access to GPs that are in suitable premises, fit for the numbers and the older population that often use them?
Esther McVey
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for raising that point. She is absolutely right that the number of new homes that are going to be built in rural areas, putting more pressure on GP surgeries, is significant. Without new GP practices, I am not sure where our residents will go when they need a doctor and need to see somebody about their health.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
In a similar vein to the previous intervention, one in five GP buildings predate the NHS itself, which is a quite staggering fact, and over a third of GPs say their premises are no longer fit for purpose. In places such as West Dorset, outdated buildings struggle to deal with the current population, let alone the projected future growth as a result of house building, and fewer than a third of practices that applied for capital funding last year were granted funds. Does the right hon. Member agree that GP estate funding must also be expanded to help rural areas deal with the increased population?
Esther McVey
I agree with the hon. Member. I will come on to my surgeries that are indeed in Victorian buildings—spread across four—and need to be brought together and modernised. That is in Knutsford in my constituency. I know that there will be many other places like that across the country. The hon. Member raises a valid and pertinent point.
We know that GP services in rural communities are spread across a large geographical area, and many elderly residents in Tatton live alone. Although such independence is cherished, travelling long distances to access healthcare is more difficult. Public transport is often limited or non-existent. Community transport schemes exist in Tatton, but they cannot always accommodate short-notice or urgent medical needs. Often, elderly residents do not drive, so they are left reliant on costly taxis or GP staff taking the time to travel to a patient’s home. That places additional pressures on already stretched services. In Lostock Gralam, despite a population of about 2,800 people, there is no GP practice. That forces patients to make a lengthy journey to Northwich, and without a direct bus service many are left to rely on taxis to make their appointment.
For those communities, recruiting and retaining staff becomes more difficult and more expensive. The Rural Services Network reports that 59% of hard-to-recruit GP speciality training posts are located in rural areas. There is less access to specialists and consultants, which makes their services more expensive. Community services and provision are sparser in rural areas, too. Pharmacies, which help to relieve pressure on GPs in urban areas, are not as common in rural areas. When I secured this debate, I was contacted by the Dispensing Doctors’ Association, which provides an essential role in dispensing medicines to patients who live more than 1.6 kilometres from a pharmacy. It delivers to about 10 million patients across England, but is facing increasing challenges due to its reliance on manual delivery.
In addition, while urban pharmacies move ahead with digital efficiency, rural pharmacies often struggle to keep pace because broadband coverage is often unreliable, rendering remote consultations near impossible and service delivery more difficult. The benefits of digitisation in healthcare are well understood across this House, but they rely entirely on having the right infrastructure in place. Without connectivity, rural practices are simply unable to access or benefit from Government investment in that area. There are lots of people from rural areas here, and we know how unreliable our broadband infrastructure is.
In 2022, the all-party parliamentary group on rural health and care published an inquiry into healthcare in rural areas. It concluded:
“Rurality and its infrastructure must be redefined to allow a better understanding of how it impinges on health outcomes”.
No progress has been made on achieving that. Removing the rurality measure of GPs’ funding entirely would be a step backwards in understanding how settings impact GPs’ ability to provide healthcare.
There is little transparency about who exactly will be consulted in the funding model review. In a written answer to a parliamentary question, the Government confirmed that the review
“will draw on a range of evidence and advice from experts,”
such as the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation and the British Medical Association general practitioners committee, but there is little information beyond that. There are GPs in Tatton who are keen to contribute but, as of yet, have not been able to.
Peter Prinsley
There is obviously a problem with funding the recruitment of additional GP partners in rural surgeries. Does the hon. Member agree that we should think carefully about how the partnership model itself might be improved?
Esther McVey
The hon. Member raises another good question, and we can ask the Minister to look into that.
The logical conclusion of not having GPs from rural areas take part in this review is that the Government do not want to listen to them. They are intent on rewriting the formula without acknowledging the realities of delivering rural healthcare. A broadbrush measure such as deprivation cannot take into consideration the very close link between the ability to deliver healthcare and the rural or urban settings in which GPs exist. It comes as little surprise. Whether selling off our family farms or introducing a devolution agenda that pits rural against urban areas, time and again the Labour Government have shown that they are not willing to listen to rural areas, but are quick to sell out rural Britain at the first chance.
As is typical, Labour’s response to pressure is to level down some areas, which serves only to create additional pressures elsewhere, rather than acting to fix them. The pressure faced by rural healthcare will not disappear soon. The NHS long-term workforce plan, published under the previous Government in 2023, recognised that the increased demand from an ageing population is not uniform in the UK. It estimated that
“In 2037, a third of people aged over 85 will be living in rural communities”
compared with just a quarter now. The Government must act to address that trend.
I have been campaigning for a new medical centre in Knutsford, as was acknowledged before, where doctors desperately need more space and modernised facilities to meet patients’ needs. The current surgeries in Knutsford do not do that; they are all Victorian buildings and are not suitable. I have been pressing for that for a long time. I have met with the Minister—I thank her for that—and I would be grateful for an update on the progress of the practice in Knutsford.
GP practices deliver community care and their ability to deliver is reliant on the environment in which they serve the patients. We must have a funding formula that acknowledges the challenges of delivering healthcare in rural areas. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. Who is being consulted in the review, and will it include those with first-hand experience of delivering healthcare in rural settings, like my GPs in Tatton? What assurances can be provided that rurality will remain a factor in a new funding formula? Given the specific challenges they face, will the Department commit to publishing an assessment of the impact on rural communities ahead of any change to the funding formula?
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing the debate and raising a critical issue that I know is important to many hon. Members. I am pleased to be here on behalf of the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), who is working hard on the issue.
This Government have made primary care a pillar of NHS reform, to make the left shift and put more healthcare into the community. In our 10-year plan, we specifically highlighted our commitment to people in rural and coastal areas, because they have been left behind. As the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) highlighted, the infrastructure is appalling in many places, and some of those areas have the worst deprivation in the country. Last week, I was pleased to visit Redruth in Cornwall and talk to a GP practice about the deprivation it faces and the work it is doing. We do understand that, which is why we highlighted it in our 10-year plan.
Over the last 18 months, we have taken a number of measures to increase funding, support our workforce and improve patient access, so that we can rebuild the front door to the NHS and create a neighbourhood health service. It is important to remember that when we came into office 18 months ago, we found GP services in an appalling state: underfunded, understaffed and in crisis. First, we inherited an absurd state of affairs where patients could not book appointments, while GPs could not find work. We took immediate action to put GPs to work so that patients could get the care they need. We promised to recruit 1,000 more GPs through the additional roles reimbursement scheme, and we recruited not 1,000 or 2,000, but 3,000. In the right hon. Lady’s ICB area of Cheshire and Merseyside, there were 102 more GPs on the frontline at the end of last year compared with when we took office.
Secondly, for the first time in more than a decade, we have agreed a GP contract, which means more than £1 billion extra for general practices, bringing total spend on the contract to £13.4 billion this financial year. That is the biggest cash increase in more than a decade. Thirdly, the previous Government left GP surgeries across the country with leaky pipes, falling roofs and buckets catching rainwater. We are investing £102 million to fix GP surgeries this year, and over the next four years, we are committed to investing another £426 million on GP estates and refurbishing neighbourhood health centres. On top of that, ICBs will have £195 million every year to support strategic primary care investments, with a focus on replacing crumbling infrastructure —an issue that many Members have raised today.
I am proud to say we can now see some green shoots of recovery in primary care. According to the Office for National Statistics, patient satisfaction has gone from 60% to 73% since this Government took office. A lot has been done, but we absolutely recognise that there is a lot more to do, especially as GPs become the cornerstone of our neighbourhood health services. Over the course of this Parliament, we will train thousands more GPs. We have already made an additional 250 training places available this year, taking the total to 4,250 places, with plans to expand that further.
Let me turn to the specific points raised by the right hon. Member for Tatton, starting with Knutsford—as she said, we met about that last year. On the medical centre, East Cheshire trust is working on the outline business case, which it needs to submit to the ICB. The ICB needs to be satisfied with the submission, which would progress to a full business case, which would take some time to secure the necessary planning permissions. It also needs to look at how the clinical services work for both the general practice and the trust, and how they will be delivered, while ensuring that it is value for taxpayers’ money and lines up with the overall development that we want to see towards neighbourhood health services.
As I have said to the right hon. Lady and many hon. Members, we expect ICBs to be collaborative and to keep their local MPs up to date and in the loop regarding plans for their constituencies. That is the situation at the moment: the trust is working on the outline business case with the medical centre, which is where that conversation needs to progress.
On the main subject of the debate and the Carr-Hill formula, I must confess that I have seen this over many years in my time working as a manager in the NHS. It is a difficult issue, and one we are taking seriously, particularly when it comes to wider access in rural areas. Rural and remote areas face specific pressures, whether that is recruitment challenges, longer travel times or population fluctuations for various reasons, including tourism in some places. That is why the previous Labour Government introduced the formula in 2004, but we believe the formula is no longer fit for purpose today.
A lot has happened in those 20 years and the research underpinning the formula was done in the 2000s, which means that so-called workload coefficients were estimated on the basis of data that may reflect clinical practice, such as patterns of home visits, from as far back as the early 1990s. Clinical practice and population health have changed markedly since that time. GP practices serving more deprived areas receive 9.8% less funding on average per needs-adjusted patient than those in less deprived communities. That is despite having greater health needs and significantly higher patient-to-GP ratios.
We are asking experts to help us to design a formula that reflects patient need more accurately, working on the principle that funding for core services should be distributed equitably between patients across the country. Deprivation is a factor, but not the only one. Let me be clear, this is not about taking GPs away from urban areas or robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is about ensuring that funding is fairly distributed.
The right hon. Lady rightly said that the review is being conducted by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. The review team has already engaged with partners at the Royal College of GPs, the general practice committee of the British Medical Association and the NHS Confederation, among others. Although I cannot pre-empt the review, the point is to ensure that funding is targeted towards areas that need it most. That means considering a broad range of factors relevant to the delivery of primary care services, including difficulties delivering services in rural areas, as she and others have outlined. We expect the first phase of that to conclude in March.
We will then see whether there is a need for further work to technically develop and model any proposed changes to the formula. In response to the right hon. Lady’s question, we will of course look to understand the impact of any changes to the current formula on practices across the country ahead of implementation. The Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg, will update the House on the progress and outcomes of the review in the normal way.
Lastly, although many hon. Members will know this, it is worth highlighting that some 40% to 50% of GP practice funding is currently not determined by this formula. The income into GP practices is based on a number of other areas as well. We will obviously develop our neighbourhood health services in future, so we need to take notice of all those factors.
I want to comment on the point that the right hon. Lady raised about analogue and digital. That is a key part of our 10-year plan. As the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), said last week, wherever people live in our country, they deserve the same access to healthcare as everyone else. Wealth should not determine health, nor should a postcode.
I understand the point that the right hon. Lady and others have made—it has been made to me very often—about infrastructure and access, particularly digital. However, using digital based on geography offers huge potential to fight inequalities. For example, because of the online services for GPs that we launched in October, patients can now contact GPs through online services to request an appointment or raise a non-urgent query, which is in addition to telephone and in-person requests. That is tackling the 8 am scramble that we committed to addressing when we came into power, so that patients no longer have to wait by their phone to call GPs at a time of day when many go to work or get their kids ready for school.
The right hon. Lady correctly says that rural communities largely have older populations. We want to be digital by default—and many older people are very digital—but human where it matters. That means that people in rural areas and elsewhere will still be able to use the phone if they want to, and they will not be waiting nearly as long because the other phone lines are being freed up. We are seeing real progress in that area.
When we came into government, the front door of the NHS was hanging off its hinges. In these 18 short months, we are seeing the green shoots of recovery in general practice and recovery and reform in primary care. Our plan for change is creating a neighbourhood health service that puts GPs at its heart, so that the NHS is there for everyone, wherever they need it. We know that is not going to be easy and we want to work with it to develop that. I hope that today we have set out how we are trying to get there. Yes, there is more investment, but there is also fundamental reform, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg will be happy to keep in contact with Members as we progress this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Supported Exempt Accommodation: Birmingham
(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
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered supported exempt accommodation in Birmingham.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I declare my interest as a landlord.
It is fair to say that most people up and down the country will not know much, if anything, about supported exempt accommodation, but in Birmingham it is something that almost everyone has become all too familiar with. In just eight years, the number of people housed in supported exempt accommodation in our city has tripled to more than 32,000 across 11,200 properties. My Birmingham Perry Barr constituency alone hosts 20% of the city’s total units. That means thousands of vulnerable individuals placed in a small number of neighbourhoods. This is not a marginal issue for us; it is shaping daily life.
With the city containing more supported exempt accommodation than anywhere else, Brummies face a completely different reality on the ground from every other community in the country. Of most immediate concern to my constituents is the antisocial behaviour, criminal activity and fly-tipping that come with a high number of these properties in such close proximity.
Let me be absolutely clear from the outset that this debate must not be about stigmatising vulnerable people. Many of those housed in supported accommodation are there because they have experienced trauma, addiction, serious mental health issues, abuse, time in care or even time in custody. They deserve compassion, dignity and meaningful support.
But compassion must be matched with realism. Some of the individuals placed in ordinary residential streets have needs so acute that they require intensive, structured and often 24-hour care. When someone is in such crisis that they are unable to manage basic personal safety, hygiene, or addiction issues in public spaces, that person is not being supported adequately. They are not “bad neighbours”. They are people who require structured, possibly clinical support environments—not standard terraced housing or residential streets. The same applies to certain ex-offenders, particularly those leaving custody with complex behavioural, psychological or substance misuse issues. Reintegration is vital, but it is a delicate process that needs close management and the right resources.
The issues that are being caused in my constituency are a matter not of law and order, but of care. I have had reports of individuals experiencing severe mental health breakdowns defecating in public spaces. Residents have described open drug use on streets where parents are walking their children to school. There are cases of individuals injecting themselves in broad daylight, in full view of families. For many of my constituents, everywhere they look they see visible manifestations of profound vulnerability and unmet need.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I call Jim Shannon, on supported exempt accommodation in Birmingham.
Jim Shannon
I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand, and he knows where I am coming from. I congratulate him on bringing forward this critical issue for vulnerable people. He will know that every constituency, wherever it may be in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has immense housing pressures, and it is often the most vulnerable—the very people he is referring to—who fall through the cracks. Does he agree that every local authority and housing authority—in Birmingham or, as it may be, in Northern Ireland—must have greater access to supported living for those who could thrive with a little help? We have a duty of care, as do the Government, to ensure that everything possible can be done to change the way things currently are.
Ayoub Khan
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. Often this comes down to adequate resourcing. As I described, we have a situation in which individuals who need intensive support are not being provided that support. They are being placed in neighbourhoods, which in itself is very challenging; someone might have an addiction to alcohol and be placed in a community where there is very little infrastructural support. It is vital not only that there is suitable accommodation but, more fundamentally, that we have the right level of support in and around particular areas. When we have large saturation without the support, the problems faced by many of my constituents and people in Birmingham more broadly are inevitable.
That brings me nicely to the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which was passed to resolve some of the issues that we are facing in Birmingham. It promised to introduce compulsory national minimum standards for exempt accommodation, including on referrals, care and support, and quality of housing. It promised to grant local councils the powers and resources needed to enforce such standards, and greater control over the licensing and planning permission given to providers. Since the Act received Royal Assent, however, it has been stuck in the consultation stage, with disagreements over how to implement it on the ground. While the Act shows no sign of taking effect, the expansion of exempt accommodation in Birmingham continues unabated.
The Government seem intent on painting the situation in Birmingham as simply a local matter that is nothing of their making, and the council’s call for powers to regulate the concentration of these properties as some kind of nimbyism, and yet the city’s importing vulnerable individuals from other local authorities against the council’s will is what caused the explosion in the first place.
While supported exempt accommodation plays an important role in housing vulnerable people, the concentration and volume of provision in Birmingham far exceeds local need. This is not something that the Government have not known about; in written evidence it submitted to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in 2022, Birmingham city council confirmed that only 42% of properties were needed to meet local need, with much of the remaining 58% being used to house people referred through local authorities or national bodies outside the Birmingham area. In all too many cases, people are being put in exempt accommodation in Birmingham simply because it is available, with no afterthought for the relative level of support that tenants can be provided or for the impact on the local area. Worst of all, Birmingham city council knows that is happening, but the Government still have not given it the licensing powers to stop it.
Inaction on the Government’s part has been glaring, but I am pleased that the same cannot be said of activists in my constituency. During my time as Member of Parliament for Birmingham Perry Barr, I have been encouraged by the tireless efforts of local groups to raise the issue, including the HMO Action Group, the Handsworth Triangle Action Group, the Soho Road business improvement district and Handsworth Helping Hands. I must also thank Birmingham city council and West Midlands police for mobilising in the way they have to try to tackle the crisis.
A particular bright spot has been the council’s in-house SEA pilot, which we can safely say has punched well above its weight and made Birmingham better for it. With minimal Government funding, the pilot has recovered £8.8 million in overpaid housing benefit, while also completing 2,600 antisocial behaviour investigations. That is with only 21 people covering the entire Birmingham city area. We must think of what more can be done to reduce fraud and waste in Government spending by giving the council the means to expand that operation.
The SEA pilot and groups of committed activists have done an incredible job to improve care standards for vulnerable people in supported exempt accommodation, where such action is needed, but they simply cannot fill the gap that the Government have allowed to grow. To make matters worse, rather than supporting them, the Government are refusing to fund the SEA pilot—its funding runs out next month. As a result, the bankrupt Birmingham city council has been left in an impossible position. It must either scrounge the money together to fund the initiative itself, or lose what little grip it had left on the situation.
That point is worth repeating. After depriving the council of the powers to regulate the market for three years, the Government are now refusing to give it the means to provide even a band-aid solution to a problem that they are compounding. While assurances were given that the Government would respond to the consultation as soon as possible, we have been hearing that for a long time.
This is not just about some additional antisocial behaviour taking place on the streets; it is about the vulnerable individuals who are being let down by the system, and it is about the residents who have paid the price for Government inaction and seen the character of their streets tainted. Residents feel that their neighbourhoods have been lost and, worst of all, they feel as though no one in Whitehall cares enough to solve the problem.
This is not to say that there is no place for supported exempt accommodation in Birmingham, because it plays a pivotal role. When it works well, it changes lives. I have been to neighbourhood forums in my constituency and spoken to people who have turned their lives around because of the support they receive from their registered providers—people rebuilding their lives after serving prison sentences, suffering domestic abuse, leaving care, or combating debilitating addictions or mental health conditions. But without the efficient, effective and meaningful licensing scheme for supported housing that the council was promised three years ago, Birmingham is simply unable to cope. We are asking neighbourhoods to absorb extremely high numbers of people with complex needs, but we are not providing the council with the tools required to support those individuals or reassure residents, and inevitably it is only the vulnerable individuals and the residents around them who stand to lose.
The problem of over-concentration is exacerbated by the inefficient support infrastructure that comes with it. The SEA pilot shows that when Birmingham is given tools, it delivers, but the city has more supported exempt accommodation than anywhere else in the country, and yet it does not have the corresponding level of funding, enforcement capacity, clinical provision or community-safety staffing required to manage the consequences.
If someone requires 24-hour wraparound care, addiction services, psychiatric input and structured supervision, they need a properly funded care facility, not a standard residential property with light-touch oversight. We must distinguish individuals who are stabilised and ready for supported community living from those in acute crisis who require secure, high-support environments before they can safely transition into neighbourhoods.
At present, that distinction is not being properly resourced and the result is unfair on everyone. It is unfair on residents who see behaviour that is deeply distressing and feel that their concerns are dismissed, it is unfair on vulnerable individuals who are placed in environments that do not meet the scale of their needs, and it is unfair on Birmingham city council, which is expected to manage the situation without adequate funding or authority.
The council’s supported exempt accommodation pilot has demonstrated what can be achieved when resources are provided, but pilots and short-term funding are not enough. What Birmingham needs is sustained funding for community safety, including more community safety officers and a greater neighbourhood policing presence in areas with a high concentration of supported housing. I would be incredibly appreciative if the Minister could make the necessary representations to his colleagues in the Home Office on that front.
The council needs the ability to manage concentration and set boundaries on the number of people from outside the city that it must house, because no neighbourhood should be asked to shoulder a disproportionate share of highly complex placements without the consultation, infrastructure and services to match it. When it comes to managing such complex matters, having an ineffective, watered-down licensing scheme is worse than having nothing altogether, because we end up with the same outcome at a higher cost to the taxpayer.
I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on what can be done to ensure that the 2023 Act is implemented in a way that reflects the impact that exempt accommodation can have on neighbourhoods and community harmony. I would also be grateful to hear what is being done to increase the speed with which the Act is implemented, and clarification on when the Government will respond in full to the most recent consultation.
Finally, the council needs the necessary powers to ensure that vulnerable individuals receive the best care possible. That means clarifying the extent of providers’ duty of care to their tenants, with tailored and specialist plans that not only provide personal support to the individual, but outline their obligations to ensure harmony with neighbours and the local community.
To conclude, I have a couple of final questions for the Minister. What financial support do the Government intend to provide to Birmingham city council in its efforts to contain the local crisis that the Government’s prolonged inactivity has exacerbated? The SEA pilot, in particular, is of great value to my constituents, and it would be a real shame if it disappeared. Will he agree to meet with me and local groups so that they can convey to him the true scale of the impact that the oversaturation of SEAs is having on their neighbourhoods and communities?
At the end of the day, this is about vulnerable people who need structured care, communities that need reassurance, and a local authority that cannot continue to carry a national burden without national support. Birmingham is not asking to step away from its responsibilities; it is asking for the means to fulfil them properly. It is my sincere hope that the Government will escalate their efforts to deliver exactly that.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this debate.
Since I was elected in 2017, issues with supported exempt accommodation have been persistent in parts of my constituency. When supported housing works, it changes lives: it helps prison leavers turn a corner, helps people get off the streets, and helps those battling addiction or mental illness rebuild their lives. But in Birmingham the system is not just being abused; it is broken. Supported housing provision in Birmingham has tripled since 2018. Today, nearly 33,000 people live in 11,200 supported exempt properties, and the cost has risen to almost £400 million—about half the entire country’s exempt spending. The council is clear that that level far exceeds local need, yet the sector continues to expand at pace.
In September 2024, I secured a Westminster Hall debate on this topic. I was very pleased to hear the ambition of the newly elected Government to finally get a grip on the wild west sector, but unfortunately progress has been slow, and we are here again. Many people who enter supported accommodation do so because they have nowhere else to turn. Public funding is there to give them safety, stability and a pathway to independent living. When it works, it saves lives and money. As the National Housing Federation reports, quality providers save the public purse approximately £3.5 billion annually by alleviating pressures on the NHS, social care services and the criminal justice system. As I have seen time and again in my constituency, however, bad actors have been allowed to exploit the system and profit from the neglect of people who are suffering.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. She is making a very important point about rogue providers. The council needs to be given the necessary regulatory powers and all loopholes need to be closed if we are to make supported accommodation effective in neighbourhoods. Does she agree that it is not simply about the money? The rogue providers who exploit vulnerable people have to be acted on very quickly.
Preet Kaur Gill
Yes, absolutely. We are here to talk about when we can expect the regulations, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
In 2021, I worked with the council, my local police inspectors and north Edgbaston residents to shut down Saif Lodge. That example makes the case for why regulation is needed. I carried out a spot check with the police and was appalled to find 25 residents with one support worker, and no staff on site at weekends. The conditions were filthy and cramped. Prostitution, drug use and other antisocial behaviour had become routine. It was the first case in the country of an exempt property being shut down, but it took more than a year, with the matter before the courts. That really makes the case for why regulation is so important. Saif Lodge was a symptom of our system.
I want to thank many campaigners, but in particular I thank Jane Haynes at Birmingham Live and Nick Hall, a constituent of mine who wrote an excellent piece in Central Bylines for which he spoke to many residents in north Edgbaston living in exempt accommodation. He told me that one 42-year-old man said that he feared for his health and doubted that he will reach 50. Another said:
“It is safer to live in a park than in the provider’s rooms.”
Since then, West Midlands police has publicly highlighted links between the exempt sector and organised crime gangs, money laundering, fraud and drug dealing. The impact on the community is real. One constituent, a veteran who served for 36 years, recently told me that he plans to sell his home and leave the area because the property next door had suddenly been converted into exempt accommodation without any consultation. He fears that the rogue providers have no care for those they support or the local areas they set up shop in.
We cannot continue like this. In the last Parliament, I campaigned for a new regulatory system for supported exempt accommodation that would introduce minimum standards of support, update housing benefit rules to define care and supervision requirements, and give councils the power to manage local provision and act swiftly against rogue operators, yet we are still waiting for the new regulations to be introduced under the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023.
In July 2025, the previous Minister for Homelessness stated that they aimed to publish the Government’s full response to the consultation on these measures after the summer recess. In response to my written parliamentary question, the current Minister for Local Government and Homelessness said on 13 January this year that the response would be published “as soon as possible”. I hope the Minister responding to the debate will update us on when we can expect to see the Government’s response to the consultation so that we can get on with bringing in these crucial regulations.
I thank the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness for visiting my constituency to see for herself the diverse accommodation available. I also welcome the steps taken by the Government and Birmingham city council to date. Birmingham city council has set up a specialist team to tackle antisocial behaviour and crime, and to improve property standards. I am grateful to the Government for extending the supported housing improvement programme with an additional £1.5 million for Birmingham. Since the team was set up, over 9,000 of the most severe hazards, such as severe mould and fire risks, have been removed. It has issued 48 community protection orders against antisocial behaviour and £8.8 million has been saved by refusing unjustified housing benefit claims.
Birmingham city council also set up its own quality standard programme, but voluntary schemes cannot replace statutory oversight. So far, only 15% of providers have successfully achieved gold, silver or bronze accreditations. The council’s actions starkly evidence the need for regulation of the sector. The Minister will be aware that the SHIP funding ends in March 2026 and the council is bridging the gap with the homelessness prevention grant. Only clear regulation will give the council the tools it needs to manage local provision effectively.
I welcome the Government’s publication this week of the statutory guidance for local supported housing strategies. The local strategy will be an important step in mapping current and future provision. Proper processes will be formulated for referrals, and housing teams will work with colleagues in health and social care to deliver a much better co-ordinated system, but we must go further.
Local authorities are still saying that without new regulations to define minimum standards of support and empower councils to crack down on exploitative providers, vulnerable people and taxpayers will continue to be ripped off. The statutory guidance is an important first step, but it will not fix the problem that my constituents are facing today unless we move at pace to bring in these regulations.
None of that is intended to dismiss the many excellent providers that deliver high-quality support every day—many of them are doing a really good job; they play a crucial role and change lives—but the sector has also attracted landlords who see vulnerable people as a source of income rather than a responsibility. Without firm oversight, those operators undermine good practice, exploit residents and damage our communities.
Everyone agrees that people fleeing abuse, leaving prison or care, or battling mental health and addiction deserve somewhere safe that they are connected to and that truly helps them rebuild their lives. Our communities deserve to feel safe and taxpayers deserve to know that their money is protecting people, not enriching those who exploit them. The stories of fear, failure and sometimes outright abuse are heartbreaking. We cannot look away any longer.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this important debate. Shelter is a basic human need. It is a human right. The Liberal Democrats and I believe that everyone has the right to a safe, secure and adequate home.
This issue is close to my heart. When I served as the Mayor of Woking, I supported Woking’s local homeless shelter, the York Road Project, by raising money and awareness for it. I knew at the time that I was raising money for a good cause, but the covid pandemic hit as soon as we had finished raising that money, and it was invaluable in protecting vulnerable people at one of the most vulnerable times. That project is a high-quality provider of support.
Woking’s women’s refuge, Your Sanctuary, is a high-quality provider of exempt accommodation, but I know that residents of exempt accommodation elsewhere are being let down badly, whether in Birmingham or elsewhere in the country. Those residents have effectively been denied the support they need. Meanwhile, millions of pounds of public money is wasted—or, more accurately, transferred to the bank accounts of landlords and providers who are taking advantage of the destitute. We need to sort that problem out right now. The system of exempt accommodation was described in the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee’s October 2022 report as a “complete mess”.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s supported housing review, published in 2024, estimated that there are over 634,000 units of supported housing in Great Britain, with 535,400 units located in England alone. The review estimated that by 2040 between almost 1 million and 1.3 million supported housing units will be needed, considering the current demand, predicted increase, demographic trends and unmet need. The situation is spiralling out of control, and the Government need to get a grip.
There are many good providers—I have talked about some in my constituency, and I hope that all Members have similar examples—but there are awful and appalling instances where the system allows the exploitation of vulnerable people who should be receiving support, while unscrupulous providers make excessive profits by capitalising on loopholes. It is apparent that there is a gold rush, with money mainly being transferred from the taxpayer through housing benefit. That is a sorry state of affairs.
It has now been three years since the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act, a private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), was passed and received Royal Assent. Unsurprisingly, the wheels of Government have ground along at a snail’s pace. Three years have gone by, but the Act has still not been implemented due to difficulties in creating regulations. Last year, The Guardian reported:
“People are dying…and communities are being irreversibly damaged due to delays to a…law to clamp down on unregulated supported housing”.
Will the Government enable a situation in this Parliament in which we can create regulations, stem the flow of cash into what is essentially a black market, and halt those deaths?
Right now, as we debate in Westminster Hall, vulnerable people in our society—the homeless, survivors of domestic abuse, those with mental health issues and those released from prison—are subject to dangerous housing conditions with little or no support. There is a general consensus across the major political parties that the regulation contained in the Act is needed, so surely it should be implemented as soon as possible. The Government should stop dragging their feet.
The Act was meant to improve the situation when it was passed. It states that a panel should be set up and that after three years, the panel should come up with recommendations for changing planning law. That panel has not yet been convened. I have heard from constituents, local authorities and campaigners who are worried that it was forgotten about in the light of the general election. The extended timeline risks further escalation of these issues without immediate intervention.
On behalf of people affected by this issue, I urge the Minister to consider, first, convening the panel now to enable action on this issue and, secondly, accelerating the panel’s timeline for giving its recommendations. Given that there has already been a delay of over a year in setting up the panel, having it make recommendations three years after it is set up will mean that these ongoing issues will continue to affect people for too long. I urge the Minister to act.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on securing this important debate.
Supported exempt accommodation plays a critical role across the country, but as we have heard, there are clear issues that need to be resolved. It provides housing to support those living independently, and crucially, it supports some of the most vulnerable people in our society, including care leavers, people with disabilities, those who have experienced homelessness or rough sleeping, those recovering from a drug or an alcohol addiction, individuals recently released from prison, and victims of domestic abuse and modern slavery. The nature of supported accommodation and the support that it provides mean that it is exempt from the usual caps on housing benefit. That exemption exists for a good reason. However, the sector is fragmented, regulated by multiple bodies and lacks a single, coherent regulatory framework.
For some time now, there have been serious concerns about inconsistency, poor standards, poor-quality provision in some areas and the long-term financial sustainability of the sector. More recently, the Government’s supported housing review, published in November 2024, showed that in 2023, there were 634,000 units of supported housing in Great Britain. More than a third of those—more than 215,000 units—were claimed through the housing benefit system. Critically, the review also highlighted a substantial shortfall. It estimated that nearly 400,000 additional supported housing units are needed right now to meet the unmet demand. Looking ahead, that figure rises dramatically, with up to 640,000 additional units required by 2040, particularly for older people.
Against that backdrop, it is deeply concerning that the sector itself has warned that it is in crisis. In April 2025, more than 170 organisations wrote to the Prime Minister to call for at least £1.6 billion a year in long-term funding for local authorities. Further warnings followed in July 2025, highlighting the risks of strengthening regulation without providing the funding to make it work. In August 2025, the Local Government Association echoed those concerns, calling for increased funding and new guidance to help councils prepare for the implementation of the new regulatory requirements.
All that sits in a wider housing context that should worry us all. The Government have set a target of delivering 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament, yet their own figures show that housing supply in England fell to 208,600 net additional dwellings in the year 2024-25 —a 6% decrease on the previous year and the biggest fall in 12 years, outside the pandemic. Just over 190,600 new homes were built, which is fewer than in the final year of the previous Government and 16% below the peak of 2019-20.
Against that backdrop, let me turn to the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023. I welcome the fact that the Conservative Government supported the passage of the Act, which is the first to directly regulate the standard of support provided in supported accommodation in England. It received Royal Assent in June 2023, and has the potential to drive up standards, improve accountability and protect residents from poor-quality provision. However, legislation alone is not enough. The Government consulted on the implementation of the Act in the summer of 2025, and in January 2026 they said they would respond “as soon as possible”. Given the pressures facing the sector, a response cannot come soon enough. Will the Minister confirm when the Government will publish their response to the consultation and when the Act will be fully implemented?
Finally, let me put on the record the action taken by the previous Government in this area. Alongside the passage of the Act, they published a national statement of expectations for supported housing, setting out what good looks like and how local authorities should plan to meet the demand. They invested £5.4 million in enforcement pilots, including in Birmingham, and an independent evaluation showed that the pilots improved the quality of accommodation and support while preventing an estimated £6.2 million in illegitimate or unreasonable housing benefit payments. Further support was provided through updated guidance, good practice resources and £20 million from the supported housing improvement programme to help councils to drive up quality and value for money.
The challenge is clear. Regulation must be implemented properly, swiftly and with adequate funding. Supported housing is not a niche issue; it is a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of people and a cornerstone of our wider housing system. If we fail to get this right, the most vulnerable people will pay the price. That is why I urge the Government to act with urgency, with clarity and with the resources needed, so that the sector can thrive.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on securing this important debate, and thank him for his clear and comprehensive account of the challenges of poorly managed, and in particular non-commissioned, exempt accommodation in his constituency.
I also thank other hon. Members who have participated in the debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) and for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill). My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), have championed this issue for, in some cases, many years. I remember the debates about it in the previous Parliament.
Members will have noticed that I am not the Minister responsible for supported housing. The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), is currently in the main Chamber updating the House on changes to local government finance. I will obviously do my best to respond to the various points raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr and others, but I know that the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness will be happy to follow up with any Member in relation to specific issues of concern. I have no doubt that she will be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, his constituents, should that be appropriate, to discuss matters in more detail.
In general terms, let me reassure Members of two things. First, the Government take incredibly seriously the need to ensure that all individuals who benefit from supported housing live in safe and decent accommodation and get the support that they need to get back on their feet and improve their lives. As we have heard, in many cases these are very vulnerable individuals who need support if they are to get their lives back on track.
Secondly, we remain firmly committed to addressing exploitation and profiteering at the hands of rogue exempt accommodation operators. Understandably, that has been the focus of the debate. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) —and others noted, there are lots of high-quality providers out there. There is also, as the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking)—rightly argued, huge unmet need in this area. That is why, as Members will know, at the spending review the Government announced £39 billion for a new 10-year social and affordable homes programme. We want to see new supply of supported housing in England come through that new programme in greater numbers. Although we did not set any numerical targets or ringfence budgets for that programme, it has been designed with the flexibility necessary to ensure that those types of accommodation that require higher grant rates can come through the new programme in the appropriate numbers.
We are also providing wider support for the supported housing sector. We announced £159 million, through the local government finance settlement for 2026 to 2029, for support services in supported housing. We are working with targeted local areas and officials are confirming allocations with those areas in the coming days and weeks.
I recognise not only that Birmingham has significantly more supported exempt accommodation than anywhere else in the country—the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr rightly said approximately 31,000 individuals are housed in around 11,000 units—but that it faces acute challenges in respect of unsafe and poor-quality supported housing. I think it was mentioned earlier, but the Local Government and Homelessness Minister recently met the leader of Birmingham council and Members representing a number of Birmingham constituencies to discuss the ongoing problems that Birmingham faces.
It is worth my saying a few general remarks about supported housing. It helps those who need extra support to live as independently as possible in the community, and that support can take many forms. Some individuals may need supported housing for a short time while they recover from a period of crisis; for others, supported housing is a home for life, helping them to live independently outside of institutional settings. The Government fully appreciate that there have been real issues in parts of the supported housing market. Over recent years, far too many residents have been placed in inappropriate accommodation or dangerous situations, with little to no support.
As we have heard today, the impact of unsafe, poor-quality supported housing on residents, their families and communities should not be understated. Increased antisocial behaviour resulting from poorly managed housing and knock-on impacts for wider services such as the NHS and the police are frequently brought to the Department’s attention. Communities in a number of areas across the country have been blighted by these problems, but we know, as I have said, that the issue is most prevalent in Birmingham. Let me be very clear: that state of affairs is intolerable. It cannot be allowed to continue, which is why the Government are taking action.
Action has been taken prior to and alongside the legislation that the previous Government supported and that we have been taking forward. The supported housing improvement programme has been in place in Birmingham since 2022, and before that the supported housing oversight pilots resulted in real improvements—I think the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr made that case in his speech. The multidisciplinary teams that have been established in the local authority, across housing enforcement, adult social care and housing benefit teams, have strengthened understanding and allowed targeted action to take place.
Although the programme will end in March, the lessons learned and the actions taken by Birmingham city council should now be firmly embedded. We are ending that funding as we work towards the implementation of the Act and, thereafter, local authorities will charge fees for the administration and enforcement of licensing in particular going forward. We have not cut off all funding with a view to having no replacement; there is work alongside our intentions to roll out the legislation.
Let me turn to that legislation, which has rightly been the focus of much of the debate. I remember it going through the House when I was the shadow Minister. We should commend the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on his private Member’s Bill, which the previous Government supported, and on all his work on the wider homelessness agenda. That legislation was a response to long-standing concerns about the quality of non-exempt supported accommodation, its oversight and the value-for-money questions we have heard about today.
Despite there being many excellent supported housing providers, regulation in this area is absolutely needed. The Government are working to introduce the necessary measures to improve quality and oversight as soon as possible. I am happy to tell Members that we intend to implement the Act in stages over the coming months, and I will provide some more detail on the different elements of the Act that we intend to take forward, and the timescales. It should be said that local authorities can and should still use their existing enforcement powers to take action against poor-quality accommodation as we do so.
I am pleased to say that, this week, we have allocated £39 million in new burdens funding to local authorities, including Birmingham, to start work on their local supported housing strategies. Those strategies ask local authorities to assess their current supply of supported housing, and to estimate their unmet need and future demand. They must then set out how they will meet them. The first strategies are due to be completed by 31 March 2027, and statutory guidance to support this work was published earlier this week.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman challenged me on the advisory panel. I can assure him that it has not been forgotten about. We are moving forward with its establishment. The chair will be officially appointed imminently and the panel will be officially convened. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the panel will then advise the Government on the implementation of the Act as a whole and consider what further support the supported housing sector needs going forward. We are taking that part of the Act forward.
As has been mentioned a number of times, the Government have also consulted on our proposals for supporting housing licensing and new support standards. We did that last year, and I know that a response has been anticipated for some time. It will be published as soon as possible. I well understand the urgency that Members from across the House have expressed. We will publish the new national supported housing standards along with guidance, so that residents, providers and local authorities know the standard of support we expect.
We will consult on licensing regulations later this year, giving stakeholders an opportunity to comment on the regulations before they are debated in Parliament. This is really important, and it goes to the point about high-quality providers that several Members made. We need to ensure that we introduce the licensing scheme in a way that is both proportionate and effective, so that the expense of bearing down on the rogue providers and operators does not penalise high-quality providers. Local authorities will receive new burdens funding to establish their licensing schemes, and we will monitor the licensing schemes to ensure that they are having the intended effect.
The Government are committed to implementing the measures in the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act and to giving local authorities the powers they need to tackle the problems evident in supported housing in Birmingham and across England. The progress that has already been made is worth noting, and we want that to continue. We want councils like Birmingham to make use of their existing powers. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston mentioned some of the progress made under SHIP in Birmingham. SHIP and the previous programme received a total of £6.5 million in funding, and that has rightly generated huge amounts of benefit: £8.8 million of housing benefit spend was prevented; the number of cases where support was deemed to be inadequate has dropped from 33%; and we are seeing the proportion of inspected properties that meet the decent homes standard rising from 44%. Progress has been made, but the regulatory framework that the Act introduces does need to be brought forward.
Matthew Pennycook
We issued guidance earlier this week in respect of some of the provisions that are in the Act, but I will ensure that the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness has heard my hon. Friend’s call for more support and guidance in that area, alongside the implementation of other elements of the Act.
The Government and my hon. Friend the Minister are committed to working with all Members, local authorities and supported housing providers to make sure the measures have the intended effect. Aside from the note of party political debate injected into our discussions by the shadow Minister in regard to the wider housing supply, I think there is cross-party consensus about what needs to happen on this particular issue, and the need for the regulatory framework to be introduced so that we can get supported housing that is good quality, appropriate for the needs of the individuals and helps them to live as independently as possible.
Ayoub Khan
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for her efforts in this debate—not just her contribution today, but her work in Parliament previously. I also thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) for his interventions. The hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) is not here, but we have had lengthy conversations and it seems that she is equally concerned, as are the other parliamentarians who represent Birmingham, about the sheer saturation of exempt accommodation.
We all recognise the vulnerabilities of the individuals we all come across on a daily basis in our local shopping centres and hospitals, and the pressure on the West Midlands police when there are incidents. An enormous knock-on burden in Birmingham is being felt by local residents. Historically, many of the vulnerable individuals we now come across would not have been walking the streets. They would have been in care homes receiving the right level of care, but we do not see that now.
I thank the Lib Dem spokesman and the shadow Minister for their contributions. As the Minister said, we are all essentially singing off the same hymn sheet. We all understand the importance of supported accommodation for those who can live with minimal support, integrate into society and contribute to local neighbourhoods. But unfortunately we are not getting that. Licensing and enabling the council to regulate the sector is so important. I hear the Minister, but I am afraid the phrase “as soon as possible” will not be well received by local residents who have to deal with the challenges on a daily basis.
I accept that consultation with providers—especially those that do amazing work to provide support for vulnerable individuals who live in local neighbourhoods—is an important part of the process, but if there is going to be a delay because of the consultation, I would like the Minister to reconsider the SEA grant that is given to Birmingham city council. If licensing kicks in, let us say towards the end of the year, or even next year—whenever that may happen—the fact is that we do not have the capacity to deal with the problems that communities currently face. Will the Minister take that point away? I can see that I have gone over my allotted time, Ms Lewell.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered supported exempt accommodation in Birmingham.
Written Statements
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK-India Double Contributions Convention
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
Following the joint commitment made by the Governments of the UK and India in a side letter agreement to the comprehensive economic and trade agreement dated 24 July 2025, a double contributions convention between the UK and India was signed on 10 February 2026.
The text of the convention—as a Command Paper—and the relating explanatory memorandum have been laid before Parliament for scrutiny. Both will be available on gov.uk. The convention will enter into force at the same time as the UK-India trade agreement.
[HCWS1327]
Education Estates Strategy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Today, we are setting out our plans for an education estate in England that supports opportunity for all. The education estate is a platform for opportunity, learning and communities. With over 22,000 schools and colleges across England, the estate supports the outcomes, health and wellbeing of over 10 million children and young people.
High-quality and inspiring school and college buildings are essential to delivering world-class education and creating the conditions for all children and young people to achieve and thrive. The public saw clearly when all this goes wrong during the disruption caused by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, and we see it every day when schools are not designed to be inclusive for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. Historical under-investment and a lack of long-term funding certainty and strategic planning have contributed to a rising maintenance backlog. Schools and colleges have had to patch and mend buildings that have already deteriorated and are not resilient enough to climate change. The estate needs to be suitably sized at both a local and national level and be flexible to meet changing needs from children, young people and their community.
Children with SEND have a right to attend and be included at their local school but schools have not been designed to be inclusive environments. That ends now as we lay the groundwork for an inclusive education system where children are supported at the earliest stage and can thrive in a school that meets their needs, close to home. We want schools to be inclusive by design to support children and young people with SEND.
We are investing over £3.7 billion through to 2029-30 to deliver specialist places for children and young people with SEND, including through the expansion of inclusion bases within the mainstream system so they can learn among their peers. Many schools already provide exceptional support for children who need it, through SEN units, resourced provision and pupil support units. But we know that the variety of provision, and the inconsistent terminology is difficult for parents to understand and navigate. We will replace the current terms with the term inclusion bases and publish national guidance on best practice. This will make it easier for parents to understand what support is available for their child and to recognise what good looks like. And today, we are setting out our ambition that, over time, every secondary school in England will have an inclusion base, alongside thousands of places in primary schools.
Many schools already have this type of provision in place, and so in lots of cases this will be a continuation of the support children and young people with SEND already receive. Where new places are needed, including by repurposing existing space, this can be supported by our capital investment. We will also publish new dedicated guidance on high-impact adaptations in mainstream settings to enhance inclusivity and accessibility, supporting local authorities, responsible bodies, and education settings. More detail on how we will support more children and young people with SEND to achieve and thrive will be set out in the schools White Paper.
Today’s education estates strategy is supported by unprecedented long-term funding and investment in education capital of £38 billion to 2029-30—the highest since 2010. At the core of our strategy is a shift to more proactive management, long-term strategic maintenance and more renewal of the existing estate. This is alongside building and rebuilding where renewal is not possible, and ensuring there are high-quality places from early years to post 16.
In addition to investing almost £3 billion per year by 2034-35 in capital maintenance and renewal for schools and colleges, we will go further by launching a new renewal and retrofit programme for schools and colleges from April 2026. This is backed by over £700 million to 2029-30 and will tackle projects such as fixing roofs and broken heating systems so buildings can last for decades to come, be more resilient to climate change as well as protecting more schools from flooding. We will support schools and colleges to reduce energy costs by unlocking private finance investment in solar and energy efficiency measures and invest over £300 million to 2029-30 to expand Connect the Classroom so schools have access to fast, reliable broadband.
We are investing almost £20 billion in the school rebuilding programme through to 2034-35 to rebuild schools and sixth-form colleges across England. Over 500 schools are already in the programme, and we will select a further 250 schools by early 2027. Buildings will be future-proofed for climate change with new designs that improve outdoor facilities, increase access to nature and improve indoor air quality. Through our new construction framework and design specifications, we are supporting local workforces and creating around 13,000 skills opportunities including apprenticeships and T-level placement opportunities. We will continue to deliver places where they are needed from early years to post 16, including thousands more school-based nursery places and creating extra capacity to support increases in 16 to 18-year-old learners.
We will support responsible bodies to proactively and effectively manage their estates. This includes setting out clear standards for estate management alongside guidance, tools and data to support them and a new digital service to make it easier to access estates guidance, programmes and funding.
Children, families and communities are at the heart of our education estates strategy. Through our 10-year plan, we will deliver a decade of national renewal for schools and colleges as we continue our journey for an education estate that is fit for now and the future.
[HCWS1324]
Early Support Hubs
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
This year, the theme of Children and Young People’s Mental Health Week is “This is My Place”, drawing important attention to children and young people’s sense of belonging and the important role that communities and community organisations play in supporting their mental health and wellbeing. As a Government, we rightly celebrate the vital role of community organisations in providing support, compassion, connection, and hope to children and young people where and when they need it.
That is why I am pleased to announce that the Government are investing an additional £7 million so that the 24 early support hubs we are currently funding can continue to operate an expanded service offer for 2026-27. This means that in total we have provided more than £20 million since April 2024 to ensure that thousands more children and young people will continue to receive quicker mental health support, and to enable further continuity in the provision of these services. These hubs help to prevent mental ill health while also bringing care closer to home, both important objectives in our 10-year health plan.
Crucially, this continued investment means that thousands of children and young people will receive earlier, open-access mental health and wellbeing support, where any child can self-refer without an intermediary or prior formal contact. The hubs will continue to offer mental health support and advice to young people aged 11 to 25, and provide continued access to a range of services that are tailored to local need. This could include group work, counselling, psychological therapies, specialist advice, as well as signposting to information and other services. In addition to the mental health offer of hubs, young people may also be able to access advice on wider issues, including sexual health, jobs, drugs, alcohol, and financial worries.
Alongside continuing to support the services offered by these 24 hubs, the funding will ensure continued evaluation of the impact of these services, with early indications suggesting that young people value the holistic approach of the hubs. The evaluation has also highlighted the benefits of easily accessible support for young people, based on interviews with service managers. The evidence and insights collected through the early support hubs evaluation, which aims to publish in the summer, will support the delivery of young futures hubs, alongside best practice and learning from other initiatives. This learning will inform our ambitions for community mental health and wellbeing support for children and young people, ensuring that they have access to what they need, as soon as they need it.
[HCWS1328]
Nursing Workforce
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Today I am announcing a comprehensive package to recognise the value of the nursing profession. Nurses are essential to leading and delivering the Government’s 10-year health plan, and critical for patient safety and outcomes, but the profession has been undervalued in the NHS for far too long.
Too many nurses are not being compensated appropriately for the work they do, and there is currently no universal preceptorship programme in place for new graduate nurses.
This Government are clear that a constructive relationship with unions is in everyone’s interests. Following engagement with all nursing unions, including UNISON, Unite, and GMB, and a dedicated period of intensive engagement with the Royal College of Nursing, they have agreed a series of measures that will transform the nursing profession and make sure that nurses get the pay and support they deserve.
Today I am committing to invest in the NHS nursing workforce in four ways:
Prioritising increasing graduate pay. It is important that graduate salaries are competitive within the wider labour market to attract graduates into the NHS. I am therefore asking the NHS staff council to prioritise graduate pay in the upcoming discussions on pay structure reform. This will impact all graduates under the Agenda for Change contract, including nurses.
Reviewing the work of every band 5 nurse. Every band 5 nursing role will be reviewed by employers over a set timeframe to ensure that job descriptions and pay bands reflect the work that nurses are being asked to do. Additional national funding will be made available to support the band 5 review process and any resulting salary uplifts. This will be separate and additional to the funding that will be made available for annual headline pay rises and for pay structure reform.
Establish a single national nursing preceptorship standard. I have asked the chief nursing officer for England to lead work as part of the upcoming professional strategy for nursing to improve the quality and consistency of preceptorships for all newly qualified nurses. This work will be delivered in partnership with trade unions, employers and other key stakeholders.
A review of the evidence. We will review the evidence that is gathered as part of the review of band 5 nursing roles to determine whether any further action is required.
We will continue to work together with unions to ensure this work is delivered at pace, and that nurses get consistent support in their early careers and are paid for the work they are asked to do.
[HCWS1329]
Police Covenant Annual Report
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I am pleased to announce that the first annual report for the police covenant under this Government, has today been laid before Parliament. The report, the third since the creation of the police covenant, will also be available on gov.uk.
The police covenant demonstrates a recognition by Government, policing and society of the sacrifices involved in police work. The covenant sets out to ensure that members of the police workforce suffer no detriment as a result of their role.
As the covenant moves into a new phase under a new Government, we have reassessed the priorities for delivery to ensure the work is better focused on the needs of the workforce, and to reflect the evolving realities of policing. This means that, as the covenant progresses further, there will be a greater emphasis on supporting forces to enact consistent policies and systems, setting a minimum standard of provision, and a renewed focus on how the actions taken address specific identified disadvantages.
This annual report reflects this new focus, highlighting not only the progress made so far, but also how the work of the covenant can improve police health and wellbeing in future.
It is my ambition, and that of the Government as a whole, that the covenant should leave the police workforce in no doubt that we are on your side and will support you. You do so much to protect us, it is only right that we protect you.
This work has already begun.
The chief medical officer for policing has ensured greater cohesion between the work of the covenant and the work of the NHS. Police awareness training for GPs has been implemented, highlighting issues better than ever before. A new national health and wellbeing strategy has been created, ensuring that, for the first time, a coherent and comprehensive approach is adopted by forces. This work will deliver improvements in health and wellbeing provision across the board.
And there have been great strides forward in the monitoring and addressing of assaults against officers and staff, and in the handling of fatigue.
The national police wellbeing service, who have taken the lead on many workstreams, will continue to drive forward work to provide support to families and leavers, building on the success of their existing packages.
All of these things are to be welcomed. Yet, there is still much to do if we are to live up to the promise within the covenant, to ensure that the police and their families suffer no disadvantage because of their work in policing.
[HCWS1326]
Telecommunications, Radio Spectrum Management and Postal Services: Strategic Priorities
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital Economy, Baroness Lloyd of EFFRA.
I am today laying before Parliament the Government’s draft statement of strategic priorities for telecommunications, the management of radio spectrum, and postal services.
Digital connectivity is at the foundation of our economy and society and underpins almost every part of daily life. The strength, security, and resilience of our digital infrastructure matters deeply to people, business and the economy in the UK.
This statement builds a vision for the UK’s digital future that is enabled by high- quality, secure, reliable and affordable connectivity. It outlines the Government’s strategic priorities and desired outcomes across a number of areas, including: fixed and mobile telecoms, digital inclusion through empowered and confident consumers, telecoms modernisation, the management of radio spectrum, telecoms security and resilience and the postal services.
The statement follows a statutory consultation that ran between 21 July 2025 and 18 September 2025. Around 70 stakeholders with interest and expertise across the policy areas covered by the statement responded to the consultation, including telecoms companies, trade bodies, local authorities and consumer groups. I would like to thank all respondents for taking the time and effort to respond.
These strategic priorities have been designed to support this Government’s ambitions for growth and for agile, responsive regulation that encourages innovation to support these growth goals. They have also been designed to deliver our vision for an inclusive digital society, where consumers are empowered and confident when engaging with the market.
As the independent regulator, Ofcom must have regard to the priorities set out within the statement when exercising its functions. We are committed to working with Ofcom and industry to drive forward progress against these priorities to build a UK that will have the connectivity it needs, whatever the future holds.
I intend to designate the statement for the purposes of section 2A of the Communications Act 2003 after the end of the statutory “40-day period”—as defined in section 2C of the Act—unless either House of Parliament resolves not to approve it within that period.
[HCWS1325]
Grand Committee
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, I start with the customary announcement that, if there is a Division in the Chamber—I think that it is singularly unlikely—while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise to oppose Clause 57 and Schedule 26 and express my deep concern about the way in which the Government are pushing through local government reorganisation under the banner of devolution. Local government reorganisation is not new. It can and does happen but, where it does, it should happen by consent. Councils already have routes to propose mergers and restructuring where they believe it is right for their area.
What is different here is the scale and direction of travel. This feels rushed, top-down and imposed. It runs directly counter to the notion of devolution and the stated purpose of this Bill. I do not accept that the creation of new strategic authorities requires, as some kind of quid pro quo, the rapid abolition or forced merger of existing authorities. One size does not fit all. I have some experience of unitary authorities and recognise that they can work well, but that does not justify imposing them everywhere regardless of local circumstances, identity or consent.
Crucially, there is no strong evidence to support the argument that these changes will save money or improve service delivery. Larger councils are not automatically cheaper or more efficient to run. At a time when local government is already under extreme financial pressure, it is extraordinary that Ministers are pursuing structural upheaval rather than addressing the underlying problem of chronic underfunding. Local authorities are still grappling with the consequences of austerity. Councils across the country face serious and growing funding gaps and services are already stretched to breaking point. Before imposing disruptive reorganisations, the Government should fix that.
There are also serious risks to community identity and representation. Evidence from councillors on the ground suggests that these proposals could result in arbitrarily drawn, very large authorities with little sense of place or shared identity. Many towns with long histories and strong civic cultures—places that people care deeply about—are at risk of being effectively wiped off the local government map. It is important because democracy is about not just administrative efficiency but connection, accountability and trust. There is clear evidence that size matters for democratic engagement. Increasing population size and geographic scale risks reducing electoral turnout and lowering participation in local decision-making. We already have far too few elected representatives compared with many comparable countries. These proposals will significantly reduce the number of councillors overall, further thinning out representation at precisely the moment when communities are facing increasing pressures and greater complexity.
I am particularly concerned about the impact on casework and local advice. Councillors play a vital role as accessible, familiar faces in their communities, helping people navigate failing systems, resolve problems and get support in times of crisis. Many already work far beyond what their allowances reflect, often with limited support. When I was a councillor in Southwark, I could not do any gardening in my front garden because people would come up to me and tell me about their awful problems with black mould—clearly more important than my daffodils—so going into my garden was sometimes a challenge.
Schedule 26 risks abolishing whole tiers of representation almost overnight. That will inevitably lead to spikes in casework and confusion about where people turn for help. Local advice centres are already under immense strain, having lost staff and volunteers, while demand continues to rise. I see no evidence that the Government have seriously considered how this reorganisation will affect advice provision or where that additional pressure will land.
I do not agree that having services under one roof will make things simpler for residents. It might sound true in principle, but transitions of this scale are not frictionless. Removing thousands of local representatives at once is a disruption, and disruption without consent carries real democratic costs. Schedule 26 concentrates power in the hands of the Secretary of State, allowing directions to be issued, boundaries to be changed and authorities to be abolished with little or no local say. For all these reasons, I believe that Clause 57 and Schedule 26 represent a huge step in the wrong direction.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 196EC to Schedule 26 fairly sets out some of my concerns, which, having listened to the noble Baroness, I am sure are shared by others in the Room. I tabled it in part to probe how Ministers will determine the new pattern of unitary councils. I appreciate that, by and large, they will be shaped by the submissions being made by current local authorities to the department, but my concern is that there is little thought or discussion about the size, shape or culture of the new councils.
The Government’s White Paper, published in December 2024, was clear that unitary councils should have
“a population of 500,000 or more”.
It argued that this would be
“the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks”.
The White Paper also said that
“reorganisation should not delay devolution and plans for both should be complementary”.
The Government have sensibly delayed the election of a number of the combined mayoral authorities and slowed the process down. Until the last general election, the pace of devolution was rather more measured, which was wise. Understandably, the new Government want to get a move on with their major reforms. At the same time, we will be asking the combined mayoral authorities and the new unitary councils to deliver much of the Government’s growth agenda and their political priorities in education, housing, childcare, nursery provision and so on. Quite right, too: they are the vehicles for a lot of those things, in particular transport. But the idea that these new and very powerful institutions will be capable of delivering new policies and plans while simultaneously creating themselves is something of a stretch. When Brighton and Hove City Council was set up back in 1997, we wisely gave ourselves two and a half years of preparation, including one year as a shadow authority. None of these structures will have that luxury.
It is well known that I favour unitary councils and have long argued for them, but they have to be well grounded to work and, to be well grounded, they have to be based on recognisable boundaries that have a clear relationship with local geography and a sense of community. My authority, Brighton and Hove, is constrained by the downs and, for that matter, it makes sense. It is a place, and place-making, as the Government say clearly in the White Paper, is of great importance not just to government but, more importantly, to communities. Make the unitaries too big and start tying urban and rural districts together and you lose that. You also lose the sense of community identity.
In the past, when unitary authorities were established, many place names were lost. I go back to 1974: who knew that Sefton was Southport and Bootle, or that Kirklees subsumed places such as Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Batley? Kirklees is the name of a hall on an estate, some of which is, I think, in the neighbouring borough of Calderdale. My point here is that place-making and community building, which are surely part of the stuff of local government, rely on the ability to be readily identified so that people can understand who is responsible for what and in whose name. Abolishing a lot of the place names, as the last local government review did in 1974, risks depriving people of that ready point of identity, which would be unfortunate and wrong.
Currently, looking at the size of authorities, we have few that fit the 500,000-plus margin—just nine: Birmingham, Cornwall, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Manchester, County Durham, Wiltshire and Buckinghamshire. It is an open question as to whether their size makes them more efficient; it is possible that it makes them more remote. The more remote they are, the more citizens feel left behind and left out, and less engaged and able to influence local decision-making.
For that reason, my amendment seeks to ensure that, in making a direction on the future pattern of local councils in a given area, the Secretary of State must have regard to local geography, because of its influence on travel and community relations; the sense of identity that the new authorities will take on in terms of places and communities; and whether it is wise simply to glue together urban and rural areas for administrative convenience. Additionally, the environmental and financial sustainability of a council area, and its proposed size, have to be considered.
The White Paper seemed to assume the bigger the better and that savings would flow. I am less convinced. If I look back to the unitarisation of Berkshire in 1998, for example, when the council was broken up into six unitaries, all then had to find directors of social services, education, environment and highways. A similar impact will be felt with the unitarisation that takes place under combined mayoral authorities.
I suspect most councils have stripped out excessive costs over the past 15 years and most will have come from back-office mergers. There may be savings in the administration of council tax as larger council tax areas come into view, but the integration of many district council systems into new unitary council tax collections will certainly come at a cost.
To conclude, I have a number of questions for the Minister. Can she confirm that a fixed size for unitaries—the 500,000 figure—has been dropped? Do the Government have a number in mind? Will the Secretary of State be mindful of ensuring that mergers respect the need to have identifiable boundaries that respect urban and rural differences and the historical bases of councils, to enable place-making and help with community resilience? Can we be assured that resources will be in place to ensure a seamless transition from the current pattern of districts into larger unitaries?
What steps will the Government take to guarantee a level of democracy that makes councils accessible to local electors and residents? The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made the point that councillors already work hard. The White Paper confirmed that the number of councillors would reduce—that is pretty obvious, really—but can we be assured that councillors will be sufficient in number, and well enough resourced and supported, to represent the inevitably larger communities that they will be part of?
I do not oppose unitaries; in fact, I am rather keen on them. I do not oppose devolution, but it has to be done at a pace, and in a style and manner, that works for local communities to ensure that democracy, demography and community identity are preserved, because place-making should be at the heart of the changes. We all need to be assured that that will be the case.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I add my voice in support of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Everything he said makes a great deal of sense. It is hugely important to consider the identity of the authorities being created in terms of their communities and place-making. I am also tempted to support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in her opposition to Clause 57 standing part, because it makes no sense to introduce this additional tier of local government at the same time as supposedly simplifying it by reducing two tiers to a single tier. To do this at the same time is likely to result in more costs, endless local government arguments and unhappiness.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, uncharacteristically, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam.
Clause 57 and Schedule 26 should play no part in the Bill because the claim that larger units of local government are more cost-effective has been thoroughly debunked. We will just end up with larger, more expensive units that deny the pattern of life that people live. The 500,000 argument was comprehensively debunked by the Blair Government in 2006 with a seminal document that is still available on their website. More recently, the claim that this current round of unitisation will save money was initially made by the County Councils Network, citing evidence dating from 2020. Last year, the people who wrote the report said, “Actually, we made a mistake and there are no more savings to be had”. The savings that were promulgated in 2020 had already been made.
Bigger is no longer better. A forced reorganisation across the entirety of this country is likely to crystallise at least £1 billion-worth of unaccounted for pension strain costs for those who would be entitled to retire on a full pension up to 10 years early, having been forced out on grounds of efficiency. There is special meaning to those words. However, those billion pounds or so have not been taken into account, and it is local people who will pick up the tab. Through the Bill, we will end up with more expensive additional layers to have mayors who can raise taxes on things for which they are not even responsible.
I do not intend to relitigate the arguments I made on Monday, but there is no clarity on where the new town and parish councils will sit. This is unfinished business that we will need to revisit on Report. We must ask: is there even capacity in national government, let alone local government, for this reorganisation at a time when councils should be in the van of building homes, growing the economy and picking up the pieces for those who have fallen on hard times?
I ought to alight for a moment on the consequences of council tax equalisation in a territory, none of which has been considered at all. I am a veteran of several rounds of local government reorganisation over many years. In the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, there were some statutory tests, including on value for money, equity between areas and consistency of electoral quotient. There needs to be a broad cross-section of support, but none of this is included in the Bill. The requirement for consent has been abandoned—this is something that is going to be done to people.
Last night I was at a dinner in London and people told me how, 20 years ago, they travelled from all parts of the country to go to Norwich to celebrate their octocentenary; it was 800 years. Among them were lord mayors, honorary aldermen, the sheriffs and the reeves. The Bill is silent on how this important civic part of our nation is to be treated. In an unthinking reorganisation, the civic life of our nation will be vandalised. In future, there will be no more trips to Norwich, or anywhere else for that matter, for those people who are part of the social grease of the way our nation works.
I have heard it said that this will make local government simpler and more straightforward. As we have learned over many days in Committee, however, it will cost more, there will be plenty more expensive layers and there will be more complication. Last week we discovered for the first time that, among the 40 fire authorities in this country, there will be 10 different structural arrangements. What a missed opportunity this is. Rather than reorganising the deckchairs in local government, perhaps we could do something about simplification. But no: there will be less accountability and it will be more impenetrable.
Ultimately, families, businesses and the economy outside the M25 will suffer while London and the mets get to sit this one out. There is no equity there at all. People will be paying more for less, having powers taken further away from them. Nobody wants it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I feel bound to remind the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that the Bill is a Labour continuation of a local government reorganisation started under the Conservatives. This is very much the Michael Gove—now the noble Lord, Lord Gove—view of how England should be governed, with mayors as the key element and large units imposed regardless of place.
I have done my politics in Yorkshire over the years. I think the imposition of a single unitary council, against the preferences of almost all local authority members in North Yorkshire—except York, because York was, by and large, a contest between Liberal Democrats and Labour—was a crucial example of ignoring place-making in everything else.
When I do my politics in Bradford, I am conscious that it is a large unitary authority and I see good councillors struggling to represent their wards, and councillors who are not so good leaving their wards pretty much unrepresented. I support very strongly everything that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said about the importance of place, and of recognising that different areas require different patterns. I also regret the tendency of successive Governments to go in for restructuring when they are not sure what else to do, the unlikelihood that this will lead to better government and, sadly, the likelihood that it will leave more people across England feeling unrepresented and ignored.
I was very struck by a letter I saw this morning from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Fire Safety, Building and Democracy. That seems to me to place the importance given to democracy in the appropriate place according to the Bill. This is supposed to be a democratic Government and a democratic country. All politics is local. The figures on public trust that I see every year show that the public trust Westminster less than they trust local government. Weakening local government is a very bad idea but, unfortunately, that is what the Bill is all about.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, size really does matter. Big is not necessarily beautiful. I am a practitioner, as many know, looking up the telescope from place-making projects we are working on across the country, I declare my interest as such. I am a voice, I suppose, from the charitable and voluntary sector and the social enterprise sector. As I said, I am looking up the telescope into these impenetrable large structures, trying to deliver place-making projects on the ground.
My experience over many years and today confirms what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is saying: he is correct and we need to be very careful about these matters. My colleagues and I have been working with one county council leader on place-making projects for the past eight years within a large structure. He is an excellent, capable leader, but it was virtually impossible, even with his support, to get this beast to dance to an innovation tune on place-making in his county. It was like swimming through treacle, even though all the politics was in the right place to do it. I found that this structure was too large to have any sense of place or to have any relationships with people on the ground, where it really matters. If future place-making is about bringing people together, people and relationships are crucial.
In practice, this restructuring is already halting many place-making projects in challenging communities in the north of England, as staff look for new jobs. My colleagues and I see and experience it every day. The Government have a right to restructure, but they need to listen very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and those of us working on the ground: the practical details really matter.
The country is in danger of coming to a halt. We need to get interested in practice on the ground and what works in detail. At the moment, practitioners feel ignored. We want to help, but there needs to be a dialogue and real interest in what works on the ground in local communities.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken, in particular my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who made a number of important points about all three of the suggestions before us. I thought the point from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, was extremely well made: this is about place-making and what happens on the ground. A top-down approach is building the other way around.
I will be very brief. This is a devolution Bill, yet it prescribes what can happen on the ground. I have said that at least half a dozen times in Committee, but I will repeat it again because it deserves to be repeated. I want to give the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, some extra support, because there is an issue with size, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, pointed out.
I understand that we have an appropriate figure for the size of a unitary authority of some 500,000, but I counsel the Government against using population size as the basis for a calculation. I can remember, a few years ago, when the Minister was the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, having a conversation about the ideal size for Buckinghamshire and Bournemouth in Dorset. I remember being told that, in Buckinghamshire, the ideal size needed to be 350,000, but I was urging a figure of around 300,000. I am quite happy to be wrong about that but, if the Government are moving towards a figure of 500,000, they will have to justify it. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, rightly made the point that you need to consider natural geography, the identity of the authorities and so on. He put it extremely well.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government will consider the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I am sure the noble Lord would not mind them adding to it and improving it with new things, but it should form the basis for a consideration of what the ideal unitary size is, which may of course be different in different places. It is for local people to say whether they prefer a model of 500,000, fewer than that or whatever; otherwise, this process will be too top-down.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief in closing, but very clear about the position of the Official Opposition on this group. After many hours of debate, one point should now be beyond doubt: devolution cannot be delivered by compulsion. If the Government persist in reserving sweeping powers to direct and impose local government reorganisation from the centre, the Bill will continue to fall very short of its stated purpose.
We have heard many views, mostly negative, from noble Lords today, but I have been there. In 2007, under a Labour Government, I took my then council to a unitary. I was not very popular, but it was our decision: we planned it and we asked for it. It has been a great success; it is more efficient and more local. I will talk more about that in future groups today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton for addressing the local government reorganisation measures in the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, opposes Clause 57 and Schedule 26 standing part of the Bill. Reorganisation is a crucial part of the Government’s mission to fix the foundations of local government, creating unitary councils that can be sustainable for the future and deliver the high-quality services that all residents deserve. The Bill amends the existing legislation to enable the Secretary of State to direct areas to submit proposals to reorganise.
We are committed to working in partnership with local areas and are already doing so on this current round of reorganisation. All two-tier areas that were invited in February 2025 have now submitted proposals for reorganisation, which have either been consulted on or are now subject to consultation, because they acknowledge that the status quo is not feasible or sustainable. Therefore, this power would only ever be used in the future, where areas had failed to make progress following an invitation.
The new merging provisions enable existing unitary councils that believe structural change will be beneficial to submit proposals for reorganisation. This aligns the process for reorganising single-tier areas with the current process for reorganising two-tier areas. With devolution and local government reorganisation progressing concurrently across the country, mechanisms are needed to ensure that these reforms work in harmony.
The ability to convert a combined county authority into a combined authority is a common-sense and necessary measure. Without it, there would be no streamlined route to ensure that the existing combined and combined county authorities remain intact once their constituent authorities implement reorganisation. The ability to abolish a combined authority or a combined county authority could be used only in very limited situations. It ensures that, if a reorganisation proposal would render a strategic authority obsolete, the proposal can be implemented and the strategic authority abolished as necessary. Any such proposal requiring the use of the abolition power would need to consider how it would impact future devolution in the area, as the Government’s reorganisation criteria set out. This ensures that these areas will not be left without a viable pathway to devolution.
The noble Baroness mentioned the Government’s approach to funding. This week we publish the local government finance settlement, which has restructured local government funding to ensure that the areas that need it get the most funding. We have put more than £5.6 billion of new grant funding over the next three years into local government. We know that unitarisation can unlock significant savings. Unitary councils reduce duplication, cut waste, improve services and give better value. Of course, exact savings from each proposal will vary from place to place, depending on the proposals implemented.
The noble Baroness also mentioned casework. I take her point and I know the bit about growing daffodils out in the garden—I still often get stopped when I am doing my garden and I am not even a councillor now. Casework support varies from council to council, but it is perfectly possible to provide support for casework at any level of local government. I know that many councils do this extremely well—I hope that those that are not so good will learn from the best.
I turn to Amendment 196EC, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bassam. I shall correct myself, because I did not thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate, as I should have done at the beginning, so my apologies. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to introduce criteria that the Secretary of State must consider when taking a decision on the merger of existing unitary councils. The new merging provisions set out in this Bill enable existing unitary councils that believe structural change will be beneficial to submit proposals for reorganisation. This aligns the process for reorganising single-tier areas with the current process for reorganising two-tier areas.
I reassure my noble friend that having regard to the size, geography, public services and local identity of an area is already embedded in our approach and decision-making when it comes to reorganisation. This is demonstrated by the statutory guidance that we have issued to areas that have been invited to prepare proposals for local government reorganisation.
My noble friend mentioned the size of areas. I point out that the invitation letter to two-tier areas in February made it very clear that the aim for new councils to have a population of 500,000 or more is a guiding principle. Instead of presenting a top-down solution for each area, our starting point is to support and empower local leaders and respect their knowledge, expertise and insight. This approach is in line with the new partnership between government and local government. In discussions with individual councils, with parliamentarians and in interviews given throughout the process, the Government have further reinforced that position to aid the local discussions. I have seen a huge variation in the proposals that have come forward in terms of size. People have taken that as guidance and taken it very seriously. Yesterday, we had a debate on the new authority that has been set up, Cumbria, which has a population of much less than 500,000, because that was appropriate for that area.
Furthermore, the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 already requires that the Secretary of State may invite or direct a relevant principal authority to make a proposal for the merger of single tiers of local government only where it would be in
“the interests of effective and convenient local government”.
The 2007 Act also requires that affected local areas must be consulted before a proposal for local government reorganisation can be implemented. This gives local residents the opportunity to voice their opinions on the criteria outlined by the noble Lord in his amendment.
Next to my council is a council called North Hertfordshire, which includes four towns. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, will know these towns very well—Hitchin, Letchworth, Baldock and Royston. These places have not ceased to exist because their council is called North Herts. The noble Baroness mentioned Wiltshire, which I know she feels was greatly strengthened by the introduction of unitary government. Wiltshire has survived in spite of its unitary status and I am sure that Hertfordshire will equally survive long into the future, no matter what happens with local government.
My noble friend’s questions can all be answered by the criteria that local authorities have been asked to respond to as part of the invitation process, including issues of local identity and cultural and historic importance. Although I appreciate the spirit in which my noble friend has tabled this amendment, it is the Government’s view that placing further legislative conditions on the merger of unitary councils would be duplicative and unnecessary. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the Minister for her answer. I know she has huge experience of local democracy and councils, but there is quite a lot of experience in this Room as well. If noble Lords from the Conservative Party are agreeing with the noble Lord over there, I think there might be a problem. I just hope the Minister can perhaps think about some of the things that we have said and that we are concerned about. The Government are doing quite a lot of good things, but they are very bad at telling us about them, and that is part of the problems that they face at the moment. I will not come back on all these things. My concerns are still very much there, so this might come back later.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
“(3A) Before issuing an invitation or direction the Secretary of State must consider—(a) the natural geography of the proposed local areas being merged,(b) the identity of the authorities in terms of communities and place making,(c) the balance between the rural, urban and suburban mass of the proposed authorities,(d) the financial and environmental sustainability of the proposed authorities, and(e) the size of proposed authorities in relation to the creation of local democratic structures.”
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her response to my amendment. It is worth the Government thinking a bit more about whether it would be appropriate to put in the Bill something that reflects the guidance. I am grateful to all noble Lords who supported what I said. If we are to get reorganisation right, this is an opportunity to put some guarantees in place to do exactly that.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I am putting the proposition that Clause 59 and Schedule 27 should not stand part of the Bill. I was very grateful to my noble friend and her colleagues last September for the modest amendments they moved to what was then Clause 57 in the Commons —Amendments 152 and 153. They at least gave some credence to the Long Title of the Bill, which includes the words “community empowerment”. It is quite hard to believe those words when you are disempowering the people you are talking about.
I am absolutely certain that there will be excellent high-quality expertise in the department and people who know a great deal about local government, as well as my noble friend. However, when I went into the Cabinet in 1997, I found that that no one above grade 7 in the Department for Education and Employment had ever had anything to do with education. Not one single person had taught in a school, college or university, or had been an administrator of education. We had to do something rapidly about that. If you do not know how local government works, it is not surprising that you get technocratic tidiness. There is nothing worse than bureaucratic tidiness, where people are told what to do when you talk to them about empowerment. I feel that this is a philosophical issue.
I have always tried to be a communitarian. I often failed in education—we were in such a hurry to transform the life chances of children that we were very top-down. However, I have kept in touch with Robert Putnam at Harvard and I still believe that we should build our democratic structures from the bottom up. It is the only way in which we will counterweight globalisation—and, by the way, disillusionment and disgust with democracy. Once people feel that they have some small power, they start to learn how to use it—I realise that that is a dangerous thing.
This afternoon, I propose that enforcing a particular model of democratic process—of course it must be democratic, open and transparent, and have probity and fiduciary duties—is completely contrary to the intention of the Bill and, I would have thought, that of my noble friend. So, I am putting my neck on the block this afternoon just to say: please stop it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in opposing Clause 59. As an opponent of centralised control of all sorts, I feel that, if we are talking about democracy, it really ought to mean what it says. Centralised control of any sort is, for me, not democracy.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to speak at Second Reading but I want to speak to the proposition from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, to abolish Clause 59 and Schedule 27. I do this as someone who has lived in Sheffield and who still represents the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, on the council. We were actually on different sides of the argument when that referendum was held in May 2021, when 90,000 people—65% of those who voted in Sheffield—voted to change from the strong leader model. The Liberal Democrats brought that in during the Blair years, because that is what we were told to do.
I find it ironic that we are discussing the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill but we are now dictating the governance arrangements that communities will have. I really do not see how you can stack that up. If communities want to move away from a governance arrangement, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, that can be a simple vote in council or it could be the route that the It’s Our City! community organisation took in Sheffield, which was to collect 25,000 signatures and trigger a referendum. I normally say to councillors that if communities are collecting 20,000-odd signatures, it is best to change your mind, otherwise you are going to get the vote that we had in Sheffield.
I urge the Minister to realise that if you can get the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and me on the same page, having for many years thrown rocks at each other in Sheffield, you seriously need to listen. Although you might favour the strong leader model, if you genuinely believe in community empowerment then let the people decide. If they ultimately want a leader-and-cabinet model, they will vote for it and support it through their local councils. Let us not have this top-down diktat. That is why, on these rare occasions, noble Lords can find me and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, on the same page.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley for speaking. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in particular. I strongly support the stand part notices on Clause 59 and Schedule 27. The reason has been explained. This is a devolution Bill about community empowerment, but the Government are removing the right of local people to decide for themselves what system of governance they want.
We have this devolution Bill, but the Government decide the form of local governance and say that there will not be a committee system. Where are we now? We are in Parliament, operating as a Committee. I have spoken on this issue many times in recent years. The reason why I believe that we should encourage committee systems is that they decentralise power but, more importantly, they enable scrutiny to take place at the point of decision-making. All too often, scrutiny in local government takes place after the decision. We will debate this further on our eighth day in Committee but I think that this is a fundamental right. I just want to keep the right of a community to create the structure that it wants. That right lies in the Localism Act 2011.
I very much hope that we will come back to this issue on Report. However, there are rumours that we may not get a Report stage and may end up in wash-up prior to Prorogation, because there are not many weeks left. We have a further day in Committee on 5 March and we have to leave an interval to reach Report. Can the Minister tell us whether we are going to have a Report stage? Also, if we are going to have a Report stage, I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, will bring this back, because that would give us the power to say to the Government, “You have to think again on this issue. Do not tell local people in all local authorities what model they are required to adopt”.
In the Explanatory Notes, there are explanations for why the Government are undertaking this, but, frankly, they are spurious. They claim that there is evidence, but I do not know what the evidence is. In the end, why do we not just trust local people to make decisions? Otherwise, 56 million people in England will continue to be run out of London and Whitehall.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I wish to continue what seems to be an emerging consensus and a Sheffield love-in. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was the leader in Sheffield when I was at Sheffield University and I will always be grateful for the 10p bus rides that I was able to take.
As we have discussed, these amendments concern the committee system. Let us be frank: this is a devolution Bill. I reiterate yet again that this side of the Committee and these Benches believe in democracy and in devolution. If you believe in those two things, this is about allowing and empowering local communities to decide what is best for them.
I was leader of Central Bedfordshire and operated under the strong-leader model, which worked well for Central Bedfordshire. I am sure it will work well in many other places but, if local communities believe that the committee system is best for them, they should be given that opportunity. Does the Minister believe in devolution and local democracy and will she allow local communities to decide the governance model that best meets their needs?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I turn first to my noble friend’s intention to oppose the clause and Schedule 27 standing part of the Bill.
This clause and the related schedule will bring further consistency to local authority governance arrangements across England. As your Lordships may know, the Government still have a strong preference for executive models of governance. We believe, and I believe because I have operated in both, that the leader-and-cabinet model, already operated by over 80% of councils, provides a clearer and more easily understood governance structure and can support more efficient decision-making.
To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, there are several individual examples that highlight the challenges of the committee system. When Cheshire East switched to the committee system in 2021, an LGA corporate peer challenge found that its structure was large and meeting-intensive, with six policy committees and nine sub-committees, involving 78 out of 82 councillors. Co-ordination across individual committees is a persistent challenge. The same peer challenge for Cheshire East flagged the siloed nature of the council, with poor joint working across departments, contributing towards challenges of service delivery and communication.
Several councils that have tried committees have later reverted to the leader-and-cabinet model, for example Brighton and Hove in 2024. This is wasteful of both time and resources. With collective decision-making spread across multiple committees, it is not always clear who is in charge. Councils that return to the leader-and-cabinet model, such as Newark and Sherwood District Council and Nottinghamshire County Council, have judged it to be more transparent, agile and accountable.
At the same time, we recognise the genuinely held concerns of those councils that have adopted the committee system following a public referendum or a council resolution. That is important and I take seriously the words of noble Lords who have raised that. The Government’s amendments made in the other place to these provisions were intended to allow some councils that have recently adopted the committee system, following either a council resolution or a public referendum, to continue operating that governance model until the end of their moratorium period. At that point, the local authority will be required to undertake and publish a review of whether it should move to the leader-and-cabinet executive model or retain its committee system. The Government believe that this approach strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent governance model for local authorities across England and respecting local democratic mandates and voter expectations where councils are currently operating a committee system and are within their current moratorium periods. With these points in mind, I invite my noble friend to support these measures.
I turn to the government amendments in this group. As I have set out, the Government introduced an amendment in the other place to allow certain councils operating the committee system to continue to do so where they were within their statutory moratorium periods. The Government are now bringing forward additional amendments to clarify the circumstances in which a local authority’s committee system may be protected from the requirement to adopt the leader-and-cabinet executive model. This will mean that the protection period applies only where the council has previously adopted the committee system following either a council resolution or a public referendum and is within its statutory moratorium period at the point this provision is commenced.
The amendments clarify that the prior resolution to change governance must be made under Part 1A of the 2000 Act. This will ensure that the Bill strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent local authority governance model across England and respecting more recent local democratic mandates and voter expectations. It will also reduce disruption where councils are operating a committee system within their statutory moratorium period.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that response. I shall of course not press my amendment at this stage. I cannot promise the Liberal Democrats what I shall do when we reach Report, not least since—as I said in a meeting a couple of days ago—I am a critical friend working very hard on the friend bit rather than the critical bit, and I will continue to be so.
I have only one further remark to make; I think it will be well worth my noble friend taking this back to the Secretary of State. Sadly, from my point of view, from May, there will be a large number of local authorities that will have possibly five substantive representations of political parties. In those circumstances, the cabinet form of government will be extremely difficult. With just three big groups in Sheffield, the only way that the current leadership of the council has been able to make it work effectively is by sharing the committee system. I think we should bear that in mind as we move towards a very turbulent time in local government.
Member’s explanatory statement
The Local Government Act 2000 does not provide for a local authority to pass a resolution to retain the Committee system and so this provision does not need to deal with such a resolution.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make clear that a resolution to change to the committee system must be provided for by Part 1A of the Local Government Act 2000.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make clear that a resolution to change to the committee system must be provided for by Part 1A of the Local Government Act 2000.
Member’s explanatory statement
The Local Government Act 2000 does not provide for a local authority to pass a resolution to retain the Committee system and so this provision does not need to deal with such a resolution.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Black of Brentwood and Lady Stowell of Beeston, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for their support on this amendment. My noble friend Lady Stowell will unfortunately be unable to speak as she is in a meeting of another committee of your Lordships’ House.
Amendment 202 would leave out paragraph 6 of Schedule 27, which amends the Local Government Act 2000. In so doing, it would protect existing requirements for local authorities to publish the resolutions that they make in local newspapers as public notices.
Local newspapers remain a crucial source of information for people across our country. Indeed, the local news sector reaches approximately 42 million people. For many residents, these publications are not simply a preferred medium but their primary and most trusted means of receiving local news and democratic information. In many cases, were it not for these local newspapers, the information would simply not be accessible.
For the Government to cut people off from this information, particularly at a time when they seek to reorganise local government in so many swathes of our country, would leave many local residents in the dark. As councils undergo significant structural change, the Government should surely be encouraging local authorities to go to even greater lengths to inform people of changes to governance structures and much more.
There is a misconception that these dry technical notices are tucked away in the back of the paper. Far from it; they are often accompanied with news articles and commentary by journalists, encouraging further scrutiny of local decisions. In an age of social media and clickbait, where what news we read is determined by foreign technology platforms and their obscure algorithms, local journalism acts as an increasingly important safeguard against misinformation and general ignorance.
Independent research suggests that 80% of adults in the UK trust the news and information that they see in their local newspapers far higher than the figure for most national and international media. This level of trust is not easily replicated and should not be taken for granted. Local democracy and local journalism operate in a symbiotic relationship, which I think we would be wise to maintain.
Whereas the current requirements ensure consistency across the country, making the change that the Government have proposed in this Bill—that is, allowing local authorities to publicise governance changes in a “manner they think appropriate”—will allow some decisions to be publicised less than others and receive less public scrutiny. It will mean that residents in one local authority area may be kept more informed than those in another, creating an inequality of access to information based purely on geography.
Local authorities should not be allowed to shy away from local residents and voters. At a time when the Government are permitting many of them to hide away from the ballot box, it is even more important that they be held to account in the public forum.
Furthermore, the Government are already committed to reviewing statutory notices in their forthcoming local media strategy. To legislate on public notices now, before we have the findings of that review, would surely be premature. I think it would be irresponsible of the Government to have us consider these proposals before we are all equipped with the facts.
I urge the Minister to reconsider the approach that the Government are taking in this way, at least until we have the further evidence to inform the best way forward. I beg to move.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 202 in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, to which I have added my name. I apologise that I was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate. This is a very important issue for our local media and I am most grateful to my noble friend for bringing it forward for debate. I declare my interests as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and chairman of the News Media Association. My noble friend powerfully made the arguments in favour of the case for removing these provisions of the Bill, so I want to emphasise only a few points.
Inevitably, the first concerns the financial sustainability of the local press. Whenever we debate media issues there is consistently strong support across the House for our local media and appreciation of the vital role that it plays in local democracy, scrutinising those in positions of power in local authorities and holding local politicians to account. But investigative local journalism of this sort is expensive, and it is becoming harder and harder for local publishers to support it, not just because of the structural changes in the media market but because of the continuing encroachment of the BBC into local news.
Revenues and, therefore, investment are under huge pressure. The publication of public notices is, in a highly visible way in local newspapers, aided by the Public Notice Portal as a one-stop shop—a digital database for all public notices. It is one of the remaining and vital sources of revenues for the local press, and it is crucial that it is preserved. Removing the obligation will place a massive question mark over the sustainability of local news. The Government and, indeed, Parliament cannot will the ends of a free press and local democratic scrutiny without also willing the means.
Secondly, it must be of great concern to us all that, as my noble friend has set out, at a time of significant structural change in local government—the biggest in a generation—which we have heard so much about this afternoon, we should have maximum transparency about the activities of local authorities and those in charge of them. Giving local authorities the power to flag important issues simply as they see fit hands them a wide-ranging ability to keep decisions secret, in many cases, by shielding them from large swathes of the public who still rely on published local media for information.
Local media has a vital role to play in ensuring that public notices are translated into lay language by local journalists writing about them in a way that is accessible and easily understood by local electors. As my noble friend said, if you remove the obligation to publish notices in print, you remove the incentive and ability of reporters to help the public understand and scrutinise them. That cannot be right at a time of such upheaval in local government.
Finally, although the vast majority of noble Lords in this place are able to access news online, we must recognise that not all citizens are equipped with digital access or knowledge. Age UK estimates that there are around 2.4 million digitally-excluded older people—that is nearly one in five of that section of society—who have very limited use of the internet, many using it less than once a month if at all. Yet local services and the decisions of local authorities are hugely important to them, perhaps more so than any other group in the population. They rely on their printed local paper for such news and information, and we should not be excluding them from that ability to have a say in the democratic process.
The Prime Minister says that his Government
“will always be on the side of pensioners”.
Let him prove it in deeds as well as words. I hope that the Grand Committee will support this amendment.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. Good local government and community empowerment need a strong local media to shine a light on the council chamber, to offer scrutiny, and to encourage communities. However, over the past 20 years, we have seen the gradual decline of local news and media. I look at my own city of Liverpool: 20 years ago, there was a morning newspaper, the Daily Post, and in the evening, the Liverpool Echo. There was a very strong BBC local radio station, Radio Merseyside, and there was a local commercial station, Radio City.
Since that time, we have seen BBC local radio cut a considerable number of jobs and commercial radio become syndicated, with jobs going to London and being lost in Liverpool. The answer from the commercial radio sector—it even changed the name—is to provide news on the hour, which is often from London, as well. We have lost that link with the community. There are very few occasions when any investigative journalism is taking place, and it can be hugely important to the well-being of the city of Liverpool.
Sadly, the elected mayor was recently arrested and charged and commissioners were sent in. None of that would have happened if a very small digital news provider had actually done an investigation and seen what was happening. For the good of local government, and because of the importance of community empowerment, we need a strong local media. Do not take my word for it; your Lordships have had two Select Committees that looked at local news, both of which said, “Yes, we need to keep and protect local journalism and local news, and these are some of the ways we can do it”.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, because I had forgotten about this and it is really important. I hope the Government will take note, because it is also about saving local jobs, often in very poor communities. I hope the Government realise that we need a strong, robust local media to support local government, to shine a light on it and to celebrate what is happening there.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I enter this debate to support the three previous speakers. I declare an interest as the chair of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which regulates almost all local media. In that capacity, I have had the opportunity to visit a large number of regional newspapers, to talk to those who work on them, and to try to understand their circulation and advertising problems, and the difficulty they have surviving. Their financial model is very difficult.
I visited one quite well-known newspaper—I am not prepared to identify it—which used to have 50 people working on it. That newspaper is now put together by five people. It is a considerable challenge for newspapers to provide news and do the sort of investigative journalism that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, was talking about.
This amendment would take away the opportunity for journalists to follow up on public notices, which can give rise to interesting news and proper scrutiny. It is not just a formality. The Bill talks about ways that the local authority might think are appropriate to publicise these things, but I ask the Minister what precisely is envisaged. As noble Lords have said and the House has recognised, there is still a considerable appetite for local news. There are lots of people of a certain age who are digitally challenged—I think that is the euphemism used—who like local newspapers and think they are important. They even like them to be delivered to them personally, which can be quite a challenge for local newspapers.
If this is considered some form of subsidy, I respectfully ask: so what? It is a subsidy that is important in view of the role that newspapers play. I cannot believe that the Government really intend to damage local newspapers in the way that this provision will. I ask the Government to think again about this. It may have come about by accident to promote digitalisation, but the collateral damage will be very considerable.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall not speak for long. I was looking around the Room, trying to add up how many former local leaders there are, and I got to five or maybe six. We probably all had one thing in common: our generation of politicians was extraordinarily reliant on our local paper to broadcast our successes and failures and, more importantly, to hold local institutions to account.
When I first became a councillor in Brighton, in 1983, my local paper had three editions a day. It had a circulation of 120,000. It had arts, health, local government and crime sections, with a general list of reporters, all different specialists, who worked from the city centre. The paper was also given different opt-outs for Worthing, Hastings and Crawley. There was an extensive newspaper network, and it was complemented by three radio stations, two of which were commercial, and two TV stations. Brighton and Hove had a degree of news saturation.
That meant that the spotlight was placed on us as local politicians in a way that was sometimes aggressive, but more often than not benign, because they believed in reporting the facts. As a local politician sitting on a committee—including as leader of the council, which I was towards the middle end of the 1980s—if I could see the journalist’s pen twitch in the corner of the room, taking a note, I thought I had scored a good hit politically, and invariably I had. I am sure many politicians were reliant on people such as Adam Trimingham, our local reporter, for broadcasting their political views and making sure that people knew what the local authority was about.
This amendment is a practical one. It would be a shame if local authorities were not obliged to publish notices in the way they have historically. The decline and death of local news is a great sadness, because people are less well informed about what has been going on in their name. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, talked about investigative journalism; that is as important at a local level as it is at a national one. Our society is poorer without it, so anything we can do through local government to help strengthen local news is very important. I am sure local authorities themselves are worried about that, because it is part of their population’s decline in knowledge and understanding of the democratic process. I hope the Minister can offer us some comfort and encouragement, and perhaps say that we should do more to stimulate local news services. This is one practical measure that the Government should actively consider.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to know that I very much support what other noble Lords have said, given that I promoted amendments to her previous Bill on this subject. It seems to me immensely important that notices should come to the notice of people. I know what my local council would do, if faced with this clause: it would publish either nothing or as little and as obscurely as it could. Its practice is to try to ensure that people do not know what it is up to.
It is entirely undesirable that local councils should have this direction in paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 27, without any rules as to how they should apply it. If we are to keep this clause, at the very least councils should be given an objective; for example, that they should publish it in a way that will lead to the widest readership over the widest spread of the community. In other words, they should know what they are trying to achieve, and they should have something through which to justify their actual performance against what they are supposed to do. I also ask that the publication be, at least in part, in IPSO-regulated spaces, to make sure that what is getting out is of quality.
As noble Lords will remember from the previous Bill, we need to get rid of the 19th-century definition of “newspaper”. There is a much broader section of local news enterprises. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, knows, because we are very close neighbours, the level of local news that we get now is very degenerated; the level of investigation, rather than just reprinting material they are given, is really very low. However, in that gap, little local enterprises are springing up. They are often not yet of a sufficient size to afford a print run, but they are getting out there and doing the investigative work. They ought, in the right circumstances, to be supported. I urge the Government to change the definition —if we keep newspapers, that is. If we do not, as the schedule proposes, and we broaden the discretion of local government, we must make it clear what it has to achieve rather than allowing it to achieve nothing.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I support the principles behind this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, which has attracted widespread interest from both within and without your Lordships’ House.
At its heart lies a simple question: how do we ensure that the public continue to have clear, independent and accessible routes to information about the decisions made by their local authorities? For a long time, local newspapers have played a vital role in this. Our local journalists are there not only to report news; they scrutinise local decision-making, as we have heard, and act as guardians of local democracy. They are often the only regular observers of the workings of local government. In many parts of the country, it is only local journalists who regularly attend council meetings, who probe and challenge, and who ensure that decisions are brought to the attention of residents.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, all of us here who have been in local government have been at the end of the pen of many journalists—sometimes in a positive way, but often in a negative way. Local newspapers have always been the starting point for many young journalists who have gone on to be better and more successful journalists. As a local council leader, it is always interesting to watch that progression. I have always been pleased to give as much support as possible to local journalists learning their trade.
The requirement for councils to place statutory notices in local newspapers has long been one of the practical mechanisms that enable this transparency and accountability. It ensures that important matters handled by local authorities reach their residents where they are most likely to see them. Crucially, they reach residents through an independent medium—not one controlled by the authority. That independence is a safeguard we should not discard lightly, even in part.
It is true that the local media landscape is changing. Many local news organisations now operate both in print and online or only online, and audiences increasingly access their news digitally. However, as we have heard, the answer to such change cannot simply be to remove this duty—altogether, in some instances—and, in extremis, to see people rely solely on council websites. Many residents seldom visit council websites, as we all know. Some find them difficult to navigate. They are not used to being widely used as a source of day-to-day information on their local authorities. If statutory notices are placed only there, this would be not modernisation but invisibility. There is evidently concern, as reflected in the broad support for this amendment, that the Government’s current proposal would weaken transparency rather than strengthen it.
I listened with interest to the compelling cases in this debate, and I cannot help but wonder whether there is another way. If this policy requires updating, modernising or broadening, why do we not consider doing precisely that? Rather than the Government removing the requirement completely, allowing publication
“in such manner as the local authority thinks appropriate”,
would they consider expanding its scope instead? It could be broadened to include reputable independent local news websites, trusted digital publishers and recognised social media channels, operated by established local news providers. I defer to those who know the industry better than I do, but would this not reflect the realities of contemporary media consumption while preserving the more core democratic principle that notices should be published through independent and accessible outlets?
Above all, we must avoid a future in which councils become the sole gatekeepers of information that should be publicly available, easily accessed and subject to external scrutiny. The partnerships between councils and local media remain essential to the health of our local democracy, and we consider that any move to weaken that would be a big mistake. For these reasons, I believe that the principle of the amendment deserves serious consideration and I hope the Government will reconsider their approach.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 202, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, seeks to maintain the current requirement to publish governance changes—it is only governance changes—in local newspapers. I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. There are clearly strongly held views around the Committee.
We have just had two powerful debates about empowering local councils and councillors. We seem to have changed our minds in this regard. The Bill does not prevent local authorities publishing a notice in a local newspaper, should they wish to. Instead, it empowers councils to decide the most appropriate and effective method of notifying their local communities of any changes to the governance model. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that I appreciate all his points, but local government is not responsible for the problems of local newspapers; there are many issues affecting them. We all value them immensely, but it is not just local government that is causing those issues.
The Bill’s provision updates the current statutory requirement. It shifts the focus from—
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
The noble Baroness maybe somewhat misunderstood what I said. I actually asked her—this is part of the provision in the Bill—what she thought the local authority would think appropriate for the way the information is published. That is a matter for the Government rather than for local newspapers.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is, and this part of the Bill suggests that it is for local government to decide the most effective way to communicate these governance changes to its residents.
The Bill gives councils the flexibility to publish notices of governance change in whatever manner they consider most appropriate for their local circumstances. That may still include local printed newspapers, where they continue to play an important role in our local communities, but it also enables councils to use other channels—such as digital and online newspapers, council websites, and any other local community platforms—to help set out the governance changes. Crucially, the provision does not prevent authorities continuing to use local newspapers if they consider that the best way to reach their residents; it simply allows them to exercise their judgment in choosing the most suitable communication method for their area.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in moving the amendment, took me back to my very first Select Committee appearance as a local government leader, on exactly this issue. Substantial costs are incurred. I am talking not just about governance arrangements but for the breadth of local government statutory notices. It was around £28 million in the last year we have figures for, and some estimates suggest that it may be a great deal higher than that, so a lot of cost is involved.
In practice, this issue of governance arrangements will affect very few councils. More than 80% of councils already operate the leader-and-cabinet model of governance; the majority of the remaining councils will undergo reorganisation and the new councils will automatically adopt the leader-and-cabinet model. This is a proportionate and practical reform for the small number that may need to change their governance arrangements.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate. My noble friend Lord Black mentioned the disproportionate impact that this will have on older residents. Of course, age is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, and I wonder whether the Government have carried out a public sector equality duty impact assessment on this proposed change.
My noble friend and others mentioned the challenging business environment in which many local news organisations operate. The Minister is right that local government is not directly responsible for that, but it will be responsible if, through this Bill, the symbiotic relationship between local councils and local newspapers is severed in the way that is proposed.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook for the constructive suggestions that she put forward. I hope the Minister will look at them in a cool light after Committee and see whether there is a way of allowing local authorities to choose a variety of ways to publicise these decisions while also supporting these vital organs, which, as my noble friend said, are often the only independent eyes and ears in the public gallery scrutinising local authorities on behalf of the people who are being served.
The Minister was right that a cost would be necessarily incurred in this proposal, but the Government are looking at a media literacy programme and citizenship education, particularly for the new teenage voters whom they want to enfranchise, and we have here a tried, tested and truly independent way in which to shed light on democratic decisions that are taken. I hope the Minister will consider this further as we move to Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“(2A) In making regulations under subsection (2), it is the general duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that such regulations promote the role, involvement, and authority of locally elected councils in the governance of neighbourhood areas.(2B) It is also the general duty of the Secretary of State, in making regulations under subsection (2), to encourage local decision-making as close as practicable to the neighbourhoods affected.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my amendment and the others in this group all stem from a degree of unease, in particular about Clause 60 but also generally about the ethos of this Bill towards local democracy, local representation and local participation. Clause 60 talks about
“appropriate arrangements to secure the effective governance of any area”.
It says nothing about elections or representation. Subsection (3)(d) talks about
“the purpose of ensuring local engagement with the neighbourhood”,
but there is nothing here about local councils. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am uneasy about the whole Bill’s approach to democratic engagement and participation.
I know that many within our governing elite think that elections are a cost and we should reduce their number or frequency. I am very conscious that Dominic Cummings made his reputation by campaigning against regional government in the north-east because it would cost money and there would be more politicians—and the fewer politicians, the better. However, the fewer politicians you have, the more authoritarians you end up with.
Among my criticisms of the Bill are that it does not define its terms very clearly. “Local”, “neighbourhood” and “community” are used to cover a great variety of things. I recall that Norwich has been described as a “parish council”—a city as a parish council—but there are all sorts of confusions there. “Effective governance” itself needs a good deal more explanation than we have.
I am a liberal. I believe in democracy which has local, political and popular engagement, and I believe in active citizens. I support votes at 16, which the Government are about to produce in the elections Bill —I have just been told that it will be published within the next month—in order to encourage the engagement of young people in public life, starting with voting. However, if we are going to think that one through, they have to have some way of being engaged.
We know what has happened to our structures of local government over the last 70 years. I grew up in a country which had urban district councils, rural district councils, county boroughs and a great many more local authorities. Not surprisingly, political parties were all larger. The core of your local Conservative association was your local councillors and those who worked with them; it was similar with the core of your local Labour Party, and so on and so forth. No wonder political parties have shrunk in numbers and more and more citizens feel disengaged from politics, because less politics goes on at the local level. To repeat what I said earlier, the statement that all politics starts with local politics is a fundamental thing about democracy. City self-government is, after all, the basis of civilisation —that is what “civilisation” means—and if we are depriving Oxford, Cambridge, Harrogate and Norwich of self-government, we are really getting into trouble.
I think the Government think that local government is about delivery, delivery is best done by direction from the centre and you do not want too many local authorities to get in the way. I understand Clause 60 as saying that, in some cases, non-elected neighbourhood groups are better and easier to work with than elected representation. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us on that. I hope I have misunderstood, but I may not have done.
I am a democrat and a liberal, and I therefore want to see an active democracy from the local to the national level in the UK. This Bill seems, on the whole, to make democracy weaker, and Clause 60 is the most dubious clause of all. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendment 206 in this group. I guess it is fishing in a similar pool to that of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, but with a more explicit purpose.
With the increased size of local authorities that we are going to get, we will have cities becoming parishes. At the moment, I think the largest parish form of council is Northampton, which has a population of about 130,000. I do not know what the outcome of the local government reorganisation will be, but quite a large number of towns and cities that have a substantial population will have their powers reduced to that of parish and town councils. My guess is that there will be an expansion in parishing in those areas because people will want to make up the democratic deficit.
However, my point in this amendment is to try to ensure that, where neighbourhood areas are identified as being important—as, for instance, with the Pride in Place programme—the parishes, whether town or city-style parishes, are at least represented. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, correctly argued, they are a form of elected democracy and are there to represent their local community. While we all celebrate and work with people who are from neighbourhood organisations, they do not have the same standing in their community because they have not been directly elected by local residents. What I am therefore trying to achieve with this amendment is that, at least where neighbourhood areas are identified and a governance body is established for a neighbourhood area, parish and town councils should have a stake in that organisation. That is what my amendment seeks.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group and will speak to them in turn, but I just begin by saying that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. His Amendment 206 and my Amendment 207 are complementary, and in a sense, ask the same question: if one is creating effective neighbourhood governance, does one do it by incorporating town and parish councils into some structure or by investing town and parish councils, as far as possible, with functions and responsibilities themselves? That is where I think our amendments are complementary and could in practice be adopted in one direction in some places and in another direction in others. I accept that this is not our job in this clause, which seems to be the only clause that does not get its own schedule. I would want to have a schedule attached to this clause that set out in intense detail how this would be done because it would vary from place to place.
I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, earlier; I did not interrupt, but the Long Title has no interpreted legal force. It is called the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and that is a means of citation, but the Long Title does not mention community empowerment. In effect, you can look at what the Bill is called but then you look at the Long Title and it just makes provision about various forms of authorities. It does not actually say that the purpose of the Bill is to devolve power or to empower communities. It is our job to ensure that the Bill really does that. Clause 60 ought to be about community empowerment, which is where my Amendment 208 comes from. In so far as there should be guidance to local authorities on how they go about creating effective neighbourhood governance, it should be geared towards empowering and engaging local communities. It is not necessarily the case that that would happen.
I live in Suffolk. My noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook and I were both at the same meeting where the intention—it may be intention in many places—is to create neighbourhood governance. This is, in essence, the elected members of the unitary authorities forming a committee for an area. I do not say that that is irrelevant to this purpose, but it is not the same thing as town and parish councils, which have their own identity, their own powers, their own connections and relationships with all the people who live in that precise area. I come back to the word “identity” because, as all noble Lords understand, political identity is very important in how one creates political and organisational governance structures. The starting point for government structures should be: what is one’s political identity? As it happens, in Suffolk, most people probably identify with their town or parish. That is where they start from. My proposition is terribly simple, which is that towns and parish councils should be, wherever possible, strengthened and their functions maintained or enhanced by this process of local authorities creating effective neighbourhood governance.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord a question about which areas are not parishes? My strong impression is that the unparished areas in Britain are, by and large, poorer inner-city areas —those areas that are most disengaged and disillusioned with politics. If that is the case, it ought to concern us, but I have not yet managed to get full evidence of it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am sure the noble Lord is absolutely right about that. The interesting thing is that, just because an area is urban, it does not mean that it does not have parishes. London, one of the biggest cities in Europe, is very often called a city of villages. That they are called parishes is normal in urban areas as much as it is in country areas. “Parish” is not a rural concept; it is a well-established historical concept, wherever you happen to live. Extending parishes across the country would be an admirable way of extending neighbourhood governance.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, could I take advantage of my noble friend’s expertise again? How are unitary councils included under Clause 60(5)? It lists only counties, districts and London boroughs, so I am not clear how the clause applies to unitary councils.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I think the Minister might wish to refer to that, if necessary. My understanding is that, just because an authority is unitary, it does not mean it stops being a county or a district. You could have single foundation counties and districts, in theory.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 209 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I am not going to mention parishes; it is too controversial. In my village, the parish council is incredibly important. It sets up a litter pick, once a month, which I do every month and it is wonderful. I love walking out in front of cars in the village that are going too fast and just stopping them with my little stick. There is not much rubbish left anymore.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, used a very good word for what this side of the Room is experiencing: unease. Sometimes it goes a little bit beyond that, as well.
This amendment seeks to strengthen Clause 60 by setting clear minimum standards for meaningful community participation in neighbourhood governance. The Bill repeatedly speaks in the language of devolution, empowerment and bringing decision-making closer to communities but, to do that, you must make sure that people are genuinely involved in shaping decisions, rather than just being consulted once it has all been fixed.
As the Bill stands, it requires only that “appropriate arrangements” are made for local engagement. That phrase is far too vague, and that vagueness risks exactly the sort of weak or inconsistent participation that has undermined public trust for years. Without minimum standards, engagement can easily become technically compliant but practically meaningless. Meaningful participation requires more than consultation; it requires deliberation, and spaces where people can learn, discuss, challenge and contribute to shaping outcomes. That is why the amendment refers to
“deliberative processes such as citizens’ panels, assemblies, or community conversations”.
In my village, we have community conversations on the street, on a regular basis—and very healthy it is too.
These approaches are well established, increasingly used by councils and effective at engaging people who would not normally take part in formal consultations. The amendment also rightly emphasises inclusion; there is a danger that engagement exercises are dominated by those with the time, confidence and resources to respond. Communities are affected most by decisions, and those who are already underrepresented in policy-making are precisely the voices that are hardest to hear and most important to include. That probably counts double for inner-city parishes or areas.
Transparency is equally important. People need to be able to see how their input has influenced decisions. When communities are asked for their views but see no visible impact, trust is eroded. We need to report on how engagement has shaped plans and outcomes.
The amendment also recognises that meaningful participation needs support. The Minister has said that there is a lot of money going into local councils. I very much hope that it is enough to do exactly this sort of participation and engagement, because asking councils to deliver deeper participation without providing the means to do so risks setting them up to fail.
I do not think that existing powers and future regulations will be sufficient. Although flexibility matters, flexibility without standards leads to inequality. Minimum standards prove a floor, not a ceiling. They ensure that all communities can expect a basic level of involvement. There are excellent examples of councils doing this well; the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that such good practice becomes the norm, not the exception.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 209A in this group is in my name. I express my regret that I was unable to speak at Second Reading, for which I apologise. This is my first intervention on this Bill. I have interests to declare: I am a former president, and now a vice-president, of the National Association of Local Councils, and I am a current joint president of the West Sussex Association of Local Councils. I am very grateful to NALC for its help in drafting Amendment 209A.
I stepped straight into the controversial sector that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, suggested she would keep well clear of. I have very much in mind the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Shipley, in our debates on the earlier groups in connection with Clause 59 and Schedule 27. I also relate 100% to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in his introduction to this group, as well as those from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I support the other amendments in this group, which are on the same theme as mine.
I wish to comment on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about the extent of parishing. I cannot give him an answer, but if I tell him that East Sussex and West Sussex are almost completely parished but Surrey is at a much lower percentage then that will indicate to him that it can be a bit of a patchwork. Up and down the country, there are reckoned to be about 10,000 parish and town councils, so there are a lot of them around; there are also a lot of elected members. Noble Lords have raised other things about parishes, but I will pass on them.
I share a concern with noble Lords. If we have a combined county authority for a population of 500,000, say, and the borough and district structure then disappears because of that, where the relevant area or part of it is unparished—this is often in urban areas, though it is not always—what represents the community? As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, that bit is uniquely well placed to deal with those local issues that have the most immediate impact on the electorate. It is usually—almost always—a community of geographical interest, as well as other types of interest.
My amendment seeks clarification of the Government’s intentions here; as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others, they look a bit opaque and need clarification. In particular, my amendment tries to make sure that any arrangements that are put in place pursuant to the Bill, once it is enacted, do not impinge on the existing parish structures or impede their formation.
I will expand further by asking what the Government envisage the specification template or other structural characteristics might be to respond best to the needs of community. Here I am not stressing size. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to the council in Northampton. We always used to say that the biggest town council in the country was Weston-super-Mare, but I may be a bit out of date. It was considerably larger than some of the other principal authorities; they come in all shapes and sizes.
The point here is to ask: will community representation be some form of hand-me-down process through the principal authority, and will it be dependent on that authority for its finance, appointment of members, functions and so on? Will it just leave it to some ad hoc or perhaps business-related organisation to fill the void? Or will it have legal status, defined structure and powers, direct democratic accountability, financial accountability and autonomy through a precept, and the opportunity to move to a general power of competence, with rules of conduct, procedure, an accountable officer and so on? If that is what the template looks like, it looks very much like a parish council in structure. Let us not get too hung up about what the precise name should be, because what I am concerned about is the form. The democratic and financial accountability and its governance are what matter here, rather than size or other factors.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I live in the middle of this problem: Eastbourne and Hastings have district councils and no parishes, so when we go unitary, we will be without any form of local structure.
Will the Minister publish the draft regulations before we get to Report? We are supposed to see plans for Sussex going unitary sometime in March or April. It will be enormous. We are at the moment undergoing a consultation process on whether we have a town council or a succession of parishes, or whether we look to the unitary model and have a local structure that embraces the whole of Eastbourne. The borough of Eastbourne has grown enormously beyond its boundaries. If we want to be seen as a big community, we need those big boundaries. We want to be a whole town, thank you very much. If we are to be parishes, we will still need to understand what we will interact with at the unitary neighbourhood panel or structure—whatever it is going to be. For us, this is an enormously important bit of knowledge. We are being asked to decide things at the moment, but we are not being told what the most important factor is: how will the unitary structure these things?
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
In my view, a process of parishing does not consist of the dividing up of a borough—if I can call it that—such as Eastbourne into a load of little bits and pieces. That may be the way in which it is being presented because of the electoral ward structure that pertains at the moment but, as I said, there are some very large town councils—Weston-super-Mare is one and I am sure that there are others—that have very significant populations. The question is: what best forms community in the area concerned? I suggest to the noble Lord, for whose continued and creditable battling for Eastbourne I have the highest regard, that he should perhaps look into that and see whether a form of parishing to create a town council would not be a better way forward.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I can understand that, but how does a big town council for 100,000 or so people actually work within a unitary of half a million people, given that the town council will have the powers of a parish only and most of the decisions will be taken by the unitary? The important structure at the level of the town will not be the town council, with its rather artificially constrained boundaries, but the local unitary neighbourhood—whatever it calls itself—with the rather expanded boundaries, and the budget, and responsibility for all the things that we want to happen, which the town council will not have any of. If we are looking at parishes, we do not want them on ward boundaries. Ward boundaries have grown to fit the needs of the Electoral Commission. If we are having parishes, we want them to represent communities, which we do not have with our ward boundaries.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I have been looking at the clause and I come back to the fact that the local authorities in question are clearly not strategic authorities; the point is that they are the unitaries. I do not know about Sussex, but in Suffolk, for example, the unitaries may end up being districts or the county but, either way, they will be comprised within the local authorities that would have to undertake this job. Bear in mind that Clause 60 does at least enable functions to be conferred on this neighbourhood structure, so if one were to establish a town council in Eastbourne, the unitary in question—let us say it was a county—could seek to confer functions on that town council.
Lord Lucas (Con)
Yes, but the town council will be on our current boundaries, presumably, whereas to work with the last 30 years of building and development we really ought to incorporate all those large areas of housing and commerce that Wealden has stuck on our boundaries rather than elsewhere. Understanding how the Government intend to proceed on this is relevant to the decisions that we are being asked to take now. I very much agree with what other noble Lords have said. Representation is important, as are the concepts of parish and local identity. We would like to take what will be a rather challenging decision in the full light of knowing what the alternatives open to us really are.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, this has been a really important debate because it has emphasised and demonstrated the muddle that is in the Bill: the vacuum that will be created following the local government reorganisation process. How is it that Clause 60 cannot even bring itself to mention the town and parish councils that have formed the bedrock of our society?
I know it is inconvenient to have those pesky politicians interfering in that administrative competence: why do we want delegates and deputies at that lowest level? I can understand why the dead hand of Marsham Street has written Clause 60 as it has, but it is not good enough, because it does not have the golden thread of legitimacy that comes only with elections or democratic accountability. We are not seeing authoritative governance, but authoritarian governance; we will be leaving it to local authorities to impose relationships in some smaller parts of their territory without any regard or requirement for democratic legitimacy.
We have had an interesting discussion. The number bandied around was that 20% of places are unparished. It is not equally spread throughout the nation but, by and large, the historic county boroughs have not been parished because they have been billing authorities and districts in their own right. Areas such as King’s Lynn —a proud Hanseatic town—are currently going through a consultation to form their own parish so that there is not a vacuum. I am very attracted to Amendments 207 and 210, and especially Amendment 209A from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, because they would prevent a vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum, but there will be one unless we have these absolute requirements here.
In our discussion about parishes, there was some confusion over what we might call ecclesiastical parishes —those parts of a town with a parish church—but we have not really got to constituted, incorporated parishes that are part of a parish council. It is important that our nomenclature is straightened out. I will talk about civil parishes as opposed to ecclesiastical ones.
There are already multiple arrangements. In my electoral ward, the two parishes of Alpington and Yelverton are inconveniently at both ends of the alphabet but have come together to form a community council—a joint parish council with warding for periodic elections. A minimum number of councillors from Alpington and a minimum number from Yelverton must come together as part of that. Put together, about 400 or 500 people live in those two parishes. Where is the equivalence between Alpington and Yelverton working together and Weston-super-Mare? We are trying to shoehorn this. The Bill should be clear.
In the previous session on the Bill on Monday, I ploughed a lonely furrow as I tried to make some sort of size distinction between these smaller parishes and the larger towns. I was on my own; had that debate been held today, I feel I might have got more support. Nevertheless, we must make sure that we end up with properly constituted, incorporated bodies to govern these smaller bits. Just establishing a joint committee or sub-committee of the new body that sits above it will not be any good, exactly because of the library point that was made so well.
The Bill is deficient because none of this texture is explained or laid out. There is just a muddle, with no legitimacy. This must be brought back on Report with significantly more flesh on the bones and I encourage the Minister to do so. I am not sure whether even Stevenage is parished; it was certainly a new town. That is a whole new class of authority that we may need to look at in this regard. We must try to bring together all those bits from my noble friend Lord Lansley, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and others to bring some order to this. Otherwise, it will be disorderly.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I apologise for intervening, but it is not just about legitimacy—it is also that local areas occasionally want to pay for local amenities that the large unitary does not want to pay for. Shipley, in which Saltaire is based, now has a town council because Bradford decided that it could not afford to pay for public toilets. Ilkley had its own town council so it could do it, and the other tourist destination, Haworth, has a Brontë museum, which pays for its own toilets. Saltaire is a world heritage site, but it had no money to pay for its toilets, so we had to form Shipley Town Council to reopen an absolutely essential part of our local community and economic area. That is a new tension that we have; for libraries and other things, we need some degree of fundraising power for local activities.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I did not want to come back, but I shall, to amplify my noble friend’s point—I think that I can call him my noble friend in this regard. The incorporation point is really important, because elsewhere in this Bill there are provisions for the community infrastructure levy to be passed down to neighbourhood areas. These bodies need to have a bank account and governance; they need to have representation and must have legitimacy. The Bill is silent on that and deficient in that regard. We must move forward, or we will just end up in a muddle.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, what a helpful discussion we have had about this group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has rightly called this clause a muddle and said that we need to come back to it on Report with some flesh on it, because there is absolutely no detail here.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said in relation to Sussex, there is no local structure for when it goes unitary. That strikes me as fundamental. Clause 60 says nothing about town and parish councils. We have had a whole set of amendments trying to address this problem, but it should have been addressed before we got to Committee. It must be addressed by the time we get to Report.
I think that we have understood now what the problem is. My noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said at the start, in introducing this group, that he had an unease about Clause 60, which he called a “most dubious clause”—how right and prescient he has turned out to be. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, complained that he had said a number of things on Monday about the muddle, gap or vacuum that there is. I raised this matter, and I am happy to agree that that is the case, but on day 1 in Committee, I talked about the importance of local authorities devolving power to town and parish councils—to lower tiers. At every level there should be a statutory requirement on all the bodies to devolve power to a lower level, wherever there was a case for so doing. The Government did not support that, but I remind them of that debate on and the amendment to Clause 1, as it would help to get them off the hook with this very poorly drafted Clause 60.
On a final point, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said, there is a confusion in terms in the Bill between local, neighbourhood and community—the three words I think he used—to which I add “area”, because we get that as well. The words start to become interchangeable because nobody is quite sure what they mean. They are not properly defined in the Bill. They ought to be, but the difficulty we have is that the Government do not quite know how to define them. The solution to the problem is to change Clause 60 to include, as part of the local government structure, town and parish councils, then to insist that areas of competence should be devolved to the lowest level possible for the management of that service.
I hope that the Minister is taking very seriously that we must have something much more substantial on Report.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, London does have a parish. It was set up in 2014 after a local referendum, and it is Queen’s Park—just so your Lordships know. There is nothing at all to stop the greatest city becoming parished.
I agree with many noble Lords that Clause 60 is a muddle. While it places a duty on local authorities to make appropriate arrangements for effective governance, it does not say whether that effective governance should be elected or non-elected. It also says that the Secretary of State would have powers through regulations to define neighbourhood areas and to specify the parameters of what arrangements may be considered appropriate. I find that very odd. I do not know which Secretary of State would understand the neighbourhoods of my now county of Norfolk, let alone the whole of England. However, we welcome efforts to bring decision-making closer to the communities that it affects. From previously setting up unitaries, it has been very clear that it is important to set up some more local organisations, but we need much more clarity on what they should be.
Neighbourhood committees or area committees—whatever they are called—are not the same as elected town or parish councils. They are unelected and in the control of and usually paid for by the unitary authority. I have experienced these committees and they work very well. They are probably needed for a bigger unitary authority, but they are no substitute for elected councils, such as town and parish councils. In fact, one of the strengths of neighbourhood or area committees is the inclusion of those local town and parish councils, so that all issues will be discussed locally by everybody concerned. Town and parish councils, because they are elected, are required to look at local plans and neighbourhood plans, and even at the budgets of the councils, to give a local perspective on those big issues for the unitary authorities. In that spirit, I welcome the intention behind Amendment 205, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, which seeks to strengthen the role and authority of locally elected councils and affirms the principle that neighbourhood governance must be rooted in democratic legitimacy and local accountability.
Amendments 206, 207, 208, 209A and 210, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Lansley, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are important because they quite rightly seek, in different but complementary ways, to enhance and secure the role of town and parish councils within this emerging framework of what the Government are calling neighbourhood governance. We all know, from long experience and evidence on the ground, that genuine community empowerment through elected town and parish councils is central to effective neighbourhood governance. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is absolutely right that town and parish councils are a way for the larger authorities to test what is going on right down on the ground.
Parish and town councils are often the most immediate and accessible tier of democratic representation. They are closest to the lived experience of local people, they understand local priorities and they are often best placed to translate national policy ambitions into practical, locally sensitive action. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will think that that is a good thing for them to do.
Building on that point, I would be grateful if the Minister would therefore clarify how the Government see the roles of parish and town councils evolving within the wider framework of neighbourhood governance in this Bill. It is interesting that the Minister’s responses so far have been far from encouraging to town and parish councils. Why not encourage new unitary authorities to look at setting up more town and parish councils in their areas? That could go into a change to Clause 60.
In particular, can the Minister say how the Government intend to ensure that town and parish councils are meaningfully involved in the decision-making that affects their communities? That happens now, but will it continue to happen? Finally, can she confirm how the Government will ensure that any move towards greater neighbourhood governance will be underpinned by clear lines of democratic accountability, so that locally elected parish councils are empowered to deliver more as we, hopefully, get more of them and they are embedded?
Throughout our consideration of this Bill, we have spoken at length about the importance of parish councils in general terms. In the specific context of Clause 60, that importance becomes even more pronounced. If neighbourhood governance is to be effective, it cannot be imposed from above. It has to grow from what we have already in large parts of this country, which could be created elsewhere.
We are therefore clear in our commitment to continuing the central role of town and parish councils in providing effective neighbourhood governance. That brings continuity, it brings local trust and it brings democratic legitimacy. Town and parish councils provide an institutional memory and a community connection that, as we have heard from other noble Lords, transient structures simply cannot replicate without democracy.
In closing, while we must ensure that the framework set out in Clause 60 retains sufficient flexibility to reflect the diversity of local circumstances, that flexibility should not come at the expense of democratic clarity and local voice. The amendments in this group speak to that balance, we believe. They remind us that effective neighbourhood governance is about trust in local institutions, trust in elected representatives and trust in communities themselves; it does not come top-down from government.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I would like to make a point before my noble friend sits down. In her opening remarks, she spoke about the experience that she has had in local government. She talked powerfully about the important role that parish councils and the like can play, and I agree, but I had expected her to say what success does not look like. I have been on the receiving end of self-appointed pressure groups with an axe to grind and of transient social media campaigns. If we are not careful, an aggressive reading of Clause 60 could see us sleepwalk into legitimising transient organisations with crony co-option. We have all seen what that looks like. This is what we have to be careful about. I know that my noble friend has had experience of that to her cost. It is important that, going forward, we safeguard against the mistake being made again.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
In any local democracy, you will get that happening. That is right: people should get together to lobby, to make sure that their local representatives understand what they want and what they do not want. However, when you have town and parish councils, they have the legitimacy because they have been through the electorate. Also, if what they are saying is not what the local community want to hear, the electorate can get rid of them at the ballot box.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam, the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Lansley, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for their amendments on neighbourhood governance.
Before I speak to the amendments, let me say that I was very sorry to hear that the noble Earl has given notice of his intention to retire from the House at the end of March. I hope to have an opportunity to thank him more formally, but I thank him now for his huge contributions to all four of the Bills in which I have been closely involved in your Lordships’ House; he has made a significant contribution, and I just want to use this opportunity to say that.
Before I respond to the individual amendments, I reiterate that the Government strongly value the role of town and parish councils in driving forward the priorities of their communities and delivering effective local services. They are close to the communities they serve, know their communities’ needs, can champion the priorities of local people and can design the right services that work for their places. Interestingly, when we were discussing the SI on the new authorities in Cumbria and Cheshire yesterday, it was interesting to see that, in Cumbria—forgive me if I am quoting this figure wrong, as it is from memory—there are 296 parish councils. I know that it is quite a rural area, but I thought that a significant number; I believe that there were also more than 100 of them in Cheshire.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
I thank the Minister for her kind remarks about me. It has been a pleasure to work with her and with predecessor Ministers from her department and their various Bill teams over a very large number of years. This is not the time for me to make a valedictory speech, or anything even approaching it, or for me otherwise to bore the Grand Committee. However, depending on the scheduling of the Bill’s next stages—and because I do not disappear until the end of March—there may be a bit of wiggle room for me to come back and have another go at some of these amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very pleased to hear that. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked me earlier whether the Bill will go to Report, and I confirm that is the case. I hope that the noble Earl will still be here to participate on Report, and we look forward to his contributions. He has a great deal of knowledge and experience of the property sector and many other areas related to all of the issues we have debated on this and other Bills. I particularly valued his expertise on property safety and his knowledge of construction when debated the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I am very grateful to him.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with that. Do the Minister and the noble Earl realise that the last place in the UK named Lytton—spelled with a “y”—is in Stevenage?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is actually in Knebworth, north Hertfordshire, but I take the noble Lord’s point.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my unease has not been lessened by the Minister’s answers, and I suspect that others will feel the same way.
The Minister says that they do not want to impose a single model. I thought that this Bill was about imposing a single model on the governance of England. It was certainly made clear by the Conservative Government —let us accept that this is a Conservative model that which the Labour Government are introducing—that, unless east Yorkshire and North Yorkshire accepted the mayoral model, they would not get the deal for which they were asking. There is a large question there.
When I heard the Minister say that the role that town and parish councils play in neighbourhood governance is recognised, I want to know who else is playing a role and how important the town and parish councils’ role might be. Will it be marginal or major? We do not know what the other bits of neighbourhood governance are intended to do. I am happy to hear that the Government want town and parish councils to continue to play an important and valuable role, but I think more of us want to ensure that they play a significant and leading role in local democracy. At the moment, Clause 60 does not provide us with that reassurance. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but this is something to which we will want to come back if and when we manage to reach Report.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the notice that Clause 61 and Schedule 28 do not stand part of the Bill. These remove the changes being made to some local election voting systems. I will also speak to my Amendment 216, which seeks to limit the Government’s power to delay local elections.
Clause 61 states that Schedule 28 makes provision for the use of the supplementary vote system in elections of mayors and police and crime commissioners. When choosing our leaders, it is important that our voting systems are easy to understand and trusted. First past the post is exactly that. It is simple, it is familiar and it gives everyone confidence that the person with the most votes wins, straightforwardly and transparently.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I will speak particularly to Amendments 211 and 212 in this group, which are in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
On the return to this vexed question of election postponements and cancellations, as we have covered that several times already on various previous occasions—I am sure we will again in future—I will take a slightly different tack this time and focus partly on the future. I also hope, perhaps overoptimistically, that the Minister feels that these amendments are actually helpful.
Thinking about the future first, there are very clear, sad and worrying lessons from countries all around the world about how quickly democracies can become fragmented and undermined. The responsible reaction we all should have to that is to be determined to embed democratic norms as deeply and firmly as we can. That does not guarantee their future protection but it will certainly make life more likely to be successful, whether for our future selves or our successors, if we have to defend democracy. I hope we all agree on the clear principle of embedding the idea that democracy should not just be an easy thing to postpone or cancel.
However, at the moment, unfortunately, it is just a little bit too easy for elections to be postponed or cancelled. The two amendments in my name set out a very clear route, as indeed do other amendments in this group, by which we could more firmly protect our democracy against future strains.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, rightly pointed out, there are several different approaches that one could potentially take to this. I certainly acknowledge the merit of the approach taken in some of the other amendments regarding both ensuring that the 2007 and 2011 Acts referred to in them are properly catered for and, indeed, the interesting idea of the one-year limit that is present in one of those amendments.
My concern, though, with those alternative approaches —I will certainly listen carefully and with interest to noble Lords who contribute to the rest of this debate—is that those alternative approaches rest, in the end, on the willingness of Parliament to vote down secondary legislation. In the end, that is the prime safeguard in them. It is obviously a matter for another day or occasion to debate the merits of the deeply held, principled position that I know many in both the Labour and Conservative groups here take—I do not share it but I appreciate it—that the main opposition party in the House of Lords should not vote for a fatal amendment to a statutory instrument.
The problem is, whatever one thinks are the rights or wrongs of that principle, that that essentially means that any safeguard that is based on the idea that the Government have to put a statutory instrument or secondary legislation in some form to Parliament is of very little use. In the end, when push comes to shove, whatever the principal opposition party is in the Lords, it will say, “As a matter of principle, we aren’t going to vote it down”. It is a safeguard that, when needed, will not keep us very safe.
I said that I was going to be optimistic and try to persuade the Minister that these amendments are a helpful measure. I say that because I am absolutely sure that, in good faith, the Government never set out to say that some councillors who are elected for a four-year term of office should stay in office—as it will turn out under their plans—for seven years. I am sure that was not the original intention, but it is unfortunately the position that we have stumbled into through a sequence of events. That is a very significant and, outside of wartime, unprecedented extension to the term of office of councillors. We have ended up in this unprecedented and frankly unsatisfactory position because some of those councillors who have had their four-year term extended to seven years are in power, running councils, and they are being given three extra years in power without the public getting a say on that.
As I said, I appreciate that that is the result of a sequence of circumstances, and in that sense it seems that the Government have stumbled into a series of events. Whether through the mechanisms set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, or through mine, the advantage of making it a little harder for the Government to cancel elections in the future is that it would protect Governments from stumbling into a similar sequence of events again. So I hope we will hear some movement from the Minister in due course on this issue.
But of course, like any good Liberal Democrat, I cannot resist the opportunity to talk a little about the merits of different voting systems, so I will refer briefly to Amendment 213, although the ticking clock protects noble Lords from a William Gladstone-type speech about the relative merits of different voting systems, tempting though that may be. Although it is obviously no surprise, I am sure, for the Minister to hear me say that I certainly prefer the supplementary vote to first past the post, it is a real shame that the Government do not intend at the moment to go a step further and introduce the alternative vote. The big weakness of the supplementary vote is that you have to correctly second-guess the two parties that will be in the final round so that you can cast your second preference vote in a way that will be counted.
I will briefly make reference to the research by the Make Votes Matter coalition that was carried out a couple of years ago and which encompassed 217 different elections conducted by the supplementary vote in the UK. It found that only 46% of the second preferences that people expressed actually ended up being counted in the final run-off round. Over half of all second preferences correctly filled in on the ballot paper none the less got discarded because they were for candidates who did not make it into the second round. That is quite a flaw in the supplementary vote. It is a system essentially designed for a world in which it is pretty clear who the two main parties, or the two main candidates, in an election will be. However good or bad it may be, we are certainly not in a situation where that is the norm in our politics any more, so I very much hope the Minister will consider the merits of the alternative vote.
On Amendment 214, I simply observe that, in Scotland, the single transferable vote is used for council elections and is pretty popular with not only many members of the Labour Party but indeed many members of the Conservative Party there. If it works well in Scotland, as it does, perhaps we should be able to have it in England as well.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will not talk about different voting systems; I cannot think of anything more boring—I am so sorry. Actually, lots of things are more boring. I could not agree less with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the value of first past the post. It is a thoroughly discredited system and its time is over. What we see again and again is that we have a completely unrepresentative Government, as we do at the moment: they have a huge majority on a small proportion of the vote, and the Conservatives should be thinking more about how they can get back into power—obviously, I do not particularly want that.
Under first past the post, councillors elected often bear little resemblance to how people actually vote. Large numbers of residents can turn out, cast their ballots in good faith and still see their views go completely unrepresented. That leaves too many people feeling that local government is something done to them rather them with them, and proportional representation offers a way out of that. My noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle’s Amendment 215, and Amendment 214 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would allow a shift towards a voting system that would reflect the diversity of political opinion in our communities and reward candidates who can build broad support, rather than those who simply scrape through on a minority of the vote. It would open the door to councils that would look more like the places they serve, politically and socially, and that really matters, especially at a time when councils are becoming larger, more remote and more powerful.
As the noble Lord said earlier, in Scotland local government elections have used the single transferable vote for nearly two decades. In Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, STV is well understood and widely trusted. In Wales, councils are now able to choose it for themselves. Of course, we have proportional representation in London for the London Assembly.
I have been elected under PR and under first past the post. Quite honestly, it did not feel very different, but a completely different view could be spoken and presented much more forcefully when we had more people elected under proportional representation. Voters in those countries manage perfectly well with a system that allows them to rank candidates in order of preference. The result is representation built on consent and co-operation rather than tribalism. This will be much more important as we move towards much larger councils and combined authorities. If power is to be devolved upwards, representation must be strengthened downwards.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 216A, 216B and 216C. I also associate myself with most of the other amendments, certainly the ones in the names of my noble friends. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, in Amendments 211 and 212 proposes a sort of ban. I do not agree with this, but we do need to allow for emergencies, so I agree with the thrust of what he is trying to say.
I agree with my noble friends about the importance of not cancelling elections for LGR, but this does not take into account the funny business around cancelling mayoral or PCC elections or council polls when LGR is not the reason. My amendments are therefore drawn more widely than those of my noble friends Lady Scott and Lord Jamieson.
There has not been a revolution here for about 350 years. Your Lordships might say that this is because the British are a placid race, but they can easily be stirred. The reason the rule of law has been sustained for so long is that we are a democratic country. We sit in this House, in a building that is the cradle of democracy and mother of Parliaments. The people of this nation go to the ballot box to select those who are to represent them in pursuance of a stronger economy, better lives, robust defence and all those other things that the state provides. That consent lasts until the next election, at which point those elected are either replaced or re-elected.
I know that this is obvious, but it needs to be said because the Government have forgotten it. The democratic principle is the cornerstone of our society and our civility. It safeguards the boundaries between the state and the individual. It takes something pretty important to disturb that delicate equilibrium, such as national emergencies. The foot and mouth epidemic and Covid were two cases in point, when elections were delayed for proper purposes.
But this time last year, elections were cancelled. Last March, we had a debate and the Minister made it quite clear that the 12-month cancellation was strictly a one-off. Back then, LGR was nothing more than an outside possibility. No detailed plans had been submitted, there had been no consultation and it was not clear what type of reconfiguration might be proposed. Surrey thought it was getting a mayor until it was not, and London was most definitely in until it was not. It was all just nods and winks. Local government reorganisation was no more certain then than saying now that the Prime Minister will be in place until the next elections—which would have been in May, until they were cancelled.
I am not saying that the Minister misled the House last March, but events have shown that she did not have the authority to give the reassurances that she did. She certainly did not advance the ridiculous notion that decisions to cancel elections should be made by those who are already elected and have the most to lose. Had she explained that process back in March, she would have been laughed out of the Chamber, but that is her Government’s position today.
I have been a councillor for many years. I can tell noble Lords that you do not go into local government for the money but, once you are in, the money can be pretty handy, so asking those people whether they ought to stay on is both a conflict of interest and a moral hazard. Part of the justification for the delay was that economic growth was the number one priority. Mayors were to be the conduit through which growth would be delivered. Those elections have been delayed by two years, which says all you need to know about the commitment to growth. The mayoral angle is why I prefer my amendments over those of my colleagues, because I have amendments that would not just go for local elections but mayoral and PCC elections.
I am sure that the Minister will want to say that three elections were cancelled in Yorkshire, Somerset and Cumbria in 2021, and therefore there is precedent, but I do not accept that for a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will be reassured that I argued forcefully with the Minister that, in the case of Yorkshire, putting Skipton, Selby and Scarborough in the same so-called local authority was crazy. But at least, by that moment, although I disagreed with the outcome, orders had been laid and proposals had been made and consulted on. There was certainty about the creation of local government reorganisation when the elections were cancelled—and, in any event, it was only a single year’s delay. None of that relates to today’s situation. It is dishonest to draw some equivalence between the circumstances in 2021 and those of today. That is why the law needs to be changed to stop the abuse.
Those who want to dodge democracy have advanced quite a few bogus reasons. The county councils talk about capacity issues, forgetting that it is the district councils that run the elections in the shires. They said that it was all rather expensive—but democracy has its price, and the money has already been salted away, accrued and set aside. So that argument holds no water. I have heard it said that staff are busy with other things, but running elections is a specialist task and the electoral registration officers tend to focus on that alone. They are not the people who are engaged in LGR and consultation on the big strategic matters with other authorities, including matters such as disposal of assets. All these arguments are bogus when measured against the fact that free and fair elections should be operated separately from those standing in them, which is one of the fundamental separations of duties and one for which the Electoral Commission, among other bodies, was established.
In an earlier group we discussed local government reorganisation. One problem is that the public have not been offered a chance to express an opinion on LGR, just in case the electors do not share the same view. My noble friend Lord Pickles told me in 2008, “If you don’t trust the folks, don’t go into politics”. He was right, but that does not suit a Government with a tin ear for democracy and the value of civic history. Democracy is being denied in councils; it has already been denied in the mayoral elections. While the Government are signalling that the police and crime commissioners are on their way out into the sunset, my amendments would at least require that the strongest possible relationship between the state and individual is not to result in a reckoning, because society has been abused by these proposals.
My proposal is that only the super-affirmative process can be used when you might want to cancel elections. I cannot think of reasons why you might want to do that in future but, if it was so, this would ensure that there was a two-step process whereby permission must first be sought to enter secondary legislation and then only by the affirmative method would it be separately approved by resolutions laid before both Houses. In any event, any resolution to cancel an election should be made no less than three months before the date of publication of the election, because it is important for parties and individuals to have enough time to prepare a manifesto, select candidates, raise funds and address all the practical matters that need to be taken care of. My amendments would ensure that the preparation could take place effectively, allowing voters to mark their choices clearly on the ballot.
It is not just that it is the right thing; it is wrong that confidence in elections has been undermined. That infects, contaminates and taints democratic structures and processes. Democracy is the underpinning of our society, the stability of our nation and the integrity of all we hold dear. Here is the paradox: this evening, in this Room, the unelected Chamber is standing up for the elected rights of the population. I am not going to go on about Schedule 28 and the funny business against first past the post, but by this debate, noble Lords are being seen to be on the side of the people. Those who would reform your Lordships’ House can see what a slippery slope would happen if we are shoved out of the way: more cancellation of elections. What an irony that would be. The law should be changed so that elections cannot be cancelled for ministerial convenience, except in the most extreme and robust cases of national emergency, such as Covid or foot and mouth, but not local government reorganisation.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 216D seeks to deal with a consequence of the correct and necessary but sad development that councillors and those standing for council seats and in other elections are allowed to hide where they live. It has become necessary. I am sad about it, but it has meant that in these elections it is extraordinarily difficult for an elector to contact people who are standing for election. There is no way of getting messages to them if they are not part of a mainstream party. Even where they are from a mainstream party, you send the message in and it sticks with that party’s central office and does not get out to the candidate because the candidate is allowed to have only the authorised views of the party. I would like to restore that connection between voters and candidates by making sure that there is a way in which voters can contact candidates and hopefully receive replies from them.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I rise in support of Amendment 216D tabled my noble friend Lord Lucas about candidates’ addresses. Over my 28 years as a councillor, I have been proud to have my address on the ballot paper, not least because for the majority of that time I either lived in my own ward or it was at the end of my road. People could know that I have not got daffodils—I certainly have not got green fingers—but people had no problem in speaking to me or knocking on my door.
I always thought it was a good thing to have your address published, but over that period of 28 years, technology, the internet and keyboard warriors have changed my view. Like many others, I have had death threats. To a certain extent, you take that on the chin and you say that it is part of the job. The absolute worst situation I got in was when one of these idiots decided to say they were going to firebomb my home. I have three little girls living next door to me. The hardest thing I ever had to do was speak to their parents and say not that I felt threatened but “watch out”. Three little lives were potentially at risk because of one of these idiot keyboard warriors.
Frankly, that is why people are considering whether they want to stand for election, and I believe that is one of the reasons why people do not want their address on the ballot paper. That means you move to the situation about how people can contact you. We know that the electoral returning officer has to have an address to show that there is a proper qualification. You also have to have an agent who has an address, so is there an opportunity for that address to be used by the returning officer to take away the need for a person’s personal address to be given at any time in future? There are some parties that do not believe in imprints, but most of us do. There are addresses there, so there is an opportunity for contact, but I support the amendment.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not participating at Second Reading and speaking on this occasion, but the circumstances between Second Reading and now have changed very substantially. I intend to concentrate on the amendments relating to delayed elections.
Before I do so, may I make an observation? I shall go no further at this stage than making it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others that I do not support their proposals in relation to changing the voting systems. Although I know that they pursue this matter on a point of principle, I warn them that, under the current political circumstances, trying to change the electoral systems will be portrayed by one political party in particular as denying it the opportunity to be represented on councils. I make that observation in passing.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in principle. I have tried to make contact with the Association of Electoral Administrators to establish its view on this but, unfortunately, its excellent chief executive, Peter Stanyon, who is normally enormously helpful on such matters, is currently off in ill health. So I could not get any clarification, but I am sure that, in broad principle, it would want to follow what this amendment is pursuing.
I turn now to the nub of this whole issue, which is the delay in elections. I first spoke on electoral matters in the other House in 1984. I voted against the then Conservative Government on a three-line Whip—I was one of the first new boys to do so—because I believed that the Government were, in the process of abolishing the GLC via the paving Bill, interfering with democracy. Looking back on that proposed Bill, I still take that view and am pleased that I voted against the Government on that occasion. It is interesting that the Government dropped the specific proposal against which I voted after the House of Lords passed its opposition to that same clause by a majority.
Since that time, I have never given consideration to the possibility of deferring elections for up to seven years. If somebody had suggested to me that that was going to happen in this democratic country, I would have said that they were positively insane. The history of the last few weeks has really called into question my faith in the legislation that we have on our democratic process. On 18 November, the Minister’s response to me and others was that the intention of the Government was to hold the elections as identified in full. We received the same response on 8 December.
On 18 December, the day we went into recess, the Government issued a letter to 63 councils asking whether they wished to defer the elections. Please do not tell me, or other Members of this House or the other, that no consideration was given on 18 November or during the five weeks that followed—or even on the night of 17 December—to the fact that there might be delays in elections, because nobody will believe you, I am afraid. It is a question of competence and honesty in relation to the processes. I have come to the conclusion that, sadly, we are witnessing a serious erosion of our democratic principles in this country by silence at different stages.
I do not mind which amendment we adopt, in what form, but we have to ensure that, as a democratic country, which I believe the United Kingdom to be, we are never again in the position where a Government announce their actions in the way that they have, with the result—as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and others have said—that people who have a vested interest in not facing re-election are taking the decisions on those elections. I despair of what I have witnessed over the last few weeks. I ask the Government to be more honest and open throughout, because it is not acceptable that I find myself, for the first time in 40 years of reviewing elections, seriously questioning whether a Government can interfere with elections when they really should not.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I will speak a little about the proposals to change to a supplementary vote. I have some memories of how this came to be, since I was involved between 1996 and 1998 in some of the discussions between the Liberal Democrats and the then Labour Government about voting systems. The Labour Cabinet was divided on the subject; Jack Straw was one of the strongest opponents of any change in the electoral system and the most he was prepared to accept was the sort of bastard form of half way towards an alternative vote, which is the supplementary vote. It is neither one thing nor the other.
Now that we are in a multiparty system, we have to face up to the implications of where we are. For most of the last year, we have had five parties in England getting between 10% and 30% of the vote and no party getting over 30% of the vote. The elected Mayor of the West of England received 25% of the vote to become mayor. I think the record for the lowest percentage of the vote won by a winning candidate happened in a Cornish local by-election, in which the Liberal candidate was victorious with 19.5% of the vote in a six-party contest.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
We need to recognise where we are. If we want mayors to have public acceptance and credibility, they had better not be elected on less than a quarter of the vote. If we have a five-party system, the opinion polls—my nerdy noble friend here does his best to educate me about public opinion polls and I therefore follow them in some detail—show that if you look at second preferences for Reform, Conservative or Liberal Democrat voters, they are very diverse, and one cannot guarantee that votes will easily transfer from one party to another definite party. Jack Straw was prepared to accept the supplementary vote in the belief that, in London elections, the Liberal Democrats were more likely on the whole to vote Labour as their second preference than the Conservatives, and therefore it was acceptable. The supplementary vote is half way to where we need to go but it is neither one nor the other.
I simply say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that the old argument that the English people would not understand something more complicated than first past the post is for the past. The Irish understand a more complicated voting system very well, as do the Scots. The idea that the English education system is so poor that our voters will not understand simply does not begin to stand up.
If mayors are going to be key elements in devolution, we need to face up to a system that will provide us with the assurance that mayors will be elected in such a way as to gain the acceptance and credibility they need to have their posts. The current first past the post system does not guarantee that nor does the supplementary vote system. The Government need to recognise that that is where we are.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will begin by addressing the amendments in this group concerning voting systems.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, opposes Clause 61 and Schedule 28 standing part of the Bill. These provisions will reinstate the supplementary vote system for the elections of mayors and police and crime commissioners. This was the voting system in place when these roles were first introduced. The Government recognise that the voting system used to elect our representatives sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance, which has been reflected in today’s debates.
Given the large population that each regional mayor represents—far exceeding that of Members of Parliament —and that they act individually rather than collectively as part of a council or parliament, the Government believe that mayors should have a broad base of support among their electors. We believe that the supplementary vote system, which is a preferential voting system, will achieve this and is appropriate for electing candidates to single-person executive positions, such as mayors. The supplementary vote helps to increase the local electorate’s voice, as voters may choose a first and second choice candidate. It requires the winning candidate to receive the majority of votes counted, which ensures a broader mandate from the people they are representing.
Currently, mayors are elected using the first past the post system. We recognise that that system, while not perfect, has its merits: it is a well-understood system that provides a direct relationship between a Member of Parliament or a councillor and the local constituency or ward. Therefore, we believe that first past the post is appropriate for elections where there are a number of seats to be filled, such as in councils and parliaments, as the likelihood is that candidates representing a range of views and parties will be elected. However, this clearly does not apply when electing someone to a single-person executive position, as is the case for mayors and police and crime commissioners. Therefore, we believe that the supplementary vote is the right system for electing mayors, which is why the Bill reverts the voting system back to the supplementary vote.
Amendment 213, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, seeks to introduce the alternative vote system for the election of mayors. While I agree that mayors should be elected using a preferential voting system, the Government believe that the supplementary vote system is the right preferential voting system for electing mayors. The supplementary vote was the voting system implemented on the introduction of mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections, which was in place until 2022, when the voting system changed to first past the post. We are reinstating the voting system that was originally used for these elections, which will be familiar to many voters. I note that, when the public were asked for their view on the alternative vote system, albeit in relation to UK parliamentary elections, they did not support the move to the alternative vote system. In the referendum held in 2011, 67.9% of voters rejected this proposal. The alternative vote system is not in use in any polls in the UK.
Amendments 214 and 215, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, would allow for the introduction of a proportional representation voting system for local authority elections. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for local council elections in England. As I have already laid out, the first past the post system is a clear way of electing representatives to a council and provides for a direct relationship between a councillor and their ward. Therefore, for local council elections, the Government believe that first past the post remains the most appropriate system.
I turn now to the amendments that concern the timings of elections. We will of course have a debate on this on 23 February, the first day back after the Recess—I hope we all come back refreshed. Before I speak to the specific amendments, I remind your Lordships that the Government have embarked on the most significant programme of council reorganisation in England in 50 years. We are determined to streamline local government for the remaining one-third of people who still live under the two-tier system. It is in this unprecedented context that the decisions to postpone certain council elections for one year have been taken.
Our view is that it is time for bold action on both local government reorganisation and devolution, but we recognise that reorganisation is resource intensive at all levels, political and administrative, within a council. We have listened to those councils that have told us that postponing their elections this May will release vital capacity to deliver reorganisation effectively. It will also avoid the cost and distraction of elections to councils which are likely to be abolished shortly.
I reiterate that the Government’s position is that elections should go ahead unless there is strong justification otherwise. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, that is the sentence I have always used when I have talked about elections. The Secretary of State recently announced that the high bar we set for taking a decision to postpone has been reached in a number of councils. The legislation to implement these decisions was laid in Parliament on 5 February.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Between 8 and 18 December, was there no consideration whatever of the possibility of delaying the elections? If that is the case, what changed between 8 and 18 December that resulted in the letters going to the 63 councils?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have already outlined to the noble Lord that the sentence I used, whenever we discussed this and whenever I was asked, was that elections would not be cancelled unless there were substantial reasons for doing so. Local authorities made those representations, which is why the decision was taken.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, when we ask these questions, the Minister always talks about the complexity of these changes, but what I do not quite understand is that, in 2009, the then Labour Government changed nine groups of authorities to unitaries without any of this sudden change to local elections. Only six are affected now, and the last lot will be 14, so I do not know why this reorganisation is causing complexity that others, done by a Labour Government, did not in the past.
I will address the contributions on my Amendment 216 and the related Amendments 211 and 212 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack. I thank noble Lords for their contributions, particularly my noble friend Lord Hayward, who gave a strong explanation of why some amendments to the rules affecting local elections are so urgently required. There is clearly deep unease across the House—not just in this Committee—about the length and frequency of election delays arising from the Government’s local authority restructuring. The Government have set out their reasons for resisting this amendment, but my underlying concerns remain. Prolonged postponement of local elections, for any reason short of genuine emergency, risks weakening democracy and the bond between our local councillors and the communities they serve.
My amendment does not seek to obstruct reorganisation or to prevent the short practical delays that can sometimes be necessary; it proposes only a clear and reasonable boundary. Democratic mandates should not be extended for more than one year as a consequence of changes under this Bill. That reflects long-standing practice, the guidance of the Electoral Commission and the public’s expectation that those in elected office are answerable to the electorate at regular intervals.
As I have said, I have some concerns about the drafting of the related Amendments 211 and 212 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, not least because they cover only the 2000 Act, not the 2007 Act. However, I hope we might be able to get together and work constructively on this shared interest before Report. Whatever view one takes on the amendments themselves, I hope the Government will reflect seriously and carefully on the strength of feeling expressed today. We should protect the integrity and predictability of our local democratic processes with great care.
On a similar note, I listened with interest to the suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Fuller on his Amendments 216A, 216B and 216C, which seek to deliver full parliamentary scrutiny of proposals to cancel local, mayoral, and police and crime commissioner elections. Any electoral change has significant practical consequences for voters, candidates, authorities and political parties. Although my amendment would go further, it makes sense that any change still occurring should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. Proper consideration should provide transparency, accountability and a clear timetable, allowing everyone involved in the electoral process to plan with certainty. That would certainly be better than the mess we face now.
I now turn to the amendments addressing changes to our voting systems. I thank noble Lords who spoke in support of Clause 61 and Schedule 28 not standing part of the Bill. I have nothing to add to my opening remarks, which covered the reasons that I disagree with Amendments 213 and 214, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and Amendment 215, which propose the introduction of AV or PR voting systems. I will not repeat those arguments.
Last but not least, I will speak to Amendment 216D in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. Making sure that our local elections and their candidates more transparent and accessible to voters—by ensuring that every candidate provides a clear, convenient and free way for electors to contact them—can only be a good thing for democracy. As things currently work, it can often be quite difficult for residents to ask their local candidates questions or seek clarification on their views before casting their votes. By requiring returning officers to publish contact details, and by ensuring that candidates are given a designated address for correspondence, communications between candidates and the communities they hope to represent could be strengthened and facilitated. At the same time, candidates can be protected from some of the terrible things that we heard about from my noble friend Lady O’Neill. I am sure that we will return to this on Report.
“Local authorities: meetings(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish arrangements where, in circumstances specified in those regulations, a meeting of a local authority is not limited to a meeting of persons who are all present in the same place.(2) Circumstances specified may include circumstances affecting—(a) individual councillors, such as illness or disability, or(b) a council as a whole, such as adverse weather or flooding.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that local authorities can hold council meetings online, for example if travelling to the council chamber was made difficult by heavy snowfall or flooding.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 218. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and others speaking to Amendments 219 and 220.
In responding on an earlier group, the Minister referred to the number of civil parishes in Cumbria. I would like to place on the record that, in North Yorkshire, there are 729 civil parishes, of which 662 are parish or town councils. It is probably one of the largest, if not the largest, county in the country, covering 8,037 square kilometres. That is on the North York Moors website; unfortunately, it does not give it in square miles.
Against that backdrop, I hope the Government will look favourably on a plea that local authorities should be able to meet on the same basis that we in this House meet, which is that, if you are attending a committee, you can attend remotely in hybrid form. For some reason that is beyond me, we are not extending that possibility to local authorities. Given the fact that North Yorkshire is possibly the most rural and sparsely populated county, I would like to give an example based on it. If a councillor is to attend council meetings in Northallerton, where the North Yorkshire Council—a combined authority, against my better judgment—now meets, on a good day that will take one and a half hours going one way, given that the roads are highly congested and, at this time of year, often quite dangerous with fog, snow, ice and other such challenges. On a bad day, it could take a lot longer.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 219 and 220. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has indicated, they attempt to achieve something very similar to Amendment 218 but go a bit more broadly. All three of the amendments in this group get at the idea that it is reasonable—in some carefully defined and carefully protected circumstances—for councillors to be able to participate in council business even though they are not able to be physically present.
One of the reasons for putting forward these two amendments is, frankly, a bit of embarrassment. Both Houses of Parliament, in their own way, allow some degree of remote or proxy participation. Although every noble Lord is undoubtedly very special, are noble Lords and Members of the other place really so special that, while it is okay for us to be able to do that, oh my goodness, we must not let councillors do it? Frankly, it is a little embarrassing that, although we understand that these powers need to be carefully protected and defined, we say that this is okay for ourselves, yet, so far, we do not allow councillors the same thing.
This is also a matter of pragmatism. Through the experience of the House of Lords, through the experience of the other place, through the experience of councils in lockdown and through the experience of councils in the UK but outside of England, we have a lot of accumulated knowledge and experience of how measures such as those set out in the amendments in this group work. The answer is that they have worked well. They have worked successfully. They are good ways of dealing with, for example, some of the challenges of geography and weather that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned earlier. They are good ways of dealing with some of the challenges around increasing participation in politics and the diversity of our elected representatives.
These are not just my views. The Government helpfully carried out a thorough consultation last year, asking for views on remote attendance and proxy voting in local authorities. Just as I did in the case of my earlier amendment on cattle grids, I will quote approvingly from the Government’s words—with more success, I hope, than I had on that amendment.
In the consultation, question 2 asked:
“Do you agree with the broad principle of granting local authorities powers to allow remote attendance at formal meetings?”
A resounding 86% said “yes” in response to that. Similarly, question 8 in that consultation asked:
“Do you think legislative change to allow councillors to attend local authority meetings remotely should or should not be considered for the following reasons?”
Reason number one was:
“Councils would be more resilient in the event of local or national emergencies”;
91% agreed with that. This was another option given:
“It would likely increase the diversity of people willing and able to stand for election in their local area”;
79% of people agreed with that.
The government consultation rightly concluded that, in the Government’s own words:
“The government is of the view that in-person authority meetings remain vital for local democracy”—
I agree—
“but that hybrid and remote attendance, and proxy voting, will enable local authorities in England to develop more modern, accessible and flexible working practices”.
The Government went on to say:
“We have carefully considered arguments for and against remote attendance and proxy voting, and we plan to legislate to support permanent provision in relation to both policies, when parliamentary time allows”.
Having raised this at Second Reading and listened carefully to what the Minister said in response, the puzzle for me is that we have in front of us a piece of legislation that would enable exactly those conclusions from the Government’s consultation to be implemented. The Government say that they need parliamentary time to do this; well, the parliamentary time is immediately in front of us.
The Government like talking about how they are taking action on many issues at pace. Here is the opportunity to act at a swift pace on the results of that consultation from last year. I very much hope that, when we hear the Minister’s response, even if we do not get my most optimistic outcome—a straightforward, “We agree to these amendments”—we will at least get to unpick this mystery a little. Why, when the consultation and the Government’s own conclusions were so clearly in favour, and other arguments so clearly stack up in favour, are the Government not taking the opportunity of the Bill in front of us to proceed at pace and implement what they themselves have said they wish to do?
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, like many others, I had a leading position as a councillor during Covid. The Minister and I corresponded on many calls. Remote working worked well during Covid, but there were some famous failures. Some councillors fell asleep live on YouTube—not in my council, I hasten to add. Others went to the toilet, got undressed or got out of the shower. Children bumbled in. There was that famous meeting where a woman had no authority but managed to cut the other chap out; I cannot remember her name, but we all know the one. So, yes, it can work, and there are safeguards.
I completely disagree with proxy voting, so I have no truck with Amendment 219. However, I am broadly sympathetic with Amendments 218 and 220, which are trying to ask how we can participate remotely, although I find it difficult to support them as they are currently constructed.
This is complicated. There are different types of meeting, and each has different consequences. There is the full council meeting, in which everyone gets together. It is important that everyone gets together to cast their vote as a council rather than as a set of individuals sitting at home—in their underpants, let us say. There are executive meetings and cabinet meetings. They are really important, and people want to see them; there are rights of attendance, and people will want to lobby. There are scrutiny meetings, but that is not an executive function. Then there are policy-formation committees, which are not for decision-making but are part of scrutiny. So we have the distinction between what are and are not decision-making committees. Then there are quasi-judicial meetings, such as those on planning or licensing; in-person attendance is really important for those. None of this fine-grained texture is in the amendments but, if they are to progress, it should be.
Local government is becoming more complicated. There is certainly a need to travel more, particularly in the larger authorities such as North Yorkshire. The answer to that is not to have something quite as big as North Yorkshire, but we are where we are. There are going to be more combined meetings under these combined county authorities. There are also more trading companies involved in local authorities now. They are at arm’s length from the council—they may be owned by the council but they are not of the council—and we have to take them into consideration, too. There are significantly more partnerships, some of which are joint committees of more than one council. We would have to work out, if two councils came together and one had the freedom to do online meetings and the other did not, how that would mesh in joint committees, of which we are seeing a lot more. We have development corporations as well. There is a lot of public money there, so will they be meeting in private or in public?
We have to sort out some of the ground rules. It is not quite as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh said. I am interested in taking this forward, but it will need a lot more work before Report before any of it could really be considered a realistic proposal, rather than just a good idea for probing.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to this debate and wish to speak briefly on this group of amendments. They address fundamental questions about how local democracy is conducted, how local councillors discharge their duties and how we maintain the integrity of local decision-making. These amendments are well intentioned—we have certainly heard about the difficulties that there can be in arriving at meetings, particularly where significant distances are involved—but I fear that they do not sit easily with the principles of genuine devolution and open, accountable, transparent government where you can see where the decision is being made.
Amendment 218 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Amendment 220, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, would allow for remote meetings or remote participation in meetings. A cornerstone of our democratic life is the principle that significant decisions should be taken in person and in public, where elected representatives can be directly observed, challenged and held to account, and where the debate is in the room. During the pandemic, remote arrangements became an unavoidable necessity, yet many of us witnessed—my noble friend Lord Fuller alluded to some of the issues we saw—how public engagement was diminished, the debate became thinner and the essential character of our democratic exchanges was damaged.
I do not believe that we should return to arrangements that bring back that distance, both literally and figuratively and in terms of participation, between elected representatives and the people they serve. The default expectation of democratic office ought to remain that in decision-making councillors come together, face to face, to deliberate in the public view. Any move to the contrary, even in limited circumstances, would, I fear, be a slippery slope.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for their amendments relating to council meetings.
First, on Amendment 218, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for raising this important issue, which she has rightly highlighted on numerous occasions in the House. I know that north Yorkshire, where she lives, is a large rural area, and I sympathise with her views on Sutton Bank. I live near there, just off the A19, and it is very steep; it is hard getting up there at the best of times, let alone in the middle of a snowstorm.
The Government have been clear in their ambition to reset the relationship between central and local government, building a genuine partnership that delivers better outcomes for the communities we all serve. A key part of that partnership is giving councils the tools to modernise democratic engagement and make elected roles more accessible. In-person debate and public engagement remain at the heart of local democracy, but we also recognise that circumstances can make physical attendance difficult. That is why local authorities should have a choice whether to meet in person, online, or in a hybrid format.
Local authorities vary in size, location, responsibility and make-up, and we want to ensure that they can develop appropriately responsive policies. We would therefore not want to prescribe the conditions to which this policy would apply. We reaffirm our position as set out in our consultation response last year, and I repeat it today. We remain committed to bringing forward legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to deliver this flexibility in a way that is robust, inclusive, and properly scrutinised.
Likewise, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for his amendment on the issue of allowing councillors to participate in local authority meetings remotely. Noble Lords may be aware of the High Court judgment in 2021 that confirmed that local authority meetings, to which that case applies, must be in person and take place at a single, specified geographical location. This amendment would allow for councillors to join a meeting virtually, by video call for example, but only if the meeting was still happening in a physical room. It would not allow meetings to be completely remote. As I set out on the previous amendment, we are committed to giving local authorities the choice about how they hold their meetings. We would therefore not want to restrict any changes to just enabling hybrid meetings. Again, we remain committed to bringing forward legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to deliver this important flexibility for local authorities. While I am grateful to the noble Lord for the open and flexible way in which he has drafted his amendment, I must ask him to withdraw it at this time.
I turn now to the other amendment in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, which would give the Secretary of State a power to allow members to vote by proxy at local authority meetings. In person debate and public participation remain fundamental to local democracy. However, we recognise that personal circumstances can, at times, make physical attendance difficult and create challenges for the continuity of local authority business. That is why we sought views through public consultation and, in response, confirmed our intention to plan to legislate in order to introduce arrangements that would enable proxy voting at local authority meetings. Such arrangements would support more diverse and inclusive local government while preserving the certainty and flexibility that local authorities need to set proxy voting arrangements which reflect local circumstances.
In the meantime, therefore, and where appropriate, substitute or pairing arrangements remain available. These arrangements continue to offer support to councillors during periods of absence while ensuring that the electorate are represented. Any arrangements to enable proxy voting at local authority meetings must strike a careful balance between maintaining transparency and accountability and modernising arrangements to support more diverse and inclusive local democracy. The noble Lord’s proposal for wide ranging central government powers to mandate and adjust proxy voting arrangements would mean Whitehall deciding operational details that are best decided at a local level. We have no desire to micromanage local authorities, as that would run counter to our approach to devolution.
For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this short debate. I do not know which slippery slope my noble friend Lord Jamieson was referring to, but he did not address the issue raised by me and the noble Lord, Lord Pack. If it is good enough for committees in both Houses that we meet in hybrid form, I fail to see why we cannot extend the same courtesy to local authority meetings in certain circumstances.
I am going to make a suggestion to the Minister that may not curry much favour in this Committee. If his Government were minded to delay the King’s Speech, there would be legislative time available, and the Government could then bring forward the proposals. If I have understood him correctly as saying that he is in favour of local councils having the opportunity to meet online in a hybrid format as well as in person, but not just now, that is extremely disappointing, obviously, given the contents and results of some of the responses to the consultation; I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for sharing them. Some 86% and 91% of respondents were in favour, which shows that they are crying out for this. My noble friend Lord Fuller argued forcefully in favour of why these amendments are needed. Councils were able to meet in hybrid form and online in certain circumstances during Covid; if it was good enough for Covid, it should be good enough for the rest of the year.
I reserve the right to return to this theme on a future occasion but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, with my other hat on, as the Whip, I just want to say that the next group is pretty long. We may not finish it by 9.15 pm so we may end up having to split the group. We may get to the single amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, but I cannot guarantee that. I am in noble Lords’ hands, but we have to stop at 9.15 pm.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We are definitely finishing at that time. If we can get through this big group, we will, I hope, be able to do the eighth group, but we must finish at 9.15 pm.
Lord Lucas
“Funding for buying assets of community valueThe Secretary of State may, in conjunction with the National Lottery or otherwise, make funds available for the purchase of assets of community value.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is proposed in order to ensure that there is a dedicated source or sources of funding, to enable this part of the Bill to function well.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 222A just picks up the Government on the disappearance of the funds that the last Government made available to support the community right to buy. I very much hope that the Government will in time reverse that decision, because it made a huge difference to the effectiveness of this provision. It was not that the Government paid the whole of it, but it made the base from which the community could raise the money, particularly if the community was not one of the richest in the world. It was a really important initiative and an important part of what to my mind is a really important clause underpinning the relationship between the community and the space that it occupies. I very much hope that in time the Government will come back to the position as we used to have it. I have seen it do an awful lot of good.
I will also speak to Amendments 235 and 235ZA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, because she is unable to be here. First, Amendment 235 essentially says that the planning uplift should be ignored. That is a really important part of the relationship here. If you do not ignore the value uplift that comes with hope value, you make it absolutely impossible for the community to purchase the land. A charity, beyond anything else, is not allowed to buy land above its value, and the value to the charity is the land without hope, so that closes off a substantial route for buying assets of community value.
Secondly, the hope value belongs to the community. It is not something that is generated by the owner; it is something that is generated by the community, which might wish to give at some future time permission to do something else on that land. It is not appropriate that that should be appropriated by the owner. We need the value at which these transactions are done to be the value without hope value.
Thirdly, we need to do something to make it possible to deal with sporting fields. I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware of the trials that Udney Park has dealt with over the last 10 years, with a succession of developers blocking the continued use of that space as a sporting facility and its transfer into community ownership. It would be really helpful under those circumstances if it was possible for the local authority to intervene and use its compulsory acquisition powers to ensure transfer. I beg to move.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group relating to assets of cultural value and I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Freyberg.
Between them, the amendments do just two things. First, Amendment 233 tells us more precisely what cultural interests are by giving specific examples of assets such as music venues, theatres, rehearsal spaces and so on. I take on board the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, expressed in the previous debate, about the use of “culture” or “cultural”, and indeed the phrase “cultural interest” could on the face of it mean a number of different things. I suggest that there are three ways of addressing this. You can strictly define the term; you can use associated words to help lock down the meaning of the term, such as in the phrase “arts, culture and heritage”; or you can give specific examples, which is what I have done here.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 225 is supported by my noble friend Lord Freyberg and many outside this Room, including the Wildlife Trusts. Similar amendments were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will speak to in a moment.
When the Government first talked about the community right to buy scheme, we heard of empowering communities to create new parks and green spaces by helping them purchase and restore derelict land and green space of community value. This was in line with the Government’s definition of “sustainable development”, or the so-called three pillars: the economy, society and the environment. One of those—the specific facility of the right to buy derelict land or green spaces for their environmental value—has slipped out of the wording in the Bill. In the other place, the Minister responded to queries on this by saying that
“environmental assets will be captured within assets of community value … We will set this out in guidance, as we share the determination that environmental assets are captured within the provision”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/25; cols. 323-24.]
However, I do not think that is strong enough. We can see that through the way that the current right to bid, which this schedule seeks to update, has been interpreted. Looking into this—I have spent more time than I expected reading legal judgments—it seems clear that the current drafting of proposed new Section 86B, outlining what land can be determined to be of community value, is very close to the section of the Localism Act 2011 that it replaces, and hence is likely to fall into the same issues when it comes to green spaces that do not include an official community hub or organised activities. I do not think the guidance will be strong enough to overcome those issues.
I know that I do not need to use up your Lordships’ time, particularly at this time of night, by extolling the benefits of green spaces that go well beyond direct economics or narrow social value. This is not just about official sports playing fields; any field can be a place for play. Green spaces can act as important areas of flood mitigation or as filters for air, noise and water pollution. They can be harbours for wildlife that are important to people. They can be buffers and screens between one urban area and another, giving a sense of community—small patches of green that act as spaces where people can plant microforests.
Pride in place is as much about green spaces as it is about built heritage and culture. There is plenty of research showing this, as we have spoken about at length on other Bills, but it is not so easy to put the benefits of communal green spaces into an argument about economics or social value, especially given the need to demonstrate that these benefits are non-ancillary. Adding the explicit reference to environmental benefits to this Bill could allow communities to unlock everything that the Government envisage, and help communities to support the Government in achieving targets such as 30 by 30, which are currently looking very hard to get to. There are plenty of communities keen to look after a local field, river or piece of woodland—even a small strip of green or a verge—and plenty of private or philanthropic money that is available specifically for that purpose, which the country is otherwise missing out on the opportunity to use.
Of course, I recognise that the Government do not want to allow any blockers to their housebuilding plans, so there is an extra line in my amendment to exclude land that has already been earmarked for development in local plans. I can see that the exact wording of this schedule needs to be thought out very carefully to encourage what we want to encourage, and not open the door wide to use outside the envisaged scope. But I gather that what I am proposing works currently in Scotland, so I very much hope that the Minister will give a positive response to this amendment—in line with the Government’s stated determination that this schedule should encompass environmental assets—and bring forward a government amendment on Report.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled in this group Amendments 222D to 222F, 225A, 230A, 232A, 232B, 234ZA and 234B, and the Schedule 29 stand part notice. I do not want to say that I am against Schedule 29, but it is only by doing a stand part notice that I can get a sense from the Minister of what is really happening with that schedule.
I will start briefly with the other amendments. There is a lot of merit in them. My noble friend mentions going back to the community ownership fund in Amendment 222A. When I was an MP, I helped a community to buy the Racehorse pub in Westhall. I also facilitated or supported the purchase of somewhere called Holton Pits, which is really an environmental area that receives funding. It goes beyond the Pride in Place which is being used for certain communities around the country.
I will jump quickly to Amendment 234B, which is a bit of a cherry on the top. One of the ways to avoid taxpayers having to keep paying for this—although it is a good use of money in terms of building communities—is that one power a council has is that it can take action against the owner or landlord of particular buildings, or a land area, in order to clean them up. I am suggesting—this may go a bit too far, but it is worth considering—that the council has to inspect any asset of community value every five years and then apply a notice if it is derelict or in decline. The reason why it being in decline matters is that one of my concerns is that there is an element here of almost running down an asset of community value in some way, so that it almost starts to be rendered pretty useless or very difficult to recover, and that is not appropriate.
Let me give the example of a council that was concerned about a former theatre and sports hall. It had been closed to the community by the private owners and had become a real mess, with broken windows and so on. Initially, the council resisted designating it as an asset of community value, and then, ultimately, it was one of the ones that got demolished.
That brings me back to Amendment 222D—yes, Minister, it is back—which would remove the automatic right, or the permitted development right, for assets of community value. There is only a handful of cases where this does not apply. On Report of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, it was very gracious of the Government to concede that this had merit and that they would consult on it. I have not seen any sign of consultation. Another reason given was that it was not usual to amend statutory instruments in primary legislation. Well, the Government are doing that regularly in their Bills, and it is happening in this Bill in Clause 45, so I will not accept that as an excuse any longer.
I want to understand what is going on with Schedule 29. It looks more or less like Section 87 of the Localism Act 2011, which is more or less being ripped out and replaced with new Section 86A. A lot of it is similar, and there are a lot of improvements. I may have misunderstood what it is trying to do when I tabled some of my amendments—I think I messed up on Amendment 222F in particular. More broadly, what is so wrong with Section 87 of the original Act that it needs almost ripping out and replacing in full?
There are a couple of things that give me a particular cause for concern, and they are addressed in my Amendments 232A and 232B. On page 297 of the Bill, subsections (4) and (5) of new Section 86B seem to give the Secretary of State powers to override, and to stop something becoming an asset of community value when a local council is determined that it should be. I am trying to understand that. That is certainly not in Section 87 of the Localism Act. There are elements that strengthen the legislation, including the provision on making the first bid, as opposed to just being ranked alongside others and having a stopgap of six months—this extends it to 12 months. But too often, well-meaning civil servants, giving advice to their Ministers, who know that they are supposed to build 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament, sometimes see designations as a way to block housing. It worries me that we are heading in this direction and that, despite a lot of this being good, we end up going the wrong way.
I turn now to the issues to do with sports in Amendment 234ZA. I have particularly picked on this because the original Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, which is referred to in the Bill, has this definition:
“‘sports ground’ means any place where sports or other competitive activities take place in the open air”—
so far, so good, but it continues—
“and where accommodation has been provided for spectators, consisting of artificial structures or of natural structures artificially modified for the purpose”.
I anticipate that a lot of this is really about local football clubs and rugby clubs that have stands or similar, as opposed to the many more sports fields around the country that do not. Communities could erect one, or the owners, under the permitted development rights, could demolish one, therefore removing it, technically, from protection under this provision, which will be for life. I am concerned that we are not covering that. I anticipate that the Minister will say, “Well, that’s provided for under the NPPF”, but I think this needs to go further.
I have also tabled Amendment 222E. If we are getting rid of the five-year limit for sports grounds, why not do it for all assets of community value? There is no point in having an arbitrary differentiation.
I have a question for the Minister. I have not been able to work out when Clause 63 and Schedule 9 will commence. It is not mentioned specifically in Clause 92, so I do not know whether it comes under subsection (1)(c) or subsection (7)—whether it will be on the day the Bill passes or whether it will be by regulations.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, what an exciting group this is. I support Amendments 223A, 224A, 226 and 228, which address a significant and surprising gap in the way that community assets are defined in law. I very much hope we can correct this before the next stage. Before I begin properly, I thank Tom Chance, chief executive of the National Community Land Trust Network, who supports this aim and has helped with this work.
At present, the legal definition of “assets of community value” recognises social interests. The Bill adds economic interests, but still leaves out environmental interests entirely. Why has that been left out? I would like to hear an answer to that question, because it is absolutely incomprehensible. Across England, communities are coming together to take ownership of land and buildings not just to save a pub or run a shop but to protect and improve green space, reduce pollution, grow food locally and make neighbourhoods healthier. Planning law, national policy and development frameworks all work on a simple, widely accepted principle that social, economic and environmental goals belong together, yet assets of community value remain stuck with a narrower definition that no longer reflects that reality.
The Government’s response so far has been to say that environmental benefits will be dealt with through statutory guidance, but guidance is not the same as law. When communities are trying to raise finance, persuade landowners or make a credible case to a local authority, being able to point to a clear statutory definition can really matter. Plus, leaving environmental interests outside the legal framework will weaken communities’ hands at precisely the moment we should be strengthening them. We know this from practice.
In Scotland, communities have successfully used a sustainable development approach to acquire land and assets by demonstrating combined social, economic and environmental benefits. A recent example is the Poets’ Neuk project in St Andrews, where the environmental case was integral to the community’s success. Without it, the project would have been far harder to justify. It is also important to be clear about what these amendments are not doing. They will not create a new or separate category of assets. They recognise that environmental outcomes are already part of what communities are trying to achieve when they take ownership, whether that is retrofitting a community centre, restoring a neglected green space or supporting community food growing in both urban and rural areas.
I should also say a word about Amendment 225, which comes from a similar place and reflects a shared concern about how environmental value is treated in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, presented it clearly. I am concerned that there are some practical reasons why it would not quite achieve what many communities are looking for. As it stands, it would make a change in only one part of the legislation, which would leave the overall definition of assets of community value uneven and potentially confusing in practice. I very much hope that we can work together to perhaps agree a way forward that will satisfy us both. We need councils to exercise judgment, rather than apply a blanket rule that removes local discretion and narrows opportunities.
That is why these amendments take a different route. They would, however, bring environmental interests properly into legal definition, align assets of community value with established development principles, and reflect how communities work in practice, pursuing social, economic and environmental goals together. If this Bill is truly about devolution and community power, it should trust communities with that integrated approach. These amendments would help ensure the law supports rather than constrains the positive role that communities want to play. I urge the Government to support them.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 239. I support all the amendments that have just been talked about—it is vital that communities can buy land. However, I am, in a way, offering up a “get out of jail free” card to the Government with this amendment.
This time last week, we were standing here asking about allotments. I understand the Government’s and local authorities’ problems with allotments, in that once they are designated then they cannot be undone. I see that that can be problematic. In fact, in London, the only allotments that have been ripped up so far were for the Olympic park, so I know that they have a great status. However, if you go for growing spaces and meanwhile leases, all we are asking for in this amendment is that local authorities are able and willing to publish a list of the spaces available.
That is what we did when we ran the Capital Growth project in London. We achieved 200 acres of this city which are now growing vegetables, inspiring communities and holding people together. One of the many things that happened in the duration of the project was that it was used as a research base by City University to look at good routes to get the long-term unemployed back into work. It was found that community gardening hit the nail on the head in many different ways: it taught patience, because you cannot just put a seed in the ground and expect a result tomorrow; it taught how to have respect for other people; and it taught how to work in a group and in a community. Extraordinary results were found. We were praised by the police, local doctors and local communities. We set targets of 60 spaces per borough—and we made it.
It was very simple. A meanwhile lease, designed with the help of the London water board, meant that, after five years, the local authority could claim the space back if a builder wanted to put up a house. In fact, this rarely happened. What happened was that strange little corners and odd little spots, as has been seen with the Incredible Edible campaign all over Britain, suddenly became something important and respected, that put colour, life, community and cohesion back on to the world’s streets—basically, for no money, on behalf of the Government. It takes just a small effort, with an enormous return.
I have put this amendment forward so many times. It is about time for it, given the strength of all the other amendments and the strength of feeing we have heard from so many people from all around the House so many times. Why not? What has the Minister got against this?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 239, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I will be brief, given the stage of the evening we are at. She gave me a good lead line there in talking about Incredible Edible. A friend of mine founded that movement, which does what this amendment would enable more widely—namely, help identify and release temporary land currently unwanted by local authorities to local community groups to grow their own food, with all the benefits that the noble Baroness pointed out.
The two elements of this are: first, that there needs to be a list of temporarily unused land; and, secondly, that community groups interested in growing food need to be prompted. The most important thing is that there is a simple, low-risk standard contract for a meanwhile use lease. In many cases, landowners and local authorities were nervous about the risks of taking on a temporary use lease and surrounded it with lots of complicated legal negotiation, which meant that community groups fell out of the loop. I very much support the noble Baroness in this.
Incredible edible is an incredible organisation, and it has grown to more than 100 groups across the country. This proposition would avoid it having to be argued every time by every single community group, and would produce a standard way forward that makes it much simpler. I support the noble Baroness in that.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I just want to intervene on what the noble Baroness was saying about the importance of councils being able to take it up, by just making a quick reference to one of our most innovative gardens, which was on the new King’s Cross site. It was in skips. Every time the development there moved around, we picked up the skips and moved the garden. It can be done that simply.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I finish by saying that I also support the amendments so ably put forward by the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman and Lady Bennett, about bringing forward the third leg of the three-legged stool that is supposed to be sustainability. It is difficult to sit on a two-legged stool; why is the environment missing when the economic and social elements are there?
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of all nine amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to which I have added my name. They do two things, and are both modest in scope and significant in effect.
First, Amendment 233 gives a practical definition to the phrase “cultural interests” by setting out clear and familiar examples, such as we heard, including
“music venues, recording studios, theatres, rehearsal spaces, visual artists’ studios and other creative spaces”.
As it stands, the term “cultural interests” is vague and open to interpretation, as the noble Earl said. This amendment would remove that ambiguity, provide certainty for local authorities when making listing decisions and reflect the lived reality of how culture is made and sustained at a local level.
Secondly, the remaining amendments address a question of status. At present, cultural assets sit awkwardly beneath the heading of social assets and are implicitly treated as being of lesser importance than sporting assets. Yet within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport itself, culture and sport are regarded as equal partners. The Bill as drafted sends the opposite message by inserting “cultural” alongside “economic” throughout the relevant provisions of Schedule 29. These amendments would place cultural assets on an equal footing with sporting assets, reflecting their shared significance to community life, local identity and local economies.
If we accept that principle—that assets of genuine value to communities deserve explicit recognition and protection—the same logic would extend beyond culture. That is why I support Amendment 225, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, to which I have also added my name, and why I am sympathetic to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which pursue the same objective for environmental assets. These amendments would extend the community right to buy to include assets that further the environmental well-being of local communities, alongside the economic and social benefits, provided that the land is not, as we have heard, allocated for other purposes in the local development plan.
Environmental assets may not host performances or exhibitions, but they are no less vital to the identity and well-being of a place. I am thinking of the green fields that provide breathing space between developments, the woodland that offers respite from urban density, the riverside walk that connects neighbourhoods or the community orchard that brings residents together across generations. These are the lungs and ligaments of our communities. If a theatre deserves protection as a community asset, so too does the green space that gives a neighbourhood its character and its calm.
I am also sympathetic to the probing amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, which ask important questions about the robustness of the designation framework itself. Should recent use, as well as current use, be considered when determining whether an asset qualifies? Is the automatic expiry of listings after five years appropriate, or does it leave valued assets vulnerable? Should buildings designated as assets of community value be protected from permitted development and demolition? These are sensible and searching questions. If we are to take community empowerment seriously, we must ensure that the criteria for designation are broad enough to capture what communities value and that the protections, once granted, are robust enough to be meaningful. Yet even the best definitions and the strongest protections will achieve little without the means to act.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting group and discussion. I will raise a couple of points. Amendment 235, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, would remove the hope value from playing fields when being sold under the community right-to-buy process, enabling community groups to buy the land without paying an inflated price—something we very much support.
I am cautiously supportive of Amendment 235ZA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. My slight concern is that it says that the relevant local authority “must” use its power to acquire compulsorily the relevant asset of community value. I am not sure that that would be right. The authority could be required to do so—it should be a power—but I am not sure that it “must” be forced to do so.
I wanted to put on record our thoughts on those two amendments. It has been a very interesting discussion, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
House of Lords
Renters’ Rights Act: Implementation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure landlords, tenants and local authorities are prepared for each phase of the implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, including funding allocated; and what plans they have for communicating changes ahead of the tenancy reforms this spring.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, we have given the sector a clear timeline for reform in our implementation road map. Ahead of phase 1 of implementation in May, we have already published guidance for landlords and local councils, and launched our communications campaign using social and main- stream media and partners to raise awareness. We have also allocated £18.2 million in new burdens funding to local councils in 2025-26, alongside funding for the justice system and Shelter’s expert housing advice line.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I thank the Minister for her response. Unfortunately, landlords are voting with their feet, exiting the market in ever higher numbers: 93,000 in 2025 and a forecast 110,000 this year, according to the Black & White Bridging report. The English Private Landlord Survey reports that 31% of landlords are looking to reduce their portfolio and 16% to exit completely. Can the Minister explain how this helps those desperately looking for a home to rent?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We know that landlords need time ahead of the implementation to make sure they are compliant with the reforms, and that is why we have published a full package of landlord guidance on GOV.UK to support the first phase of the Renters’ Rights Act on 1 May this year, including a draft written statement of terms so landlords know what information must be included in new tenancy agreements.
We continue to work constructively with the landlord sector. Officials recently spoke to over 1,000 landlords and letting agents at a webinar organised by Rightmove and attended the National Residential Landlords Association conference to speak directly to landlords impacted by the reforms.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, the Master of the Rolls, who oversees the efficiency of our civil justice system, recently said that the Act creates an incentive for tenants to appeal every increase in rent to the First-tier Tribunal because, even if the appeal fails, the increase in rent will not be backdated. Ministers have said that they will intervene if the tribunal becomes “overwhelmed”, but, in response to a Written Question, they said they did not hold data on the average time the tribunal takes to process rent appeal cases. So how will the Minister assess whether the tribunal has become “overwhelmed”, so as to prevent the whole system falling into chaos, with longer and longer delays in the tribunal?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are working very closely with the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice. We had lots of discussion about this during the passage of the Bill. We want to ensure that the First-tier Tribunal has the capacity to deal with any increase in cases as a result of the rent increase changes. In the Property Chamber, work is progressing to increase capacity, as well as reviewing resource and working practices in readiness for that increase in demand. To ensure long-term sustainability, we have concluded that there is a case for the use of an alternative body or mechanism to make initial rent determinations, and we are continuing to work with partners across government to develop a rent determination function as quickly as possible. Hopefully, that process will take some of the pressure from the First-tier Tribunal.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, first of all, before I ask my question to the Minister, I congratulate the Government Chief Whip on continuing, on the excellent daily list, to refer to “His Majesty’s Government”, and on having no truck with the nonsense rebranding of “the UK Government”. Long may it continue.
I ask the Minister in His Majesty’s Government: does she think the changes in the Renters’ Rights Act are going to lead to more houses being available for rent or fewer?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It will lead to better conditions for renters and will remove some of the barriers that stop people renting, as well as barriers that can prevent renters maintaining a tenancy. We have banned rental bidding, levelling the playing field for renters; landlords will no longer be able to encourage prospective renters to stretch themselves beyond their means; they cannot discriminate against the prospective renter because they are on benefits or have children; and rent increases will be limited to once a year at market rate, with tenants able to challenge unfair rent increases at First-tier Tribunal.
The work we have done with landlords and with tenant bodies—we have worked with both, through the whole passage of the Bill—means that we have a fair system that rewards good landlords and tenants but makes sure that bad landlords are held to account for the bad practices they have had in place.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We have plenty of time. We will hear from the Lib Dem Benches, then the Labour Benches.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, tenants are a group of people close to my heart. They have been promised that the Renters’ Rights Act will transform their security and will do so from 1 May this year. They will be relying on local authorities to enforce those rights. But I say to the Minister that there is still no evidence from government that local authorities have the staffing or capacity to use effectively the new powers in the Act that they gained at the back end of last year. So I ask the Minister: what confidence can the House have that on 1 May, tenants will not once again be left with protections only on paper that they cannot realistically enforce? Without that data, how do the Government know that the new burdens funding, designed to support enforcement activity, is actually sufficient?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was with a group of over 300 councillors at the weekend, mainly council leaders and other councillors, who were very pleased to see the Renters’ Rights Act coming into force on 1 May. The noble Baroness is quite right to say that local councils will play a crucial role in making sure that this Act actually works on the ground. To help councils build enforcement capacity, we have provided new burdens funding for 2025-26 and a further funding allocation for 2026-27, which will be confirmed early this year. We have also funded the Operation Jigsaw network to deliver bespoke training on the Act, so that councils understand their new responsibilities. Detailed guidance covering the enforcement measures, like the new investigatory powers, has already been published.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, has it not been the case over recent years that many young couples have been outbid by private landlords for properties and therefore have been forced to rent and denied the opportunity of owner occupation? If these properties are now being put on the market and are available for couples, should we not be welcoming that, as they will then have a real chance to have a home of their own?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We want to improve all parts of the sector and make sure that home buying is available for young people, as well as making the rental market fairer for them. I had a big round table last week with a group from across the sector —agents, conveyancers, the legal profession, financial services and developers—to see what we can do to make it both a faster and more accessible process for young people to be able to realise the dream, which many of us were able to realise, of buying their own home.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest in the private rented sector in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire.
The Minister refers to the Renters’ Rights Act as producing better conditions in the private rented sector. Surely, this very much depends on the ongoing consultation on the home energy model methodology for assessing existing dwellings and producing new energy performance certificate metrics. I gather that this will conclude at the end of March. Will the Government commit to publishing their response and detailed guidance within six months of this date, so that landlords can have the clarity and confidence to prepare and budget for the necessary improvements?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
If the noble Lord is referring to the minimum energy efficiency standards implementation, we have published our response to the consultation on those standards in the private rented sector. We have listened to the voices from across that sector. The response confirmed our decision to set new regulations in the private rented sector for landlords to meet EPC C or equivalent by 1 October 2030 for all tenancies unless a valid exemption applies. The consultation also confirmed that landlords will not be required to spend more than £10,000 per property. Exemptions will last for 10 years.
Lord Watts (Lab)
It is nice to see that my fan club is still here. Has not the present crisis been caused by the Tory Government selling off social housing? This has led to a shortage of housing and also pushed up benefits, costing billions of pounds to the taxpayer.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend puts his finger on one cause of the housing crisis: there are many. Not building enough homes was a fundamental cause as well. We have taken steps already to address some of the issues around right to buy and to make sure that councils get the funding back for houses that they sell under right to buy. We are consulting on the other steps and will bring something forward later in the year. The Renters’ Rights Act was the biggest package of reforms to the private rented sector in nearly 40 years. It will improve the sector for 11 million private renters and 2.3 million landlords in England.
New Homes Target
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goodman of Wycombe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent progress they have made towards delivering 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, an estimated 309,600 net additional homes have been built in this Parliament, but we recognise the need to push further. We are driving progress through bold planning reforms, including the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, and a record £39 billion investment in social and affordable housebuilding. Investment in construction skills, our £16 billion national housing bank, rapid transformation of the building safety regulator—under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Roe—and initiatives such as the new homes accelerator programme will remove barriers and ensure that we build the homes we need.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Up to 100,000 new homes could be built were the Government to scrap the old, outdated EU-era nutrient neutrality regulations. Will the Government bring in new regulations to protect the environment, and scrap these old ones which are helping to deny young people and families the homes they desperately need?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
New measures were introduced in the Planning and Infrastructure Act to make sure that we deal effectively with nutrient neutrality. We have had to do this without causing the impact on housebuilding that had been done under the previous Government. We have taken the steps needed. We have the nature restoration fund. Developers can work as part of this to make sure that they are able to deliver the homes and meet the needs of the environment at the same time.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, in order to deliver these homes, local authorities need to co-operate with the Government, particularly in preparing local plans, allocating land, speeding up planning decisions, working with developers and communities, and so on. Are local authorities co-operating with the Government to deliver these 1.5 million homes in this Parliament?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I stated, I remind my noble friend that we see our partnership with local authorities as critical to delivering the housing numbers we need. The Planning and Infrastructure Act that we passed last year will accelerate housebuilding while preserving important environmental protections, making sure that we get the consenting process sped up and a more strategic approach to nature recovery, and improving certainty in the decision-making and planning system. We have supported local authority planning capacity with the funding and training that are needed. We are working together with our partners in local authorities to make sure that we get this moving as quickly as possible.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned that local authorities are vital to the production of homes. She is right, but how is it that the Labour-controlled Greater London Authority has produced only a third of what it had as a target? Do the Government understand that a large number of young people want to own their own homes? Where is the help-to-buy scheme? By all means, have a Labour help-to-buy scheme, different from the Conservative one. Surely, those two points would enable us to provide some decent housing for people who are desperate to have a home of their own.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We have introduced a whole package of support, working with our colleagues in London to make sure that they are supported and helped to get building the homes they need.
In the previous Question, perhaps the noble Lord heard me say that I am working very closely with a whole partnership of people from across the sector on developing the support that young people need to get into home ownership, including on a new ISA that will help with this and making sure that the whole industry is focused on freeing up the system so that it is possible for young people to buy homes. It was good to hear, when I spoke to the sector last week, that both Lloyds and Santander have brought in very low-start mortgage packages. That was just last week. I am very pleased to see that, and I hope that will help some of our young people get out of high-cost renting and enable them to buy their own property.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, the 1.5 million new homes target is only part of the big housing jigsaw. It is about quality as well as quantity and regeneration as well as new build. All this is meant to come together in the Government’s long-term national housing strategy. This was due out about a year ago. I ask the Minister: when we will see the national housing strategy?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his patience on the long-term housing strategy. We will be publishing that in the first quarter of this year.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Lib Dem Benches.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, obviously, the noble Lord was not quick enough today.
Research by Crisis and the National Housing Federation found that we need to build 90,000 social homes a year to tackle the current homelessness situation. We know that councils are spending around £2.8 billion a year on temporary accommodation. I ask the Minister: will the Government commit to a specific target for social housing within their overall 1.5 million homes target, alongside a detailed pathway to deliver these homes? We all know that that end of the housing market is the real logjam in the housing crisis.
Picking up on what the noble Lord said with regard to London, will the Government commit to looking again at their disappointing decision to slash the proportion of social homes required for all new developments in London?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The target for the £39 billion spend that we have is that 60% of that will be social housing. The whole amount will be spent on social and affordable housing. That is the most money that has been invested in social and affordable housing for a very long time, and I am very proud of that record.
In relation to the noble Baroness’s question on London, having discussed this extensively with London councils, the important thing is to get housebuilding moving in London. London authorities will decide the percentage of social housing. We are working closely with them on that.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Labour Benches, then the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has outlined very clearly what a great opportunity this target is, for not only local jobs but local training schemes and use of local materials in building the houses. She mentioned local authorities, but what discussions are being held with developers and housebuilders to ensure that they commit to using local labour, putting on proper training schemes and using local materials whenever they can?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is very important that as we go through this process of building more homes, we also create the jobs to go alongside that. We have been working very closely with the sector and particularly with the developer skills group to make sure that we invest in skills as we go along this path of building. It has been very supportive, to the extent of investing £140 million in skills alongside the skills funding that the Government have put in. It is very much committed to this. We welcome the Home Builders Federation statement in July 2024 looking to rapidly increase the pace at which homes are built, deliver the high-quality affordable homes that the country needs and provide the skilled jobs that we know we need to deliver that.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister said earlier, only a little over 300,000 additional homes have been delivered in the first 18 months of this Government. Given their target of 1.5 million homes, they will have to deliver at the rate of 342,000 homes a year. Previously, in response to my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, the Minister said that they would achieve this by speeding up existing planning permissions. Given that housing starts continue to run at well below the average rate under the previous Conservative Government, can the Minister say when this will happen?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It ill behoves the Government who caused the housing crisis to be pressing us on this. We have already taken very significant steps, which I have outlined, to move this forward. We updated the National Planning Policy Framework. It is early yet to see an impact from those changes. We expect to see the effects feeding through into a higher number of homes being granted permission later in the year. However, new figures show that already we are seeing some green shoots of recovery, with a 29% increase in housing starts compared with 2024. It will take time to turn the tide after decades of underinvestment and a failure to build the homes and infrastructure that we needed to keep up with demand. We expect housebuilding to ramp up, particularly in the later years of the Parliament, as our reforms take effect. We will continue on our mission to deliver those 1.5 million homes.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I return to the question of social housing. Since 1990, the UK’s population has grown by around 20%—an additional 12 million people. In that same period, our stock of social housing has not grown but contracted by nearly 10%. We now have fewer than 400,000 units of social housing than in 1990. Precisely how many additional units of social housing do the Government expect to have by 2030?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The Government are committed to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. That £39 billion social and affordable housing programme I spoke about will combine the best elements of previous programmes with new design elements to make sure that we maximise the delivery that we want to see, enabling providers to build the types of homes that the country needs. The ambition is to deliver around 300,000 homes with at least 60% social rent. We have also provided long-term income stability for social housing providers with a 10-year rent settlement, which will help to give them the stability and confidence they need to invest even further in funding for social housing. It is a comprehensive policy package. We want a simpler, more transparent system and are driving forward. We know that social housing is important.
Electric Vehicles: Transition
Baroness Pidgeon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the UK’s transition to electric vehicles.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK is a global leader in the transition to zero-emission vehicles, with the largest EV market share of any major European economy in 2025. The Government are committed to working with manufacturers, charge point operators and fleets to ensure that the transition is a success. We are investing £7.5 billion over the next decade to help drivers to make the switch.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. An early review of the zero-emission vehicle mandate took place in 2024, but manufacturers really need certainty now, given that they are investing heavily in decarbonisation. Will the Government give manufacturers the clear assurance that they are committed to a transition to electric vehicles and cancel the proposed further review of the mandate in 2027?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The ZEV mandate is the largest carbon-saving measure across government, providing policy stability and regulatory certainty, and is an essential driver of investment and consumer confidence. It is the Government’s long-standing commitment to have a review of the ZEV mandate. It will commence later this year and will be published in 2027. It is absolutely crucial that we have confidence across the system to make sure that we move forward successfully.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there is resistance among those living in rural communities to switching from petrol and diesel vehicles to electric vehicles. What was the rationale behind introducing pay per mile? What assessment has been made of the impact that it will have in rural areas? Will the Government postpone it until after 2030 to ensure that more people will purchase EVs in rural areas?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The Government take very seriously the issue of rural communities and recognise that car transport is essential to people’s mobility. It is essential that we move forward with coming up with a fair system. That will be the basis for all our conversations and decisions in order to make this equitable as we go forward over the years.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a driver of an electric car. Has there been any increase in accidents involving pedestrians due to the silent nature of these vehicles?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I do not have those statistics to hand, but I will do my very best to get them to the noble Lord.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, where do the Government now stand on cutting VAT on public charging of EVs from 20% to 5% to match home charging? Are we at risk of the costs of operating an EV making it an unviable choice for anyone without a driveway?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
It is important to recognise that any decisions about VAT on all these measures will be a matter for the Treasury, which will, obviously, be looking at all the impacts of any policy change as we go forward.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Figures show that UK car production has reduced to its lowest level since the 1950s, yet a Chinese EV manufacturer has now eclipsed every other global manufacturer of motor vehicles. Does the Minister regard that as a success?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The most important thing we have to do is work with the manufacturers in this country. The decision under the previous Government to change the target sent a wave of uncertainty through manufacturers. It is absolutely critical that we keep that certainty and have clarity. We are fully committed to the manufacturing industry and base in this country. Of course, we are having conversations with China, as per the Prime Minister’s recent visit, and there are so many positives to come from these conversations. We look forward to the industry moving forward to full strength.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Question refers to electric vehicles, and anyone in our cities and towns will have seen the increasing prevalence of electric-powered cycles and scooters, often driven extremely dangerously by people who are not wearing helmets, and in many cases dumped, where they are available for hire, all over the place. Can my noble friend the Minister enlighten us as to what consideration has been given to requiring that all vehicles of this nature be properly labelled and identified so that, if people break the law, it is possible to trace them? If it is a hired vehicle, you would presumably have a credit card connection that you could follow up in order to apply a penalty.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My noble friend raises some crucial points. When I go home, I have to tell people that, in going around London, one of the most dangerous exercises is crossing the road because of the fear of unregulated cycles coming through. We have had many debates on this. I do not have a definite direction for my noble friend, but I know that he will maintain a strong interest in this area and will make sure that, as we move forward, we take everyone with us to achieve better results.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
Going back to rural areas and the electric vehicle charging infrastructure, is the Minister aware that, if you have a drive, you will have to dig it up to put new cabling in because older housing stock is not capable of taking the new power? In rural areas, 5G is intermittent or non-existent, so the charge point does not speak to the internet and therefore the smart meter. To add to that, it is not smart enough to log on to the house’s domestic wifi, so the box is not able to communicate with the app. Rural infrastructure is not good enough to go along with the Government’s noble aims.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I have a feeling that the noble Lord might be speaking from experience given the depth of his knowledge. I met my neighbour—not that we live in a particularly rural area—who had these issues. That is why the Government are investing so significantly into the whole area of charging. One of the issues that really aggrieves me, living in a city such as Leeds where we have a lot of terraced houses, is that back-to-back houses do not have the potential for a garage. But that is why I really welcome the £25 million specifically going into that work. We know this is challenging and we know that there are a whole variety of different circumstances, but with proper consultation and engagement through local authorities in our local areas, I think we can move forward.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I readily acknowledge that the EV charging network in the UK is growing very rapidly, but none the less there are issues. Some parts of the UK are significantly underserved: public charge points are often not sited close to where people live; grid connections can be unavailable; some motorway service areas lack rapid charges. Given the strategic importance of the move to EVs, do the Government not need an organisational focus to bring real coherence to the development of our national EV charging infrastructure?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Lord hits on a very important point, but I emphasise to the House just how seriously the Government are taking this point. We have 88,000 public charge points in the UK and 920,000 domestic charge points, and all motorway service stations have them—I take the noble Lord’s point about rapid charging. That is why the Government are investing £400 million in the local electric vehicle infrastructure fund and are working with local authorities, which are in a position to look at the coverage in their areas, to co-ordinate with providers and make sure that we get the coverage that is required.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I come back to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Mackinlay. It is not just that the volume of motor manufacturing in this country is starting to collapse, but profits are as well. Meanwhile, we see our fine British motor manufacturing industry being substituted by Chinese imports. How does this fit with the Government’s growth strategy, which the Prime Minister says is his top priority?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The Government have the £4 billion DRIVE35 programme supporting investment in zero-emission vehicle manufacturing R&D and the supply chain in the UK. We are working across the whole system looking at where gigafactories are located and, most importantly, working closely with the sector. I point out that we have an industrial strategy; I think that is a big advantage on where we were when we came into government.
Smart Motorways
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the post opening project evaluations of smart motorways in relation to (1) safety, and (2) value for money.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, for his Question. I assure him that safety is our top priority. While National Highways reports show that smart motorways are meeting or exceeding safety objectives in all but one upgrade, we know that people need to feel safe as well as be safe. That is why National Highways invested some £900 million to improve safety and educate drivers. The reports show that these upgrades have added vital capacity to some of the country’s busiest roads and are largely on course to meet their environmental goals.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but according to National Highways’ official reports, these big projects to convert hard shoulders on the M1, M4, M6 and M25 were regarded as poor, or very poor, value. I wonder whether the Government agree with that assessment. My main concern, however, is safety. Although I totally respect the huge improvements made by the technology—the electronic signs that can control traffic and close lanes—it has nevertheless been shown that casualties and serious injuries have gone up on some stretches of these smart motorways: the M3 and parts of M1, for example. Therefore, what further steps will the Government take to improve safety on these smart motorways?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Just to broaden the issue, the majority of schemes are delivering economic benefits and have created additional lane capacity, which is beneficial now and into the future. I think it goes back to the perception issue. Smart motorways remain our safest roads, and we are monitoring the impact of investment in safety, including the 150 emergency areas we have added. I hope that answers some of the noble and right reverend Lord’s questions. Although carrying half the traffic, 327 more people were killed or seriously injured on A-roads compared with motorways. We take road safety seriously, and recently published our new road safety strategy, in which we outline the further measures we are intending to take.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, it was clear from the start that so-called smart motorways were nothing of the sort, and they have led to a huge waste of public money and time, not only in building them but in having to retrospectively install more than 150 additional emergency areas. What is the total cost of these additional works, and will the Government assure the House that no further smart motorways will be installed?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I can absolutely assure the noble Baroness that no more smart motorways will be installed. It is difficult when you inherit a programme, and it has obviously been done with the best of intentions—to save lives, increase capacity, help people move around and support the economy. Obviously, the costs involved are relevant, but we need to make sure that we learn from the experience we have had thus far and deal with the absolutely disgraceful issue of the safety statistics on our roads.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, can the noble Baroness comment on why, on the section of the M3 between junction 2 and junction 4a, the rate at which people have been killed or seriously injured has increased by around a third?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Viscount the specific details about that particular section of road, but I am very happy to ask for those statistics.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, is not the reality that, when the initial M42 smart motorway programme was introduced, it showed very considerable reductions in congestion, great improvements in driving time reliability and a reduction in accidents? When the programme was rolled out further, under the next Government, a lot of cost-cutting took place, which did create some issues. However, is this not an extremely good way of getting better capacity, and particularly of dealing with peak-hour congestion?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Obviously, dealing with capacity on the roads is one of the major contributors to the value-for-money exercises in terms of reducing congestion and enabling people to move around. We need to be careful in how we analyse the reports that have just come out. This is a long-term study, and we have to be mindful of the fact that we had just been through Covid as well. However, as my noble friend says, there are examples where improvements have been made, and we will continue to analyse all the schemes to make sure that we get the best value for money and the best reduction in congestion.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister share my concern about the plethora of broken tyres and rubbish on both smart motorways and normal motorways? Who has responsibility for keeping these motorways clear, and what do the Government intend to do about it as part of their road strategy?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Lord touches on a very sensitive point. The ward in Leeds that I represented had the M1 going right through it, and all the litter on the side of the motorways was the responsibility of National Highways. It is a crucial factor, particularly where safety is involved. Given the new smart technology that so many people have in their cars, their ability to report things as soon as they see them should help with improving the performance.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, we should all congratulate the emergency services that have to attend to accidents on our motorways. Sometimes motorways are closed for quite a long time as a result of accidents, but the emergency services behave admirably.
I want to ask the Minister a question that almost touches on the one we had before. With the increased use of electric vehicles, particularly those powered by lithium batteries, is she happy that our emergency services are sufficiently well educated in dealing with fires from lithium batteries, which I understand are extremely difficult to extinguish?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The raw facts of the cost of collisions and fatal and serious injuries in this country are staggering. It is estimated that over £3.1 billion was spent on medical and ambulance costs due to collisions on our roads last year alone. That is a crucial issue, and of course the lithium battery issue is an important one for our fire and emergency services. There is a lot of misinformation around this space, and it would be useful to have the latest figures updated to see how the fire and emergency departments are coping with that.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, given what my noble friend has just said about the cost of road accidents, particularly accidents on motorways, is she confident that the standards now expected of new drivers and the way in which they are examined ensure that people behave on motorways in ways that are likely to minimise the risk of accidents? It would probably be the observation of some of us that driving standards on motorways have deteriorated quite significantly over recent years, and in the end, it is mostly human beings that cause accidents.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My noble friend raises an interesting point, but I have to go back to the fact that 793 people were killed or seriously injured on the motorways in 2023, compared with 1,120 on A-roads. Making sure that we consider carefully how we can improve driver safety, whether that means looking at young people or at older people—we know that eye tests are being proposed—is fundamental. I go back to the point that we are prepared to tolerate a level of death and injury on our roads that is, frankly, unacceptable. If such accidents and injuries happened on any other part of the transport network, there would be outrage. It is down to all of us to take very seriously, and not to be overcritical of, the attempts to change safety on our roads.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, when you come off the motorways, you quickly notice the rapidly deteriorating condition of many of our rural roads, which are becoming a threat and a safety risk in themselves. The Government have pledged to fix 1 million more potholes a year. Can the Minister update us on what progress is being made towards meeting that target?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware that we do not hold that level of detail on potholes, but what I can say is that this Government have made the biggest commitment of financial support to local authorities, so they can assess priority need and get on and repair the roads in their areas, which will contribute to the safety and well-being of all road users.
Commissioners for Standards
Lord Kakkar
That this House approves the appointment of the Rt Hon Dame Anne Rafferty DBE as a House of Lords Commissioner for Standards for a period of five years; and extends the appointment of Martin Jelley QPM DL as a House of Lords Commissioner for Standards to 30 June 2029.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, the Motion invites the House to approve the appointment of Dame Anne Rafferty as Commissioner for Standards for a five-year term and to approve the extension of the term of the existing commissioner, Martin Jelley, for a further three years. Since 2021, the House has appointed two commissioners who divide the duties of the role between them, and the last five years have demonstrated the benefits of this model.
Last September, our previous commissioner, Margaret Obi, who had taken up the position of commissioner only a few months earlier, was appointed to serve on the High Court Bench; I wish Dame Margaret well in her new role. I chaired the recruitment panel for Dame Margaret’s successor, supported by other members of your Lordships’ Conduct Committee. The unanimous recommendation of that panel was that Dame Anne Rafferty be appointed as commissioner. Dame Anne brings vast experience. She is a former Lady Justice of Appeal, led the Iraq fatalities investigations and is chair of the State Honours Committee. A short biography giving further details of her experience is available in the Printed Paper Office.
I turn next to the term of Martin Jelley. Mr Jelley was appointed to the role in 2021, and his term was due to end on 30 June this year. The Conduct Committee is acutely aware of the need for continuity in this important role, and, given the changes over the past year which I have described, it was agreed in consultation with the usual channels to recommend an extension of Mr Jelley’s appointment for a further three years. This approach will stagger future appointments, maintaining continuity in the commissioner’s office. I beg to move.
Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Prescription of Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 January be approved.
Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 10 February.
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the draft Orders laid before the House on 12 January be approved.
Relevant document: 49th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 February.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill [HL]
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 16, Schedule 1, Clauses 17 and 18, Schedule 2, Clause 19, Schedule 3, Clauses 20 and 21, Schedule 4, Clauses 22 to 40, Schedule 5, Clause 41, Schedules 6 and 7, Clauses 42 to 64, Schedule 8, Clause 65, Schedule 9, Clauses 66 to 83, Schedule 10, Clause 84, Schedules 11 to 13, Clauses 85 and 86, Schedules 14 and 15, Clauses 87 to 126, Schedule 16, Clauses 127 to 140, Schedule 17, Clauses 141 to 145, Schedule 18, Clauses 146 to 151, Schedule 19, Clauses 152 to 156, Schedule 20, Clauses 157 to 159, Schedule 21, Clauses 160 to 170, Title.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 5, Schedule 2, Clause 6, Schedule 3, Clauses 7 to 18, Schedule 4, Clauses 19 to 56, Schedule 5, Clause 57, Schedules 6 and 7, Clause 58, Schedule 8, Clauses 59 to 70, Schedule 9, Clauses 71 to 77, Schedule 10, Clauses 78 to 89, Schedule 11, Clauses 90 to 107, Schedule 12, Clauses 108 to 132, Schedule 13, Clauses 133 to 137, Schedule 14, Clauses 138 to 143, Schedule 15, Clauses 144 to 152, Schedule 16, Clauses 153 to 155, Schedule 17, Clauses 156 to 161, Schedules 18 to 20, Clauses 162 to 180, Schedule 21, Clauses 181 to 202, Schedule 22, Clause 203, Schedule 23, Clauses 204 to 220, Title.
Rare Cancers Bill
Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay
That the order of commitment be discharged.
Northern Ireland legislative consent granted.
Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, everybody knew that this contract between Palantir and the MoD was going to expire in 2025, with, we understand, interest from British companies in tendering for the new contract. We now know that, in February 2025, the Prime Minister attended a meeting in Washington DC with Palantir, at which the now disgraced former ambassador, Peter Mandelson, who held shares in a company engaged by Palantir, was also present. In December 2025, the MoD, without competition, awarded a lucrative three-year contract to Palantir. There is a very unpleasant smell hovering over this particular bucket of fish. Will the Minister tell the Chamber what was discussed at that February meeting in Washington and, if he does not know, go away and write to me? Why, given the interest of British companies, was this contract not put out for competitive tender?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for the courteous way in which she asked the question. I will reflect on what she has said and respond appropriately once I have discussed it with others.
On the fundamental issue of single-source contracts, I can do no better than to quote the Conservative spokesperson in the other place, who said:
“It is true that many contracts in the MOD are rightly let on a single-source basis”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/2/26; col. 691.]
In this particular instance, the MoD judged the capabilities and record of Palantir in the delivery of the systems that it has, and the artificial intelligence and data sharing that can take place, which started with the enterprise agreement that the last Government entered into in 2022, enabling Palantir to embed itself in all sorts of operations that were and are ongoing and will continue. The transparency notice that we published a few weeks ago, in December, laid out why the direct award was justified in this case, giving it to Palantir as a single-source contract and not making it available to more general competition. It was in our interests, the interests of the MoD and the interests of our country that we let that contract to Palantir to deliver the very special capabilities that it has.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, leaving aside the nature of the ownership of Palantir and the questionable involvement of Peter Mandelson, we have another key concern. On the Government’s own admission, this is a strategic contract. It seems that only Palantir is in a position to deliver this, otherwise it would have been a contested commissioning. The Minister in the Commons has said that the data will remain under sovereign protection. However, the core competence of developing the ways of using that data for AI will rest with Palantir and will be embedded, as the Minister has said, with its proprietary systems and software. Does the Minister share my concern that this is outsourcing what should be a sovereign capability—not just owning the data but knowing how to use it? Does he recognise that we will be reliant for crucial AI expertise embedded across the defence industry on a single US supplier?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I say to the noble Lord, who asks an important question with respect to this, that the UK defence data used and developed in Palantir’s software remains sovereign and under the control of the MoD. It resides in the United Kingdom. We have clear contractual controls in place to ensure that, as well as control over the data system that Palantir software sits upon. Any change from this cannot be conducted without the consent of the United Kingdom, so very real protections are in place to ensure that we can get the benefits from Palantir while protecting the data and information, so that we can allay the noble Lord’s concerns.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, when the Prime Minister and Lord Mandelson visited the HQ of Palantir, met the chief executive, toured the offices and obviously had meetings with many other representatives there, were minutes taken of that meeting?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
No minutes were taken of that meeting, but it was a routine visit. The noble Lord will know from his own experience that going to visit businesses and industry is a significant part of the job. The noble Lord will have done it in the past; he will have gone with civil servants and others, maybe not industrialists but with industry representatives, to see that capability. That is not a criticism of the noble Lord; it was him doing his job. The Prime Minister went with the then ambassador to Palantir. As I understand it, during that visit he had a short presentation, followed by a tour of the premises and an introduction to members of staff. That is the Prime Minister doing his job: trying to develop and build business contacts with huge companies which are of benefit to our country.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, on 5 January, I asked the Government if they could give us details of contracts with Palantir and Anduril. The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, said that, as an honorary captain in the defence of the country through the Royal Navy, it was of prime importance to her and she would write to me. She has obviously been incredibly busy, and a lot of information has come out since. I wonder if the Minister could let us know about contracts with Anduril too, please.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will write to the noble Baroness about that. I will write, along with my noble friend Lady Anderson, to make sure that the noble Baroness gets one joint letter rather than two. I will take that on board and make sure that she gets it, and put a copy of it in the Library so that other noble Lords can see it as well.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, while I am not particularly worried about the way this contract was awarded, it does raise the issue of single companies being given large defence contracts without competition. It also raises value for money. I would hope that the defence department was looking at value for money and at making sure that where British industry can compete, it is encouraged to do so.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Again, that is an extremely important point. There are two things. Of course, single source is something that you try to avoid by having open competition, but there are circumstances where single-source contracts are in the interests of our country. Alongside that, as my noble friend hinted, we are trying to ensure that we develop UK industry and business as well. He will be interested that, as part of the enterprise agreement, it was announced in December 2025 that Palantir would commit £1.5 billion-worth of money to grow British business—to grow small and medium-sized enterprises—and develop skills right across the UK. We were conscious of the fact that it was a contract to a US-based company, as prestigious as it is, and wanted to ensure that the UK gained benefit from it as well. I hope that reassures my noble friend that, to some extent, we took the UK into account with that enterprise arrangement as well.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, it is of note that, as reported by openDemocracy, one of the Labour Party’s largest donations, if not the largest, of £4 million, came from a hedge fund called Quadrature, which has holdings in Blackstone. The openDemocracy website reported that it stood to benefit from government contracts awarded to the likes of Palantir. Will the Minister address this and, if he is unable to do so today, undertake to write and provide further information about that donation, and whether the conflicts were properly examined?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
If necessary, I will write to the noble Baroness, but let me reassure her that everything was done properly and appropriately. The decision to award the contract to Palantir was made by the Defence Secretary alone. Of course, I will reflect on what the noble Baroness has said, but what she said is something that a Government would not do in awarding a contract with respect to defence or any other part of the Government. That sort of thing is not allowed to influence decisions. The Defence Secretary made the decision, and he made it on the basis that Palantir was the right company to do this, the right business to do this, and that it was in the interest of our defence and that of our allies to award it that contract.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I want to return to the question from my noble friend Lord Fox. The Minister referred to the company not having a sovereign right, but the key issue is what the company can do with data. During the passage of the then Procurement Bill, we and Labour—then in opposition—argued for special arrangements for Palantir’s contract under health where it could access only extremely anonymised data. Do we have that assurance with this contract that data is safe and will not go to Palantir?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is an important question, which is why I tried to address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. The ability of our country to protect its data, its information and systems is very important. This is why I am saying that the control of that data is a sovereign decision-making power for the UK Government. Nothing can be done without the consent of the UK Government. Those protections and shields against anything moving from where it should be are in place. I hope that will satisfy the noble Baroness.
Court Reporting Data
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the Courtsdesk court reporting data has been a great success in providing access to data from our courts. It has been reported that about 1,500 journalists have used the platform. It has proved particularly important in collating information about grooming gangs and in properly investigating that terrible issue. It would be extremely damaging to the transparency of our justice system if that service was to be extinguished.
Various excuses have been advanced by the Minister in the other place, despite her having announced in July of last year that the agreement with Courtsdesk would be continued. I highlight two of the excuses put forward. First, there is the allegation of a data breach. We now know that the Ministry of Justice data protection officer concluded, following investigation of that report, that there was no basis for a report to the Information Commissioner. Does the Minister agree with her department’s data protection officer? Secondly, there was an allegation of the sharing of data with a third-party AI company—I use the term “third party” advisedly. The data platform had contracted with an AI firm to carry out sub-processing in terms of an agreement. Does the Minister agree that, under Article 4(10) of the general data protection regulation, someone carrying out processing in terms of such an agreement is not to be regarded as a third party for the purposes of data protection?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt)
My Lords, I am in the happy position of being able to reassure your Lordships’ House that there is no cover-up or conspiracy. The facts are as follows. Courtsdesk, a commercial company, was given copies of the data held in magistrates’ courts’ registers for one purpose only: to share it with bona fide journalists. However, Courtsdesk then shared it with a third-party company without asking or even telling the Ministry of Justice. This data contained sensitive information about both defendants and victims.
When the Ministry of Justice found out that Courtsdesk had done this, it was less than transparent with us, at which point the Government did what any responsible Government would have done: we stopped sending copies of the data to Courtsdesk and required it to remove the copies it still had from its platform. I reassure your Lordships’ House that the original data has always been retained by the Ministry of Justice, and no records have been deleted or lost.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, this is a 10-minute Urgent Question, so questions must be brief. We will now move on to the Lib Dems.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we are all committed to open justice, but so we are to the protection of sensitive personal data. Minister Sackman told the Commons yesterday, as has the Minister here, that Courtsdesk had been sharing with an AI company, no doubt for commercial purposes, personal data of defendants and victims, including full names, personal addresses and birth dates. Minister Sackman said that at least 700 individual cases were involved in that direct breach of contract by Courtsdesk, which Courtsdesk has accepted was a breach.
I suggest that we accept both Ministers’ accounts as accurate, as, notably, did Conservative MP Sir Julian Lewis, who, unlike his Front Bench—and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen—rightly described this as a “cause of great concern”. How and when do the Government propose to replace Courtsdesk with an alternative provider? Meanwhile, can the Minister say how HMCTS will deliver accurate information in a more easily accessible and digestible form? By all accounts, journalists are currently finding the MOJ’s presentation of data to be fragmented, impractical and difficult to navigate.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, first, I reassure your Lordships’ House that all journalists can access the information in exactly the same way as they could through Courtsdesk—it is just a slightly more complicated method: they have to go through HMCTS. The point about Courtsdesk was that it provided a slightly more convenient method, but there is no material that journalists could get then that they cannot get now.
Secondly, the agreement with Courtsdesk, which was a licensing agreement rather than a contract, was entered into by the previous Government as a pilot, which is why it applied to magistrates’ courts only. This Government decided that it might be better to make it available to more than one commercial company. We are in the process of looking at new licensing agreements, which lots of companies can bid for if they wish to, including Courtsdesk if it would like to do so. Anybody who can reassure us that they will treat our data with the respect and dignity that victims and defendants deserve will probably get that licence.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, I know my noble friend the Minister will agree that it was utterly unacceptable for the company concerned to release personal information about vulnerable victims and witnesses without their permission or the permission of the department. As she knows, I am not a lawyer, but does she consider this to be a breach of the contract made with the previous Government by the company concerned?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. In fact, there was no contract; it was a licensing agreement. Our view is that there was a clear breach of the licensing agreement, and that is why we were concerned. The real issue is Courtsdesk’s lack of candour with us when this came to our attention. If there was no problem, why did Courtsdesk not ask us about it or even tell us that that was what it was doing?
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is worth saying that there has been a substantive rebuttal by the CEO of Courtsdesk, to which I understand the Government have not responded. I have no vested interest in this issue, but it is a matter of fact that Courtsdesk has gone to extensive lengths to protect victims’ personal data and ensure that it was handled responsibly and securely. This included working only with security-cleared engineers and building its AI test features in an encrypted sandbox environment, hosted in the EU, that is automatically and permanently deleted every 24 hours. Is it not the case that there has been a misunderstanding, and that this company has been treated quite shabbily by the Government?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
Absolutely not. The first thing I would say in reply to the rebuttal put up very recently by the chief executive of Courtsdesk—it went up during my meeting with officials earlier this morning to discuss this issue—is, they would say that, wouldn’t they? Secondly, if there was nothing wrong with this, why did they not ask us and tell us they were doing it?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, while I commend the MoJ for doing what departments do not always do—policing these contracts properly—is there an argument, given the importance of this information and of making it accessible to journalists, but also of protecting sensitive data, for the department developing an in-house function capable of sorting this out, with a panel of journalists and others to help devise the scheme?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
It is a very good question. In fact, that already exists in part. There is something known as CaTH, which deals with listing information in relation to civil courts and tribunals, and a criminal court listing service is going to be added to it in March. The thing about the information Courtsdesk had is that it went a bit further than that. It would, for example, give the charges; it would say what the outcome was; it would give what the sentence was. We accept entirely that journalists need and ought to have that information, but only journalists, because, first, journalists are familiar with the contempt of court rules and know what they can and cannot do. Secondly, there is an HMCTS protocol in place with journalists, which is based on the criminal procedure rules and makes it clear how this data can be used. We do not know what a third party is going to do—we did not know about this, we did not see its contract, and we want to know why not.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I read the exchanges yesterday in the other place and I welcome what the Minister has said about this. Out of interest, what reason—or should I say, what excuse—did Courtsdesk give when it was revealed that it was passing personal, private and legally sensitive information to a third-party AI company? Will my noble friend reassure the House, partly in the light of the answer she has just given, that the information that is there and is publicly available will continue to be publicly available? I appreciate that journalists need to have it in a more accessible way, and I hope that, as a result of this episode, the Government will continue to do what they can to provide to journalists the information they have every right to have.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The answer to the first of my noble friend’s questions is that Courtsdesk says that it did not think there was anything wrong with what it was doing. We venture to disagree. The answer to the second question is, absolutely, and that is why we are going to issue licences to far more commercial companies, in the interests of competition, so that others can perform the same service and journalists can get the vital information they need so there is transparency in our courts.
Victims and Courts Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sandhurst
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment broadens the cohort to whom Section 35 (victims’ rights to make representations and receive information) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 applies to include any victims listed in Schedule 6A. It also probes the rationale behind the three part categorisation of crimes in Schedule 6A.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 48 to 54, in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, concern the operation of the victim contact scheme and the new helpline provisions introduced by the Bill, and in particular the Government’s decision to structure eligibility around the three-part categorisation of offences in new Schedule 6A. We welcome the Government’s intention to expand access to information for victims. The extension of the victim contact scheme and the creation of a statutory helpline represent important recognition that the victim should not be left in the dark about the progress, release or supervision of those who have harmed them. But the detail matters, and it is the detail of Schedule 6 that these amendments probe.
Amendments 48 and 49 address the decision to confine the statutory rights under Section 35 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to victims of offences listed in Parts 1 and 2 of new Schedule 6A and subject, in the case of Part 1, to a specified custodial threshold. Amendment 48 would align Section 35 more broadly with new Schedule 6A as a whole, and Amendment 49 probes why the current drafting draws the line where it does. Noble Lords will have seen that new Schedule 6A divides offences into three parts. Victims of Part 1 offences qualify when the offender receives
“a sentence of imprisonment … for a term of at least the specified … length”.
Victims of Part 2 offences qualify without that same threshold. Other offences are treated differently still.
The question before us today is: what is the principled basis for this threefold division? For example, Part 1 includes crimes such as wounding with intent to cause GBH, rape, aggravated burglary, abduction and child sex offences. Part 2 includes crimes such as stalking, coercive behaviour and putting people in fear of violence. It seems to us wrong that the latter list of offences does not include a custodial threshold for eligibility for the victim contact scheme, but the first list of offences does include such a threshold. The Minister said on Monday that use of the victim contact scheme is available for the “most serious cases”. Why, then, should the victim of, say, child sexual offences or abduction whose offender did not receive a sentence of imprisonment for a term of at least the specified sentence length be ineligible for the victim contact scheme? Following the Sentencing Act and subsequent reforms that were debated in this House, we have seen, and will continue to see, a marked shift in the sentencing landscape. Fewer people will receive immediate sentences of imprisonment, and sentences will be shorter.
First, the automatic presumption for suspended sentences will mean that many offenders guilty of crimes under Part 1 of the new schedule—wounding with intent, rape and so on—may receive suspended sentences. That will make their victims ineligible for the victim contact scheme. This, frankly, is an insult to victims and the public. Part 1 is a shopping list of serious crimes for which there should be no restrictions on victims’ eligibility for the victim contact scheme.
Secondly, under the Sentencing Act, the majority of offenders will be released after just one-third of their sentence. The practical consequence is that far more offenders than now are to be subject to supervision outside custody. That shift makes the victim contact scheme more, not less, important. The scheme is not a mere information line. It allows victims to make representations regarding licence conditions and, where they apply, parole decisions. In a world in which release and supervision decisions affect more and more cases, the ability of victims to engage meaningfully with those processes becomes essential to maintaining confidence in the system.
The noble Lord, Lord Timpson, stated that the Sentencing Act will more or less double the number of people being tagged. That will mean that at least double the number of victims will want to engage with the victim contact scheme. Faced with these facts, it is difficult to see why eligibility should depend so rigidly on whether an offence falls into Part 1 or Part 2, or whether a custodial sentence crosses a certain line.
From the perspective of the victim, the impact of the offence is not measured in statutory parts or sentencing thresholds. If the offender is subject to release conditions or to supervision in the community, the victim may well have legitimate concerns about notification, exclusion zones or contact restrictions. Those concerns do not disappear simply because the sentence imposed fell just a little below the specified sentence length.
Amendment 50 turns to the new helpline. The Government have rightly recognised that some victims fall outside the formal victim contact scheme but nevertheless need access to information. The helpline is intended to fill that gap. However, as the Bill is drafted, it is still limited by reference to the categorisation in new Schedule 6A. If the purpose of the helpline is to provide a route for victims to obtain basic information about the offender’s custodial or supervisory status, why should it not extend to all victims of offences listed in new Schedule 6A? If Parliament has already determined that those offences merit inclusion in new Schedule 6A, what is gained by further subdividing access to information within that list?
Amendments 51 to 53 similarly address the exclusion of victims whose offenders are serving suspended sentences. As matters stand, victims whose offenders are serving suspended sentences or community orders may not fall within the scope of the helpline in the same way as those whose offenders are in custody. Yet, arguably, it is precisely in such cases that victims will have acute and immediate concerns. An offender not in custody but serving a suspended sentence or community order remains in the community; the victim may live nearby. The potential for proximity, breach or renewed contact is real, not nugatory.
I once again point out that it is government policy that the presumption for most of the offenders for whom this clause is relevant will be to receive suspended sentences. This automatically means their victims will not be able to access the helpline. If the Government are going as far as to legislate for a helpline, it should reflect the realities of modern sentencing. The distinction between custody and community supervision is no longer as clear-cut in terms of risk or impact. This is the result of the Government’s own legislation. A victim whose offender is under probation supervision in the community has every bit as much interest in knowing the conditions imposed and the mechanisms for enforcement as one whose offender is in prison.
Finally, Amendment 54 probes the question of accountability. The Bill places duties on providers of probation services to take reasonable steps to provide information to victims about release, licence conditions and other relevant matters. That is welcome, but what is to happen if a victim believes that those reasonable steps have not been taken? It is not clear from the legislation what mechanism exists for review or appeal. Probation officers increasingly exercise functions that have a quasi-judicial character, particularly in relation to the formulation and management of licence conditions. This is once again due to the Sentencing Act.
Where discretion is exercised, there should be some form of oversight. Amendment 54 proposes a modest and practical solution: that where a victim is dissatisfied, there should be a route to seek reconsideration by a senior probation officer. The Government no doubt accept that the existence of an appeals process is important. Indeed, it is a fundamental element of our judicial process. It does not seem right, therefore, that probation officers, who are already subject to fewer checks and balances and less public scrutiny, should be shielded from an appeals process concerning their decisions.
These amendments ask the Government to explain the rationale behind the categorisation in new Schedule 6A, and to consider whether access to the victim contact scheme and helpline should better reflect the contemporary sentencing landscape. If we are serious about placing victims at the heart of the justice system, access to information and participation cannot depend on seemingly arbitrary distinctions. I beg to move.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I should inform the House that, if Amendment 48 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 49 by reason of pre-emption. Also, if Amendment 50 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 51 to 53 by reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for outlining the detail of the amendments in this group. I was slightly surprised by what he said, because I understood that it was not about whether a prison term was suspended or not, it was the conviction itself that acted as the trigger for the victim’s rights. I see the Minister is nodding. Just to double-check, I went to the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime. This makes it absolutely clear that the moment there is a possible crime against somebody which falls within something that could be considered by the code, the victim is entitled to support and help. For certain particular crimes, they are entitled to enhanced rights and help. I am sorry: I printed it off the web and it does not have a page number, but it states that victims of the most serious crimes are eligible for enhanced rights under this code. There is no question at all of them being reduced or stopped if a conviction is suspended. Once again, I repeat that this is exactly what happened to me. In my particular case, the offender was given a prison sentence and it was suspended, but the victim support continued in spite of that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity of setting out the Government’s position. Our approach is carefully considered. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seeks to make party-political points out of this by using language such as “insult to victims”, particularly when, in relation to the principal part of his argument, he is just plain wrong.
The starting point is that we must prioritise public funds to ensure that they go where they are most needed. We have done this by providing proactive support to those victims where the court has imposed a longer sentence, because a longer sentence reflects the seriousness of the offence. Of course we recognise that all victims of crime will want information about the offender in their case. For that reason, we are introducing a new route for all victims—the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is quite right about this—to request information via a dedicated helpline.
This is why new Schedule 6A is in three parts. Part 1 ensures that the most serious cases, involving victims of violent, sexual, and terrorism offences where the defendant has been sentenced to a custodial sentence of 12 months or more, can receive proactive support through the victim contact scheme.
Part 2 ensures support for victims of stalking and harassment offences, regardless of sentence length. We recognise that, even where there is a short sentence, this cohort of victims needs and will receive proactive support through the victim contact scheme.
I am just trying to ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, can hear the information I am giving him back, because we think that what the noble Lord said is not right, so I thought he might be interested in hearing what I have to say about it.
Part 3 ensures that victims of other sexual and violent offences, and breach offences linked to violence against women and girls, will be able to get information through the helpline should they request it, including for those offences in Part 1 where the sentence for the offence is less than 12 months. We consider that this is the right place to draw the line, but we will keep eligibility under review to make sure that we are reaching the right victims.
The Bill includes regulation-making powers for the Secretary of State to amend the list of offences, and the specified lengths of sentence of such offences, which determine eligibility for either service. The Bill also includes a discretionary power that enables victims of any offence, where the offender is serving a sentence of imprisonment, to be provided with either service, where they request it and probation deem it to be appropriate.
The victim contact scheme and the victim helpline will apply only where there is a custodial sentence. That is not only because of the consideration of public funds but because the information provided via these routes, such as the date of release on licence and conditions of licence, self-evidently does not apply unless there has been a custodial sentence. Where a suspended or community sentence is imposed by the court, under the victims’ code, the police witness care unit will explain the sentence to the victim.
Finally, regarding Amendment 54, I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord that there is already a route for victims to request a senior probation officer review of a decision about what information to provide, so this is already catered for. In the circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I addressed this at some length in opening. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the Minister for correcting my errors. I shall add nothing more. I am also grateful for the Minister’s explanation of how—she hopes, at least—this will work in practice. On that basis, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sandhurst
“Functions of Commissioner: protecting those assisting victims of crime(1) Section 49 (General functions of Commissioner) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1)(a) insert—“(aa) take such steps as the Commissioner considers appropriate to support or protect individuals who act in good faith to assist victims of crime, where those doing so promote the interests of victims and witnesses or encourage good practice in the treatment of victims and witnesses.”(3) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(aa), steps taken by the Commissioner may include reporting, making recommendations, or consulting with relevant authorities regarding individuals who assist victims to promote good practice and victim protection.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the Victims’ Commissioner may take discretionary steps to support individuals who assist victims of crime, as part of their statutory role promoting the interests of victims and witnesses.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 58, 59 and 60 are intended to strengthen the role of the Victims’ Commissioner. They would ensure that the commissioner can more effectively promote the interests of victims and witnesses and respond to cases that have wider public policy relevance.
Amendment 58 clarifies that
“the Victims’ Commissioner may take discretionary steps to support individuals who assist victims of crime”.
The amendment was brought about following the recent case of Mark Hehir, the bus driver who courageously intervened to prevent one of his passengers being the victim of theft. His actions were nothing short of heroic. He placed himself at real risk to protect passengers and members of the public. His decisiveness in a high-pressure situation should be applauded. Public recognition of his bravery has been strong. A petition in support of him gathered over 140,000 signatures. This demonstrates the widespread view that those who act courageously to protect others should be commended and supported, not left vulnerable to professional or personal consequences. The case highlighted the gaps in protections for citizens who step in to assist victims. Ordinary people who act responsibly should not face penalties or career repercussions for doing the right thing.
Amendment 58 would go some way to addressing that gap. By explicitly allowing the Victims’ Commissioner to support individuals who assist victims, the amendment would ensure that the commissioner can take discretionary action in cases of public significance, such as providing advice, engaging relevant agencies or highlighting best practice. The amendment represents a practical safeguard for citizens such as Mr Hehir and a clear statement that society values and protects bravery and civic responsibility. If individuals such as Mr Hehir do not deserve protection, it is difficult to see who does. This is about recognising heroism and ensuring that those who intervene to protect victims are not left unsupported.
Amendment 59 proposes the removal of the statutory restriction that currently prevents the Victims’ Commissioner exercising functions in relation to an individual victim or witness. We welcome the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers in Clause 8, but would like to understand why the Government have included a restriction to the expansion. By removing the restriction entirely, the amendment would ensure that the commissioner can intervene in such cases without procedural or statutory impediment.
It is important to stress that this amendment does not seek to replace existing complaints mechanisms; nor does it transform the commissioner into a case-by- case complaints handler. Instead, it would empower the commissioner to identify and address systemic issues revealed through individual cases, providing a crucial bridge between personal experiences and broader improvements in policy or practice. In doing so, it would strengthen the commissioner’s statutory remit to promote the interests of victims and witnesses rather than limit it.
Amendment 60 takes a more targeted approach, should the Minister oppose Amendment 59. It seeks to limit the restriction on the Victims’ Commissioner exercising functions in individual cases to circumstances where there are ongoing criminal proceedings. This would strike a sensible balance, preserving the integrity and independence of live judicial proceedings while allowing greater engagement with victims and witnesses outside the live court processes. By doing so, it would ensure that the commissioner’s statutory role in promoting the interests of victims and witnesses is meaningful and practical rather than being constrained by overly rigid restrictions.
Amendment 60 seeks to allow the Victims’ Commissioner to request information from agencies, to monitor how individual cases are handled and to promote good practice where lessons from a single case could benefit other victims or witnesses. It would maintain the commissioner’s ability to drive improvements and to highlight systemic issues, without creating any conflict with ongoing judicial processes.
These amendments are designed to enhance the Victims’ Commissioner’s role in supporting victims and witnesses, to ensure that individual cases can inform systemic improvements, and to promote best practice. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I inform the Committee that if Amendment 59 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment 60 by reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for tabling these amendments and to the Government for the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers as set out in the Bill.
However, there are some broader issues that it might be helpful to air here, which are not the subject of amendments, for obvious reasons. It is 22 years since the office of the Victims’ Commissioner was created. I wonder whether, given the legislation that is going through to remove police and crime commissioners, that will change the landscape in which the Victims’ Commissioner’s office works. Therefore, it may be worth reviewing exactly what the roles of the Victims’ Commissioner are. I have some sympathy with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in that context.
From these Benches, we have argued that the entirety of the responsibilities of the Victims’ Commissioner should be broader than they were up until the presentation of this Bill. But there is another point that we have raised consistently—not just in legislation but in Questions and at other times—and that is the disparity of resources between the Victims’ Commissioner’s office and the office of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. I have been told that this is partly because the Victims’ Commissioner’s office looks only at policy, but we know the reality in the complex world of victims is that it sees many more things. If the Government would consider a review of the role in light of the change with police and crime commissioners, it might also be a time to look at whether the Victims’ Commissioner’s office has the resources that it needs to deliver the very important job that it does.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I am very doubtful about Amendment 58. It would expand the role of the Victims’ Commissioner very substantially indeed if the Victims’ Commissioner is going to take action to support or protect individuals who act in good faith to assist victims of crime. That would involve a great deal more work for the Victims’ Commissioner. I am very doubtful, with the resources available, that the role of the Victims’ Commissioner should be diverted from the primary responsibility of considering victims of crime.
Of course, one has every sympathy with the bus driver whom the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, mentioned—his behaviour was heroic and his treatment seems to have been very unjust indeed. I understand he does not actually want his job back, but that really is not the point. The point is that to expand the role of the Victims’ Commissioner to other persons who have assisted the victim seems to me to be unjustified and a diversion of resources.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, the Government firmly believe that the Victims’ Commissioner—I have known the current occupant of the role for many years and have the utmost regard for her—has a crucial strategic role in representing the interests of victims and the witnesses of crime and anti-social behaviour.
Amendment 58 would significantly widen the commissioner’s remit by requiring her to support and protect individuals who assist victims. Of course, we agree that the work of those who dedicate their efforts to supporting victims is crucial, but the proposed widening of the Victims’ Commissioner’s statutory functions would, in the Government’s view, dilute the fundamental purpose of the Victims’ Commissioner; that is, to promote the interests of victims and witnesses themselves. In fact, the commissioner’s statutory function of promoting the interests of victims and witnesses already allows her to work with and support those who themselves support victims, and she does not need an explicit statutory function to continue with that.
Since the definition of “those assisting victims” could be interpreted broadly, this amendment also risks heavily extending the casework burden that would be imposed by the two other amendments, to which I now turn.
The Government have already brought forward Clause 8, which proposes to amend the existing statutory limitation on the exercise of the commissioner’s functions in relation to individual cases to allow her to exercise her functions in relation to cases that indicate a wider systemic issue. But Amendments 59 and 60 would go further—either entirely removing or narrowing the existing limitation. We understand the amendments to be creating an alternative. We do not believe that this is the right approach and consider that our carefully designed Clause 8 achieves the right balance.
The Victims’ Commissioner is not a complaints body, and it is important to maintain this distinction. Her role is to advocate for victims as a group and to address system-wide issues—that is what Clause 8 does. It is up to her to decide which cases she believes create those system-wide issues.
Individual victims already have a clear escalation route through the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman if they are dissatisfied with their experience of the criminal justice system. Expanding the commissioner’s involvement in individual casework to this extent would shift his or her role towards handling complaints rather than overseeing the system as a whole.
It is also vital that decisions of the judiciary and other independent public bodies that support victims of crime remain free from external influence. The current legislative bar, and the amendment to it that we have proposed through Clause 8, safeguards that independence and avoids any uncertainty about the commissioner’s role in such processes. We do not believe that Amendments 59 or 60 achieve that.
The point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which she has raised and discussed with me before on the many occasions on which we have now met—obviously, I look forward to many more—is a good point and one that we need to keep under review. Perhaps the noble Baroness and I can discuss it further the next time we meet. As I say, I very much look forward to that.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, agrees that preserving the Victims’ Commissioner’s strategic function is essential to holding the system to account effectively, and I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I listened with interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, had to say, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I encourage the Minister to listen with care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said and perhaps to move our way on certain aspects.
Dealing with Amendment 58, the law should not leave people such as Mr Hehir exposed to detriment for acting courageously. It may be that the Victims’ Commissioner is not the right person, but we put this forward in the hope that it would allow consideration of what to do in such situations. The amendment sends a clear message that civic responsibility and bravery should not be met with silence or indifference on the part of authority.
Amendment 59 would remove the restriction on individual cases. We appreciate that the commissioner has a strategic role to promote the interests of victims and witnesses generally, but that cannot be done effectively if individual cases are placed beyond reach. We accept that Clause 8 enables the commissioner to act in cases relevant to public policy, and we are grateful for that, but individual cases often reveal systemic failings. Removing the restriction entirely would enable oversight and the identification of patterns that will require reform. If we are serious about learning lessons, we suggest that the commissioner should be able to look at cases from which those lessons arise, but do so with discretion.
If the Minister considers that Amendment 59 is too broad, Amendment 60 would provide a possible balanced alternative. It would preserve the integrity of live criminal proceedings, it would allow engagement in individual cases once proceedings have concluded, and it would ensure that the commissioner can examine outcomes, seek information and promote improvements without interfering with the courts. It reflects a sensible constitutional boundary.
In summary, these amendments would not unduly expand the commissioner’s role but would clarify and strengthen it. They would ensure that individual experiences inform systemic reform and that statutory restrictions do not undermine the purpose of the office itself. A Victims’ Commissioner who cannot meaningfully engage where necessary with individual cases is constrained in fulfilling the commissioner’s core duty.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
The noble Lord seems to be suggesting that the Victims’ Commissioner does not now engage with individual cases. My understanding is that she very much does, but to feed towards her statutory role. That is quite different from getting involved in the minutiae of an individual case, supporting a victim or witness and promoting that individual’s interests.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, there is clearly a balance to be struck. I think we should, as we go forward, because we all have the same interests at heart here, look carefully at whether there will be occasions when the commissioner should look at individual cases, not so much to interfere but to draw on the information that can be gleaned from them and use them in setting policy. With that said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I oppose the Question that Clause 11 stand part of the Bill. This clause seeks to extend the right to prosecute to those with different qualifications from solicitors or barristers.
As my noble friend Lord Gove highlighted at Second Reading, the Crown Prosecution Service faces constraints in whom it can employ, and the criminal Bar is facing a retention crisis. Last year, a national survey by the Criminal Bar Association found that one in three criminal barristers intends to quit. It is obviously crucial that we have enough Crown prosecutors for cases, and we fully appreciate on this side the challenge that the Government face. However, I do not believe that this clause is an appropriate solution. Rather than carefully addressing the causes of those pressures and looking for proper solutions, this clause simply moves the goalposts. It redefines who is qualified to undertake what is highly serious work. That is not good enough.
While it has been argued that allowing CILEX members to prosecute will help to increase diversity, this argument should not be used as a smokescreen for what could potentially dilute standards. I dare say that is not what those truly calling for diversity want either, on their part. Genuine diversity in the legal profession is not achieved by lowering thresholds or by altering qualifications to fill gaps. It is achieved by facilitating pathways and by supporting structures within the profession, so that people from all backgrounds can succeed on an equal footing. To suggest otherwise risks turning diversity into a box-ticking exercise. It does not demonstrate an authentic commitment to broadening access to the profession.
We cannot risk lowering the quality of prosecution. This would not be fair on the defendant, and certainly not on the victim, and it is definitely not in the long- term public interest. Victims and defendants rely on the competence of the prosecutor. A victim must have confidence that their case is being handled by someone who is suitably qualified. Those who prosecute murders today will some years ago have prosecuted in the magistrates’ courts; they start at the lower level and they move up, gaining their experience moving from level to level as proportionate to their skills.
A defendant whose liberty may be at stake is entitled to proper assurance. These are not minor concerns; they go to the heart of our justice system. More widely, any weakening of our standards risks undermining public confidence in the justice system as a whole and weakening the supply, I suggest, of future prosecutors of serious crime. Can the Minister please explain what assessments were undertaken previously of the impact of this proposed change?
If we are to expand the pool of prosecutors, we must be absolutely sure that this shift is backed by sufficient evidence of good quality, and that any necessary safeguards are in place to ensure that standards will not drift or diverge over time. The Committee deserves clear evidence that this reform will enhance, and not diminish, the quality of prosecutions. We have not been shown that evidence. Without it, this clause risks creating more problems than it solves. I urge the Minister please to reflect carefully on these concerns and to ensure that any change to the thresholds is supported by robust, transparent evidence and proper safeguards. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I will make one or two brief observations about this, if I may. First, I must declare an interest, in that about 10 years ago I was made an honorary vice-president of CILEX. In case it is thought that I am speaking with the interests of CILEX in mind, I wanted to make that absolutely clear.
My first observation is this: the transformation of the way in which the legal profession operates and its financial position has been enormous over the last 20 or so years. Sometimes, I think we forget the huge difference there is in remuneration for those who practise in areas such as commercial and administrative law and those who practise in the criminal sphere. This is having a very serious effect on the ability.
How that problem is solved is a matter for Her Majesty’s Government, not for me, but it seems to me that, in looking at what the state can afford, it is necessary to look at the way in which an organisation such as CILEX has transformed itself, the qualifications that are given and the reality of many cases. As a judge, one sometimes feels that the best experience for being a good prosecutor is having done a lot of prosecutions, not necessarily where they had a first-class degree from a great university or whether she had done extremely well in the solicitor’s or Bar finals; experience is important.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas has said. I shall add some observations. It is self-evident, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, says, that only those who are qualified and competent should be responsible for prosecutions, and no one would dispute that. However, it seems to me equally self-evident that not every criminal prosecution requires presentation by a barrister or a solicitor. There are many criminal prosecutions that others are perfectly competent to present. What matters is to ensure that whoever prosecutes in any particular case has the qualifications and experience that are necessary, and that will depend upon the nature of the case, whether it be a murder case at one extreme or a driving case at the other. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that those factors will be, and are being, taken into account in deciding, once this reform is introduced, who prosecutes in any particular case.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
The noble and learned Lord has said what I wanted to say much more sensitively and tactfully, but I will say what I was going to say.
There is a danger that lawyers of my generation— I shall just apply it to my generation and not suggest which generation other Members of the House belong to—are prejudiced against lawyers who do not have standard qualifications, if you like, or the backgrounds that many of us come from. I understand from CILEX that there are 133 members working as associate prosecutors who cannot progress or get promotion. That is a real shame. It is a much wider issue than just prosecution.
I think the noble Lord answered his own point because he was talking about members of the Bar progressing. The Minister will tell us—I cannot believe it is not the case—that no one joins the CPS and prosecutes a murder the next day. Every profession has its hierarchy, and one progresses in the hierarchy dependent on both skill and experience. The current position is out of date, so, even if it were not to solve an immediate problem, what is proposed in the Bill is a good idea. I am afraid that we cannot support the opposition to the clause.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, it is vital to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service can recruit and retain a sufficient number of qualified Crown prosecutors. We suggest that Clause 11 supports this aim by increasing the CPS’s recruitment flexibility through the removal of an unnecessary legislative barrier. In turn, this will help increase the pool of eligible candidates for appointment as Crown prosecutors. It is axiomatic that a shortage of Crown prosecutors adds to the backlog because it cannot make decisions quite as quickly about prosecutions as it could if there were more of them.
Currently, the Crown Prosecution Service is restricted in who it can appoint as Crown prosecutors due to an unnecessary legal requirement. This is set out in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which provides that Crown prosecutors and those who prosecute cases on behalf of the CPS must hold what is known as the general qualification. The general qualification is a term of art, having a very specific meaning in this context. It means that a prospective Crown prosecutor must have
“a right of audience in relation to any class of proceedings in any part of the Senior Courts, or all proceedings in county courts or magistrates’ courts”,
even though most of those rights of audience—for example, before the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court—are never going to be exercised by a Crown prosecutor in a million years.
This requirement can exclude certain qualified legal professionals, including CILEX practitioners—from the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives—who have relevant criminal practice rights but are prohibited from becoming Crown prosecutors. These legal professionals, including CILEX practitioners, often hold the right skills and specialist qualifications required to perform the Crown prosecutor role, including having rights of audience for the courts in which they will actually appear, as opposed to rights of audience for the courts in which they will not, but they do not meet the general qualification criteria. This restriction limits the DPP’s ability to consider a wider pool of legal talent and reduces the CPS’s flexibility in managing existing and future recruitment challenges.
The purpose of this clause is to remove the requirement for the general qualification and, in doing so, give the DPP the discretion to appoint appropriately qualified legal professionals, such as CILEX practitioners, as Crown prosecutors for the CPS. I can reassure the Committee that the removal of the general qualification requirement will not in any way dilute professional standards; there are appropriate safeguards to preserve standards.
Prospective professionals eligible to be a Crown prosecutor who do not at the moment hold the general qualification must still meet the authorisation requirements of the Legal Services Act 2007—they have to be appropriately qualified, authorised and regulated, and be able to exercise rights of audience and conduct litigation, both of which are reserved legal activities under the Act. It is a criminal offence under the Act to carry out reserved legal activities unless entitled to do so.
In addition, it is important to note that the measure does not require the CPS to appoint any specific type of legal professional. Instead, it gives it the flexibility to do so where appropriate and ensures that recruitment decisions remain firmly within the DPP’s control. The DPP will retain full discretion over appointments, ensuring that only suitably qualified and experienced individuals become Crown prosecutors. Newly eligible professionals must meet the same Crown prosecutor competency standards as those who qualify through more traditional routes. I also emphasise that those appointed following this change will, like all Crown prosecutors, be subject to performance monitoring by the CPS, including case strategy quality assessments focused on the application of the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
This change reflects the modern legal services landscape, spoken to powerfully by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. Alternative routes to qualification are increasingly common, where professionals from non-traditional backgrounds play a growing role in the justice system. By removing this unnecessary legislative barrier, the clause may also support the recruitment of a diverse and representative cohort of Crown prosecutors.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has ever met any CILEX practitioners; I certainly have, and they are an amazing cohort of people. I am sure he absolutely did not intend to suggest that somehow those who have qualified through an alternative route are, by very definition, less competent than those who have gone through the traditional route. If that is the suggestion, then it is not one this Government can support. I therefore hope that the Committee will join me in supporting Clause 11 to stand part of the Bill and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his opposition to it.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. At the heart of it lies the underfunded state of our criminal justice system—something which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has highlighted. Looking forward, the criminal justice system needs more money and the prosecution service needs proper funding, as of course do those who defend in the criminal courts; but Clause 11 does propose a significant shift, extending the right to prosecute to individuals who do not hold the long-standing qualifications of solicitors and barristers. I cast no aspersions on CILEX, but I make that observation. There is a difference in their training and educational background. This clause will expand capacity, there is no doubt about it—and there is no doubt that the system requires it, for the reasons that others have outlined in this debate—but it will not address the underlying cause of problems faced in the criminal courts. We must not go down a route which results in weakening of standards, undermining of public confidence, and unfairness to victims and witnesses involved in the criminal courts.
A central issue remains the absence of clear evidence in support of Clause 11. We have sought clarity from the Minister on what assessments were undertaken on the impact of this change, whether risks to standards were considered, and whether safeguards are in fact in place to maintain standards over time. Without clear evidence, Parliament cannot truly judge whether the proposed reform protects the quality of prosecutions. We must not embark on a position where there are unclear professional boundaries and variations in training and oversight.
We recognise the pressures facing the criminal justice system and the need for more good people to embark on careers in the criminal courts, whether in defence or in prosecution; in this case, we are talking about prosecutors. We share the desire for a stronger, more resilient system, but Clause 11 does not, we suggest, properly address the causes of these pressures. We urge the Minister to reflect carefully on the concerns which I have raised and to consider whether Clause 11 provides the assurance and evidence that this House, our justice system and, indeed, victims deserve. That said, I will not pursue my opposition.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, Clause 12 is an exception to the many provisions of the Bill that we support. It concerns the recovery of costs in private prosecutions. On its face, it may seem a minor and rather technical amendment, but in substance Clause 12 represents a significant shift in long-established policy and practice. It has serious implications for access to justice, particularly for victims of fraud and economic crime.
Private prosecutions should be regarded as a safeguard, rather than an anomaly, in our criminal justice system. Such prosecutions exist precisely to ensure that, where the state cannot or does not act, victims are not left without recourse. Private prosecutions are conducted in the criminal courts and are subject to the same judicial oversight, obligations of disclosure and prosecutorial duties as any other prosecution. Judges retain full control throughout, and the Crown Prosecution Service retains its power to take over cases where it considers that to be appropriate. For many years, Parliament, Ministers and the courts have recognised that private prosecutions serve a public interest. That is why the current costs regime allows courts to order payment from central funds for reasonable sums properly incurred by private prosecutors. This payment is not a windfall. It is simply reasonable compensation for costs already borne, and even then recovery is typically partial and not complete.
It is our strong belief that Clause 12 would change that settlement fundamentally. It gives the Government power through regulations to cap the recoverable costs of private prosecutors. In so doing, it risks making many legitimate prosecutions financially unviable. That is particularly so for charities and other public interest bodies which pursue cases only after other routes have failed. This would represent a sharp departure from previous ministerial policy.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, the issue of costs in private prosecutions is an extraordinarily serious one. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has spoken of the position of charities, the RSPCA being one example. One can well understand the position of a charity conducting a prosecution through a small solicitor where costs are modest. On the other hand, one must recall that for good reasons of public interest, there are private prosecutions by large corporations to protect intellectual property. The consequence of the change in the market for solicitors and barristers has produced a problem, because what the CPS pays prosecutors to prosecute is completely out of line with what a large, industrial conglomerate that wants to enforce its intellectual property rights can pay. This is a problem that has to be grappled with.
One of the reasons why the CPS cannot prosecute more than it does is the Government’s constraint; both the last Government and this one are responsible for that. There is not enough money in the system to enable the CPS to prosecute where it should be doing so. More than 10 years ago, the change in the market and the constraint on the finances of the CPS, arising out of the 2008 financial crisis, began to manifest themselves in the contrast between what happened in private prosecutions by large conglomerates, or associations of those interested to protect their economic position, and in the CPS. The courts have tried to do something about it through a number of cases, but it is an extraordinarily difficult area.
For example, in a commercial case—many of these cases go to solicitors—there did not used to be the idea that you would have to get a tender before you prosecuted, but the courts now require it. The courts have made a number of very important changes to try to bring this cost under control, because, although it cannot be shown that if you pay a large sum—several hundred thousand pounds—to defer the costs of a private prosecution it will directly come out of any bit of the overall justice budget, anyone who has had to deal with the Treasury knows that that is the case. The Treasury looks at a pot for justice and, if you take large sums out of it by paying for private prosecutions, the other part of the justice system suffers.
This is a matter that has to be grappled with, and the right people to grapple with it are the Government. It is not a very good position for judges to be in to be making these very difficult decisions because of the gross inequality between what you pay private lawyers, which many may think is far too much but that is not for me to judge, and what you pay the Crown Prosecution Service, which may not be enough—again, that is not for me to judge. The problem of what I might call public penury and private affluence is absolutely illustrated by the problem of paying for private prosecutions. It is for the Government to grapple with, and setting rates is one of the ways to do it. I think it is probably the right way, but all I am saying is we that cannot run away from this problem that has arisen because of changes in the market and the constraints on public expenditure.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has inevitably given us a very brief tour d’horizon of the problems of the costs and charges of the legal profession getting out of hand. Looking at the Bill over the weekend, I had to turn up the 1985 Act and write into it the changes that would be made by the Bill. It seems that the one to focus on is making the provisions subject to regulations, which boils down to the Lord Chancellor setting rates—at least that is how I read it. It is not much of a stretch to think that those are going to be linked to legal aid rates, and one can see the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who explained some of the problems very clearly, mentioned consultation and rather dismissed it as being helpful, but it is important that the Committee should know what is planned by way of consultation. I hope the Minister can help us on that, because so much turns on its outcome.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, in the view of the Government, Clause 12 provides a modest enabling power for the Lord Chancellor to set through regulations the rates at which private prosecutors may recover expenses from central funds where a court has ordered that such costs be paid. To be clear at the outset, this clause does not set any rates, and it does not affect the long-established right to bring a private prosecution, which remains protected under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
I should say at this stage that I have a great deal of experience in the area of private prosecutions, both as a state prosecutor working for the Crown Prosecution Service, where I oversaw all the private prosecutions that came to the CPS for consideration, and in private practice, where I brought a number of private prosecutions on behalf of clients and advised on many more.
The Justice Select Committee, in its 2020 report, Private Prosecutions: Safeguards, invited the Government to take a closer look at the private prosecution landscape, particularly where public funds are engaged. Taking an enabling power of this kind allows us to do precisely that in a careful and evidence-based way. The committee highlighted three key principles, which this Government agree should underpin reform: first, addressing the disparity between defence resources and those of private prosecutors; secondly, safeguarding the right of individuals to bring a private prosecution; and, thirdly, ensuring the proportionate and responsible use of public funds.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I listened with interest to the Minister. I remain of the view that private prosecutions are a constitutional safeguard for when the CPS is unable or unwilling to act. There remains the position of charities and there remains the position of corporations and other organisations trying to protect their intellectual property by exercising perfectly lawful prosecutions. The example given of the costs in a particular case is not really helpful, as we do not know the details. It is the sort of things that we would have had detail of had there been a proper consultation first, and we would not have one cherry-picked example given to us.
That said, I remind the Committee that what we are looking at here is £3.9 million—not a lot. It is not a small sum, of course, but it is not a large sum in the context of the criminal justice budget. My concerns have not been put to rest but, in the circumstances, I shall not occupy any more of the Committee’s time. I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Removal of presumption of computer reliability(1) Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is reinstated.(2) Section 60 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is repealed.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause removes the statutory rebuttable presumption that a computer system is working correctly for the purposes of criminal evidence produced by it. Instead, prosecutors would have to offer a reasonable demonstration of the reliability of any relevant hardware and software on which it proposes to rely, thus giving the defence an opportunity to scrutinise and challenge the same.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, this group contains two amendments that seek to address dangerous practices relating to criminal evidence. While the Bill does much to protect victims of crime, our justice system must also protect people from becoming victims of miscarriages of justice. Both of the problems we identify have already led to serious wrongful convictions and risk many more in the future.
Amendment 61 is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom and Lord Beamish, who fought so hard in the other place for the sub-postmasters, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has been such a distinguished campaigner for the rule of law to apply as much to big tech as anyone else. I share Amendment 62 with my old and dear noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon. If honour by association was as easy as guilt by association, I would be honoured indeed.
Amendment 61 is a simple amendment that would reinstate Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It was repealed by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 on a recommendation of the Law Commission, but long before contemporary understanding of both the capabilities and fallibilities of digital technology.
Under the old Section 69, a party seeking to rely on computer evidence had to show that there was no improper use of the computer, that it was operating properly at all material times and that any faults did not affect output. It allowed for court rules to scrutinise computer evidence. Since the repeal of that vital protection, a common-law presumption of computer reliability and accuracy has applied, in effect reversing the criminal burden of proof in some cases and leading to serious harm, most recently in the Post Office Horizon scandal. Several Justice Ministers have acknowledged this since 2018. The Ministry of Justice released a call for evidence in January 2025. I hope my noble friend the Minister will tell us what has come as a result, because that is too long, I suggest.
The presumption is inaccurate, unsafe and far from future-proof. Technology is not infallible, as we saw so graphically in the end with the Fujitsu Horizon scandal. Perhaps my noble friend can also tell us what attempts that corporation has made to recompense the UK taxpayer and the victims of the abuse and scandal. Flaws can be hidden and very difficult for a lone defendant, or even a group of defendants, to detect. They cannot take on the corporation, let alone look in the black box. Developments in artificial intelligence, including the capabilities for deepfakes, make the risks of presuming computer evidence reliability even more dangerous. I hope that the Government will either accept our amendment or offer an alternative in this Bill. The clock is ticking.
As for Amendment 62, I ask Members of the Committee to consider whether they have ever indulged in crime procedurals as a guilty pleasure, whether reading them or watching them on their favourite streamer after a long night in Committee in your Lordships’ House. Middle England is addicted to those dramas, whether on TV or in books, and the creativity behind them is big business. But what if those who participated in the creation of that art, or even just enjoyed it, found themselves prosecuted on the basis that that interest was somehow probative of criminal intention or propensity?
If noble Lords find that a ridiculous proposition, they should spare a thought for the young Black men and boys who have increasingly been prosecuted with reliance on their enjoyment of rap and drill music. It is disgraceful and has been allowed to go on for some years now. Even more outrageous, there are groups and units of mostly middle-aged white police officers who hold themselves out as expert witnesses to translate this music, these lyrics and the patois for juries. Learned friends at the Bar, including my learned friend Keir Monteith KC, who is currently in the Chamber, have had to take this on in court and have dealt with miscarriages of justice in the Court of Appeal because of this kind of prejudicial and racially prejudiced practice.
The figures are not good. The Crown Prosecution Service does not keep records of music evidence being used in this way in court, but studies at the University of Manchester in particular show that there have been many cases: 68 cases involving 252 defendants between 2020 and 2023. That is probably an underestimate, because these are first instance trials and are not always reported. Two-thirds of the defendants in the Manchester study were Black, 12% were mixed race, 82% were under 25 years old, and 15% were aged 17 or younger. Over half the cases were of course joint enterprise prosecutions, because there is a particularly toxic cocktail when you combine the use of this prejudicial material with casting the net so wide as in joint enterprise.
In the case of the Manchester 10, Black teenagers were collectively sentenced to 131 years in prison for conspiracy to murder and to cause grievous bodily harm. During the trial, a nine-second video clip of someone identified as one of the defendants, with drill music playing in the background, was used as evidence of his gang membership. In closing, the prosecution Silk told the jury that some of the defendants had become involved in gang culture
“because they had an interest in drill … with its themes of violence, drugs and criminality”.
“The Night Manager”, anyone?
The Court of Appeal found that the young man had been misidentified. There was not even rapping in the video. This is how bad this practice is. He was of good character: head boy and captain of the rugby team, with an unconditional offer to study law—forgive me for being particularly attached to the study of law as a noble pursuit, but I hope noble Lords take my point. His conviction was quashed, but only after serving three years in prison.
We talk about equality before the law. That requires that no one is above the law’s reach, nor anyone below its protection. The shameful events currently rocking our politics only highlight the dangers of entitlement, hypocrisy, and the obvious destruction of trust in our vital institutions when there is “one law for some” and no fair hearing for others.
This is a modest but vital reform. It would create a presumption that any creative expression on the part of a defendant—not just rap and drill music—should be inadmissible unless four tests are met. First, the expression must have a literal, rather than figurative or fictional, meaning. Secondly, it must refer to the specific facts of the case. Thirdly, it must be relevant to an issue of dispute. Finally, that issue cannot be decided by other evidence.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 61. I did not speak at Second Reading, for which I apologise to your Lordships’ House. I lacked the ingenuity of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in moving an amendment to the Bill. I pay tribute to her for doing so. Everything she said about Amendment 61 was right. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for pursuing this issue with her usual persistence and eloquence. I am grateful to her for having involved me in some of the meetings that she organised.
My first point is that evidence derived from a computer is hearsay. There are very good reasons why we treat hearsay evidence with caution. To admit hearsay evidence is a step in itself, but to presume that it is reliable is a giant stride beyond that.
Secondly, we are all aware of how frequently we have to redo the programming on our Apple iPhones or whatever, partly because of bugs in the programming of the computer technology on which we rely so much. Bugs are inevitable in computer programmes. That was why Fujitsu—I hope the Minister will answer the point about whether Fujitsu has paid, or might pay, any money to the taxpayer or to the sub-postmasters— had an office dedicated not just to altering the sub- postmasters’ balances, shocking as that was, but to altering and amending a programme that was never going to be perfect, because no computer programme is. If computer programmes are inherently unreliable, to have a presumption in law that they are reliable is unsustainable.
Thirdly, the consequences of the repeal of Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—which, I remind your Lordships, happened partly because the Post Office asked for it to happen to make its prosecutions easier for it—were that Seema Misra was sent to prison when she was eight weeks pregnant and on her son’s 10th birthday. She collapsed when she was sentenced. This is an urgent matter. If we leave it in place, further injustices may happen as soon as tomorrow.
That is the first point about why it is urgent. The second point about why it is urgent is that any defence lawyer, in any event, will point to the Horizon case and say that it is perfectly obvious that this presumption is wrong. It is perfectly obvious. We cannot, in all good conscience, permit to continue in law a presumption which we know to be incorrect, and I hope that the Minister will at least set out a path to changing it.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I too support Amendment 61 in the name of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti.
When I left my home in Durham on Monday morning, I had a phone call. It was from an individual I had met five years earlier. He was the husband of a postmistress in Northumberland who had been prosecuted by the Post Office. She was prosecuted in 1998. He was ringing me to tell me that on the Saturday morning, she had received the letter overturning her conviction under the Horizon Post Office scandal.
I met the couple five years ago. They had a thriving business and were well respected in the community—a small village in Northumberland. They now live in a small council house in the same village. As they explained to me when I sat in their living room, everyone still thinks, “That is the woman who stole the money from the Post Office”.
That woman was traumatised. That is the only word I can use. She had blanks in her mind. It was very difficult for me to get the information from her, so traumatised she was. That woman has suffered for nearly 30 years. She has now got that letter saying that she did nothing wrong and can now hold her head up high in her community. As I said to her husband, that must be an unbelievable feeling.
That couple are going to get compensation—quite rightly—but, as the husband said, that is not important. The important thing was that woman’s and their family’s good name. That was ruined, because computer evidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, just said, was used to persecute a decent, hard-working woman.
Over the last 15 or 16 years that the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and I have been campaigning on this, I have met many victims of this scandal. They are decent, ordinary people whom you pass in the street. If you were their friend, you would consider it a privilege. Their lives have been completely ruined. That is because the presumption was that the computer had to be right. It was classed as a mechanical machine and that this could not be infallible.
The judiciary needs to take some blame in the Post Office scandal, because I have read many court transcripts of the cases. I think of one. There was a postmistress from County Durham called June Tooby, who was not involved in the Horizon case but the pre-Horizon scheme—Capture. She was an absolutely marvellous woman and she defended herself in court. She said to the judge that her argument was that the computer was wrong and gave the reasons why. He dismissed her completely out of hand and would not listen to her that somehow this was a possibility.
That is not the only case that I have seen where judges have taken the approach of completely dismissing that. I am not one for attacking our judiciary, but I get annoyed when judges get on their high horse and say that somehow they cannot be criticised. The judiciary played a part in this scandal and must take responsibility for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, said that this is urgent. It is urgent. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said that the consultation started on 21 January 2025. Sarah Sackman, the then Minister, said at the opening of that consultation:
“We must learn the lessons of the Post Office scandal … Ensuring people are protected from miscarriages of justice is … one part of the government’s Plan for Change”.
That was over a year ago. I know that things move very slowly in this Government and that things sometimes have gestation periods longer than that of an African elephant, but this cannot wait. I urge the Minister. We do not want any more reviews or need any more consultations. That seems to be the in word these days—if you do not want to make a decision, have a consultation or say, “We are considering it”. This is now urgent.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti on tabling this amendment. It must be done in this Bill. It cannot wait. Speaking for myself—and, I think, on behalf of my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot —we will not let this rest. This is the opportunity for the Government to put this right. I would love to know what the Ministry of Justice has been doing for the last year because it is a very simple thing; nor is it controversial. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, has just said, people will still be found guilty. There will be more victims if we do not change this. This would also send a clear signal to those victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal that this Government are taking this seriously.
I say, very gently, to the Minister, not to come back with, “We’re going to review it” or that there is some next stage to go through. Frankly, I am getting sick of this. My heart drops when I hear of another review or consultation. It seems to be a great “Yes Minister” way of kicking things into the long grass. This cannot be kicked into the long grass. I am determined that it will not be.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 61, to which I have added my name, and associate myself with the noble Baroness’s words on Amendment 62. I was sitting here thinking that if I was guilty of the total creative expression that I have consumed, I would have to be locked up for life. It was moving to hear how one small fraction of the population is being discriminated against on this count, so I add my support on that issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lords, Lord Beamish and Lord Arbuthnot, have laid out the case comprehensively and persuasively. There is indeed a great deal of history to it. I thought it might be useful for me to concentrate on the justification of successive Governments for resisting it. This centres primarily around the idea that computers now permeate every aspect of life and that altering the presumption in law, in the words of the former Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, would bring into scope
“evidence presented in every type of court proceeding and would have a detrimental effect on the courts and prosecution—potentially leading to unnecessary delays”.—[Official Report, 18/12/24; col. GC 160.]
It is important to hear that, because it was almost identical to the words spoken by the previous Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, who said:
“Almost all criminal cases rely on computer evidence to some extent, so any change to the burden of proof would or could impede the work of the Crown Prosecution Service and other prosecutors”,—[Official Report, 24/4/24; col. GC 580.]
leading to great delays. In other words, they had exactly the same rebuttal to a suggestion that we made, as the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, explained, in not one but two previous Bills. My worry is that the argument appears to be that computer evidence is so pervasive that we cannot change the law. But the reverse must also be true: if it is going to be so pervasive, how can we allow it to remain above the law?
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I support the principle behind Amendment 61. The real question is: how quickly can this be done?
I want to give an illustration of a problem that has arisen in civil courts across the world: the ability of artificial intelligence to hallucinate—to create cases and precedents for lawyers to use that do not exist. All civil courts across the world, including those in this country, have realised that this is an immense problem. It is being dealt with by practice direction—in some cases, very quickly indeed—because it is corrosive to the proper conduct of litigation, and it seems to me that there is no reason why, when this comes back on Report, it cannot be dealt with. It is not a difficult problem, and if it has been around for two years, that is 18 months too long.
The other point I want to address, in a slightly different manner, is Amendment 62. This is a much more difficult problem and has arisen because of the way in which drill music, and similar music, has been used in the prosecution of cases. The admissibility of such evidence is quite complicated.
What is very worrying—as can be seen by the attendance here today of one of the counsels involved in these cases—is that the way in which this evidence has been used in some cases has caused a lot of deep misunderstanding and suspicion about the way our criminal justice system operates for certain minorities. The thought that you will be found guilty because of the music you listen to is deeply troubling.
However, it seems to me that what we need to do first is look at the cases where this has been used. I looked at the case of the Manchester 10 and, coincidentally, in that case, the evidence had been admitted by agreement, and the Court of Appeal upheld the way in which it had been used for certain purposes.
It seems to me that this is a more complicated problem, and it would be helpful if the Minister was able, between now and Report, to put before the House a short letter explaining what the problem is. I think it would be easier to look at the amendment in the light of a better understanding. The last thing I want to do is to bore the Committee by explaining the ways in which evidence can and cannot be used legitimately. It is much better that members of the Committee have the benefit of reading that on a piece of paper.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have two brief points on Amendment 61, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for tabling it. It is really wrong that computers or systems have ever been deemed to be reliable, let alone infallible. My husband is a research and design engineer who has worked in Cambridge Science Park for well over 40 years. He and his friends have a phrase that they use among themselves and about themselves: “Garbage in, garbage out”. When we started hearing about the Post Office Horizon scandal and Fujitsu, the first thing he said to me was, “Garbage in, garbage out”. The problem we have is that too many people, the courts and the court of public opinion believe that computer systems are infallible.
I also want to touch very briefly on AI because we are seeing cases in the courts now. Facial recognition cases are coming up. Big Brother Watch reported on one last June. I notice that not quite weekly, but quite frequently, an individual is arrested as they go into a store and are accused of taking something very small and then evidence is produced of them on a facial recognition watch list. It then transpires some time later that they are not that individual. One particular firm’s name keeps coming up—I will not go into that —but the reaction of the shop is exactly that: it is infallible. I support the amendment, and I urge the Minister and the Government not to pause on this at all. It is needed, not just for the legacy of Post Office Horizon, but for cases in our courts right now.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
I rise in support of Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Perhaps I can help the Minister with some of the intricacies of this. We have heard from Members who have a legal background. I have a youth work background, and I would like to say this: much of the music that is being talked about—drill music, rap music—is horrific. The content of the music is horrific and it is horrible, but, unfortunately, it is also very entertaining. Many young people will listen to it just by association. The music is entertaining, people party and you have no other choice. So for someone to view your output as an individual through your membership of that genre is a very slippery slope. Many years ago, I dealt with a group of young men who made a video that pointed to some serious criminality, and the police dealt with it in the right manner. They used it to understand who they might further investigate. They did not use the evidence, except one part that was quite blatant, as a reason to prosecute individuals.
When someone tells you that they are an expert in interpreting the music, I am afraid they are wrong. I was born in that community, I come from that community, many members of my family make that music, but because young people make the music and technology allows them to make it so quickly, the words they use, the meanings they use and the characters they build change almost on a daily basis. If you were to say to my son, “the man dem”, he would understand. Would noble Lords? When I grew up, “the man dem” existed as a concept, but the words did not, so he and I can have a conversation about the same thing and not know that we are talking about the same thing.
Very rarely will you hear me stand up, talk about race and accuse the police of being racist, but this cuts very close to that because when a lovely, well-meaning, educated, middle-class man or woman listens to the music, they have no understanding of the cultural background of that music or of the fact that that music might have been produced in the way it was to display a character. Much of the bragging and the boasting is simply that: bragging and boasting about fictitious situations that they hope they will never be in and that we also hope they will never be in. To present that in court as some kind of evidence of their associations and their behaviour is a slippery slope. If you want to destroy the relationship between young people, particularly young Black people, and our system, this would be the way to go.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an anti-racism adviser to the Labour leadership. I added my name to Amendment 62 tabled by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I hope noble Lords understand why I have done this, given my years of campaigning for race equality, in the criminal justice space in particular. Our amendment is essential but also modest and proportionate. We do not say that creative expression can never be admissible in criminal trials. We just say that there must be a strict rule against racial prejudice in particular. It is not new in our system to try to ensure that prejudice associated with criminal evidence should not outweigh its probative value, nor, unfortunately, is it new to find the police and the prosecution system working against people of colour when they should be protecting everyone from all our diverse communities equally. As my noble friend said, we would not dream of prosecuting a middle-class, middle-aged, white person for crimes on the basis of them writing or enjoying crime fiction. Why then are we happily prosecuting young Black men and boys on the basis of rap and drill music? I think we all know why. We talk about equality before the law, but 28 years after the Lawrence inquiry, we know the principle is still not a reality.
My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti mentioned a young Mancunian man, a model student, a head boy aspiring to be a law student who had an unconditional offer to study law at the University of Birmingham—until the police and the prosecutors wrongly mistook him for a youngster in a nine-second video in which drill music was playing in the background. Through reliance on this ridiculous evidence, he was convicted of violent conspiracy. His conviction was overturned, but only after he served three years in prison. I urge the Committee to support our amendment and my noble friends in the Government to accept it.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 61. In doing a little background on this, I looked at the Law Society’s response to the MoJ call for evidence, which it produced last April. I wish to read two brief excerpts, because I think they are both particularly pertinent to what we are talking about. The first says:
“But given the increasing complexity of computational systems, computers should not be assumed to be operating correctly. Instead”—
this is important, because this is what other jurisdictions outside the UK systematically do—
“it should be evidenced and demonstrated through assurance, regular review, and disclosure of the technical standards applied by the system”.
That is what happens in Germany. That is what happens in France. That is what mostly happens in the United States.
Secondly, returning to the issue of artificial intelligence, the Law Society has been thinking about this and is clearly very worried about it. I quote again:
“Careful consideration needs to be given to emerging AI technologies that overlap with but go beyond the scope of this call for evidence. For AI, an additional layer of certification for meeting internationally recognised standards is important to ensure accountability and transparency, especially if they were designed and developed”—
which they mostly are—
“outside of the jurisdiction … Attention must be given to the ability for domestic regulation and requirements to be adhered to for computer systems and AI tools that are built outside of the jurisdiction”.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, it is six years since the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and I were among the members of a newly formed committee that looked at—I do not think I have got the title quite right—advanced technology in the justice system. We were concerned, among other things, about the need for a human in the loop and whether it was possible to have a human in the loop. We were given very firm assurances by two Home Secretaries, which I do not think convinced the committee at all.
We were also concerned about the attitude, “X must be right because the computer says so”. Have we actually moved on from that? I do not think so. On that basis —and was it my noble friend who added facial recognition into the mix?—we support the amendment.
I am deliberately going fairly fast because I do not need to add a whole lot to what has already been said. On Amendment 62, there have been a number of occasions when I have heard a rapper and realised how very clever the work was. I really admired what I heard. Then I thought back to the occasion decades ago when my father started criticising my musical taste and calling it Simon and Godawful. Tastes change; generations move on and develop. I cannot speak to the detailed content of all rap and drill, but I think we are in danger of dismissing the importance of this music to the generation that produces it.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and her eminent supporters for bringing forward these amendments, and to all noble Lords for their contributions in respect of Amendments 61 and 62. I think I can deal with Amendment 61 quite shortly. We have had powerful and compelling speeches on the amendment from its proposers. It seeks to remove a presumption that a computer and software system on which a prosecution relies is working and reliable. We all know what has prompted this: the terrible Post Office scandal.
It is absolutely plain that prosecutors must no longer be able to rely on the systems being necessarily in working order as evidence for the purpose of criminal cases. The Government have had long enough now—and officials even longer than this Government—to look at this problem. If they have not, they have been prodded with a sharp stick by these amendments, and I am confident that, prodded with that sharp stick, they will come up with a solution. They will have to do so by Report, because otherwise I think this amendment will be carried then. I need not say any more.
Amendment 62 proposes a new clause to prevent an overreliance on a person’s musical taste as probative of criminal proclivity or intent. On this side we agree that a person’s creative or artistic taste should not result in them being treated prejudicially by the judicial system. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, the noble Baronesses, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon and Lady Chakrabarti, and others in support of this amendment.
We have some reservations about this amendment as it is currently drafted. We accept the good intentions behind it. We understand the danger it is designed to meet, namely that people are treated prejudicially for their creative and artistic tastes, and it is undoubtedly the case that those from particular backgrounds are vulnerable to this and may in effect suffer, or risk suffering, mistreatment in our courts. Against that, we fear also that the amendment might create other difficulties, creating genre-specific shields for certain evidence and thereby treating some expressions differently from others—in other words, shifting the balance too far and creating another class that is not protected. While we are sympathetic to this amendment, for those reasons we cannot support it.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I get to my feet with some diffidence, given the range of eminent speakers, many of whom I have the most utmost respect for, who have spoken in favour of this group of amendments. I start with Amendment 61 in the names of my noble friends Lady Chakrabarti and Lord Beamish, my other friend, who is in fact also noble—the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot—and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. This is a powerful group, and I entirely accept what they say about the difficulties created when there is a presumption that a computer is working properly unless the defendant is able to produce evidence that it is not. That can create an enormous obstacle for defendants. It is extremely difficult to prove that something is not working in those circumstances, so I accept that. I also understand that what is sought here is to reverse that position and to take it back to the position of Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
I have already discussed this briefly with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. The difficulty I have with this amendment is that it is extremely broad, and the problem with that is that, since Section 69 was introduced, what constitutes digital material has evolved significantly. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, says that it is no answer to say that computers are everywhere, but I am afraid we have to be realistic about this. The computer evidence that is adduced in the criminal courts is, for example, the extremely complicated accounting software that is relied on by banks. That is at one extreme. But there is also the routine evidence that comes into criminal courts every single day, which can include text messages from mobile telephones, email chains, social media posts, DVLA printouts, medical records from GP surgeries and even criminal records themselves from the police national computer.
There is a real risk that if the amendment in this broad form were introduced, it could bring the criminal courts to a standstill. I know that is obviously not the intention, but I am concerned about whether there is a way of finding that we can limit it so that it excludes the routine use of computers—often things that people would not even think of as computers at all; the law recognises that a mobile phone is a computer, but most people would not think of it that way—and is limited to the cases that have caused real concern to those in your Lordships’ House, where a conviction is often based solely or mainly on the evidence of a computer. I can see a very different case to be made for that kind of evidence as well.
I entirely understand the intention behind this amendment, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Beamish and the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for the work that they have done in relation to Horizon. It is humbling to stand here and talk about the Horizon victims and survivors and what happened to them, and I would not want anyone to think that the Government are not listening in relation to this.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
I am not opposed to consultation, but, I am sorry, this Government are hiding behind consultation. Once the consultation is finished, we then need action, but that is not happening, not just in this area but in a whole host of other areas.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I do not accept that. My noble friend should think carefully about making accusations such as that.
The point is that we are looking at the evidence that we have received in order to evaluate it to ensure that we make evidence-based and informed changes. The Government are considering this matter carefully. I am not announcing another review or another consultation; I am simply saying that we are looking at the evidence that we have.
I hope that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti will hear the words that I am using. She knows that I understand the problem and that I am not unsympathetic, but we need to find a way that does not create a lot of unintended consequences.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The noble Baroness is competing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I would never compete with the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
The Government have had nine months. Normally, if you went to a competent lawyer and said, “This is the evidence. We need a solution”, you would be horrified if you had to wait nine months. Why is there not an answer? Can we have one when this comes back on Report? There is no excuse for delay.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I will answer the noble and learned Lord and then I will give way to the noble Baroness, because, as she knows, we do not permit interventions on interventions.
The answer to his question is that this is not the only thing we are doing. Your Lordships know how much legislation is passing through this House. It is a question of bandwidth and having time to do things. I am trying to assure the Committee that our intentions are good ones and that we are listening.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
The words that the Minister used, which I believe her to believe, are exactly the same words that we have heard from several other Ministers. The only words that would give succour to members of the Committee are, “We will have something on Report”. While I take her point about broad and narrow, that is not an excuse that can last for years. That consultation was not the first consultation, so we have been waiting for years.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I entirely understand the point that the noble Baroness is making, and I pay great tribute to her expertise. She can imagine just how popular I would be if I gave that undertaking from the Dispatch Box right now. All I can say is: leave it with me.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
Having been a Minister myself, I know that the Minister can do that tonight. She knows what will happen if she does not bring it forward: an amendment will be tabled, and it will get passed.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I think I have already said that I am listening carefully.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
Before the Minister moves on to Amendment 62, would she please comment on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, about the Law Society’s contribution to the consultation about a system of assurances? That may be a way forward that might allow her to bring forward her own amendment on Report.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
That is exactly what the Government are evaluating. I cannot go any further than that today, but those are all the things that are being considered. I cannot go any further than to say that I am listening.
I turn to Amendment 62, in the names of my noble friends Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Lawrence. I am very aware of these issues, particularly in relation to rap and drill. I knew about this amendment, but in the course of my practice and when I was a judge I have been to a number of lectures on the subject and read a number of articles, including some by Keir Monteith, King’s Counsel, who I see is sitting below the Bar today.
The question here, on the use of this material, is one of relevance. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, I do not want to go into a boring exegesis of when evidence is admissible and when it is not. The real concern here is to make sure that if—and it is a big if—this evidence is to be used then it has proper probative value, on the basis that it goes further than either that this defendant is a bad person because they like rap and drill music or, even worse, some spurious and crude racial stereotypes. Judges have a duty to ensure that only evidence meeting these standards is adduced and they should exclude any evidence that does not meet the required threshold—that is not a matter of discretion. However, I understand the concerns about the fact that that has not happened in all cases.
It is axiomatic to say that creative and artistic expression is of itself not a crime, and it is rare that it would feature in the evidence of a prosecution unless it inherently involved criminal activity, such as damaging another person’s property with graffiti or drawing sexual images of children. As for musical expression, the Crown Prosecution Service is clear that creating or listening to music is not a crime, but it says that, on occasion, it has encountered cases where, upon investigation into a violent offence, it became clear that drill and rap music had been used in the build-up to encourage or incite violence or to reveal information about a crime that only the attackers would know. These instances are rare and, importantly, are already subject to rigorous scrutiny under existing evidential rules. However, I am aware of the disquiet, and we understand the community concerns.
I take the point made by my noble friend Lady Lawrence. I am a lover of crime fiction but I do not think anyone is ever going to use that in a prosecution against me—well, I hope they do not. She makes a valid point.
The Crown Prosecution Service is actively consulting on this matter through a public consultation, seeking views on whether formal prosecution guidance should be issued regarding the use of musical expression evidence. We want to ensure that any future approach is clear and informed by a wide range of perspectives.
It is the Government’s view that, as currently drafted, the amendment would be unduly restrictive and would, in effect, frustrate the ability of the Crown to adduce relevant and probative evidence before the court, with the potential consequences of frustrating justice for victims in some serious cases. The Government intend to await the outcome of the CPS consultation and announce next steps in due course. I invite all noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I did not speak to Amendment 62 when I briefly got up but I did some research on it. I think it is usually the case in a particular area of law that, where you have a body of experts in particular areas of evidence, it is not uncommon for those experts to be used by both the prosecution and the defence. In doing my research on Amendment 62, I found that that is not the case. The so-called experts who are used by the prosecution are solely used by the prosecution, while the experts who are used by the defence—who would be able to talk knowledgably in the sort of detail that the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, was able to give us—are used only by the defence. That in itself tells you that there is something wrong.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I do not disagree with the noble Lord. I have already made it clear that I understand the disquiet, the concerns about it and the very real possibility for something that is in fact crude racial stereotyping to look as though it is evidence. That is why we need to await the outcome of the CPS consultation.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in what was a very important debate that did credit to the whole Committee. I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister, who is a distinguished criminal lawyer and a distinguished former member of the CPS, but, with all due respect, no one should mark their own homework. It is not for the Crown Prosecution Service to mark its own homework, nor any other lawyers even.
In relation to Amendment 62, to go in reverse order, I urge my noble friend to consider what the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and others have said about what is happening in practice—the University of Manchester study and so on—because just reading out the official statement from the CPS is hope-sapping—I know that my noble friend would not want to sap my hope in difficult times. In relation to Amendments 62 and 61, she suggested that she is listening and said it with some personal input. She is not AI. She is not a projection from the Government. She will forgive me for saying that she is one of our best advocates on these Benches and the Government are very lucky to have her. However, as I know our noble friend Lord Timpson has said, publicly and privately, many times, we are not all here for ever; we are not on this earth for ever; we are not in this Chamber for ever; we are not in positions of power and influence for ever. We must make the most of our opportunities to make change, as was promised, and make it for good. Race equality surely must be one of the foundations of any Labour Government, specifically one that has promised so much.
In relation to both amendments, I heard no proper pushback from any side of the Committee. On Amendment 61, I have to defer to the noble Lords, Lord Beamish and Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. The time is now; the vehicle is this Bill. Finally, I say gently to my noble friend that when she walks into rooms in the Ministry of Justice with officials or even Commons Ministers, I hope she realises that she is the cleverest person in the room or at least the one with the most direct experience of practising criminal law in the courts. If anyone can find a way through, I trust that that is my noble friend.
Amendment 62 could theoretically be dealt with by rules of court—but it must be dealt with—but with Amendment 61 we need an urgent legislative amendment in this Bill. My noble friend foreshadowed the possibility of a way through, partly on her concerns about sole and determinative evidence and partly responding to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. I urge her to deliver for the Committee and for the people of this country, for the past victims of miscarriages and for all those who might come. I say that as respectfully and positively as I can to my noble friend. I hope she knows how much respect I have for her, but we are looking for something on Report in respect of both Amendments 61 and 62. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
“Discontinuance of proceedings: victims' right to review(1) The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 is amended as follows.(2) In section 23A (Discontinuance of proceedings after accused has been sent for trial), subsection (2), omit “indictment is preferred” and insert “start of the trial on indictment, as defined in section 22(11A) of this Act.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the period a case can be discontinued in the Crown Court, to bring it in line with the Magistrates Court. This would mean that the CPS could discontinue a case at the Crown Court with the option to reopen it following a successful VRR, if it concludes that it made an error stopping the prosecution.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I start by addressing the Minister and saying, “No pressure”. I think this amendment is particularly pertinent to her because it talks directly about the Crown Prosecution Service and some of the things it does and does not do. She will know more, I suspect, than anybody else in the Committee about the detail of what I am about to address.
The purpose of the amendment is to enable the Crown Prosecution Service to discontinue proceedings in the Crown Court up until the trial, bringing it in line with its opportunity to do so in the magistrates’ court. Importantly, this change would mean that proceedings could be ended at a later point and still reinstated where it was determined that the prosecution was ended in error. For victims of crime, this is an important safeguard which would enable them to meaningfully exercise their right to challenge Crown Prosecution Service decision-making.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I signed Amendment 63, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I will not go into any of the detail that he has just given so comprehensively, but I did want to give your Lordships’ Committee the chance to hear two voices of victims who have found that VRR really worked for them.
In September 2021, “Daria”, an anonymous survivor, reported offences of harassment, stalking and image-based abuse to the police. The perpetrator was arrested in November 2021; however, confusion between police forces and errors in case handling resulted in delays and lapses in time limits for some offences. By December 2022, the CPS issued a decision of no further action for the most serious charges of disclosing and threatening to disclose private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress. This was despite Daria providing detailed evidence that the intent threshold was met.
Daria immediately requested a review under the victims’ right to review scheme. Over the following months, the CPS kept her updated and requested further statements, and in May 2023, a district Crown prosecutor overturned the original decision. The CPS authorised two counts of disclosing or threatening to disclose private sexual images with intent to cause distress. In December 2023, the perpetrator was convicted on both counts and sentenced in the Crown Court in March 2024. The CPS formally apologised for the distress caused by the initial wrongful decision.
Daria has said:
“Without the Right to Review, my case would have ended in silence. The CPS originally decided not to prosecute—despite everything I’d reported and the evidence I’d provided. It was only through the VRR process that my voice was finally heard, and justice was served. The man who targeted and humiliated me online was ultimately convicted. Survivors deserve this second chance. The right to review gave me mine”.
Victoria was groomed and sexually abused from the age of 14. When she reported the crime years later, the CPS initially decided on no further action, wrongly re-aging her as 16 and dismissing the evidence that she had been below the age of consent. Victoria requested a VRR. The first review upheld the decision, but she escalated it further. In 2021, after a second interview, the CPS overturned its decision and charged her abuser with seven counts of indecent assault. A further charge was added at trial. Her abuser was unanimously convicted on all eight counts and sentenced to 23 years in prison. He was also placed on the sex offenders register indefinitely. Despite this, Victoria had endured nearly six years of delays before her trial, which left her with PTSD, agoraphobia and severe anxiety. She said:
“After the CPS refused to charge my abuser, I requested a VRR. This led them to overturn that decision, and my abuser was later convicted. He would not have faced justice without the VRR process. My case highlights the need for VRRs to be permanently accessible to complainants so mistakes can be addressed”.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I can be brief. I support Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. We have already spoken about the need for consistency across our justice system. That includes extending the powers to compel offenders to attend their sentencing in the Crown Court to magistrates’ courts. This amendment would also bring the periods in which a case can be discontinued into alignment; indeed, I am interested to see what justification exists for the difference between the two. We have heard a compelling speech also from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, with a particular example. I know that one should be wary of individual examples, but it is a compelling example and we should listen to it carefully.
Apart from making the system more consistent in its procedures, this amendment would allow prosecutors in the Crown Court to discontinue a case at a late stage, preventing unnecessary, costly and time-consuming trials. In the context of a court backlog and the need for efficiency, allowing this more flexible mechanism for bringing prosecutions to an end appears to us to be a measured and sensible improvement. To be clear, Amendment 63 still allows the option to reopen a case following a successful victim’s right to review request, if it is concluded that the CPS has made an error in stopping the prosecution. This amendment would not do away with this important scheme which is available to victims. We thank the noble Lord for his efforts and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I will start with a little trip down memory lane. In either 2010 or 2011, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, when sitting in the Court of Appeal, heard a case called Killick. That was a case where prosecution had been restarted and, as part of his judgment in relation to it, the noble and learned Lord said that the Crown Prosecution Service needed to come up with a system that would allow victims to challenge a decision not to prosecute, without them having to bring judicial review proceedings. As he may remember, I was the prosecutor who remade the decision to charge in that case and, as a result, the Crown Prosecution Service—under a certain Director of Public Prosecutions, who may be known to your Lordships in another context at the moment, and I, working as his principal legal adviser—devised the victims’ right to review scheme.
I wrote much of the legal guidance, so the noble Lord, Lord Russell, is correct when he says I know quite a lot about it. I am a huge fan of the victims’ right to review scheme, because although the Crown Prosecution Service is in many ways a completely wonderful organisation, everybody is human and sometimes people get things wrong—and when we get it wrong, we want to put it right. Obviously, a right is not a right unless it has a remedy attached to it, and that is a real problem in some of these cases. The noble Lord knows, because I discussed this with him when we met, that my practice when I was dealing with reviews of cases was always that if I took the decision to offer no evidence, I would write to the victim and say, “In 14 days I am proposing to do this, unless you want to make representations to me as to why I should not, or seek judicial review proceedings”. I completely get the issue here.
The only note of caution I will sound is this. It would be a substantial change, with wide-ranging implications for both victims and defendants. For that reason, it needs to be considered carefully, because discontinuing a case is not simply putting a pause into proceedings. Restitution requires fresh proceedings, starting back in the magistrates’ court, which risks delay and uncertainty for both victims and defendants. It does not go straight back into the Crown Court as a restart. That is why robust safeguards and controls, which are not in this amendment, are essential when making these decisions.
For example, in the magistrates’ court procedure, which this amendment seeks to replicate, the defence can refuse to accept a discontinuance and insist on no evidence being offered, or insist that the Crown Prosecution Service makes a decision as to what it is going to do. We are anxious to ensure that discontinuance is not, for example, used in the Crown Court as a way of getting an adjournment that would not be got under other circumstances, as in saying: “We don’t have enough evidence here. We need another three months to get it, so we’re going to discontinue and then restart”. That could create awful uncertainty, both for victims and defendants, as to what is going on. There are, for example, cases where somebody is a youth at the time they are charged and, if the case is then discontinued, they may then be tried as an adult later on.
I am not saying that I do not understand the problem or that this may not be part of the solution, but it needs to be considered carefully. What we plan to do is to consider this proposal further in the context of the wider court reforms and Sir Brian Leveson’s most recent report, with his recommendations for improving efficiency. I also welcome the expansion of the CPS pilot, strengthening victims’ voices before final decisions to offer no evidence are made. The outcome of that pilot will also inform our thinking. For the time being, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I thank the Minister very much for her response. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for adding her name and for the examples she put forward. As I surmised, the Minister does indeed know what she is talking about—on a 24 hours a day, seven days a week basis, from what we have heard—and she is looking remarkably well on it.
I thank the Minister very much for the broadly positive way in which she has responded. I think she acknowledged, as we have all acknowledged, that there is an issue and an inconsistency here. But putting it right is not a matter of just snapping one’s fingers and changing one thing, because that has knock-on effects. I am hoping that the Minister will agree to have some follow-up discussions between now and Report, to see either what it will be possible to do by Report or what changes one can start instituting or committing to look at carefully, which can then be enacted later. But on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to jump the gun, but I have just spoken to my fellow Whips, and our plan is to try to get to target before the dinner break. I thought it would be useful to let everybody know.
Clause 13: Reviews of sentencing: time limits
Amendment 64
Lord Sandhurst
“(aa) in that sub-paragraph for “28” substitute “56”;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment increases the window for applying to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme from 28 days to 56 days.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns the terms of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which we consider has too narrow a window to effectively allow for victims to reflect upon and review the sentences given to their offenders. Amendments 64, 65 and 66 aim to increase the existing 28-day window for applying to the unduly lenient sentence scheme to one of 56 days.
Similarly, Amendment 69, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to allow the 28-day time limit to be extended in exceptional circumstances. We thank the noble Baroness for this amendment. We on these Benches are very receptive to the idea of including an “exceptional circumstances” clause in the unduly lenient sentence framework. It is a safeguard that recognises that victims may, for one reason or another, not always be able to act within the current timeframe. Currently, there exists an asymmetry between offenders and victims. Offenders might be able to seek extensions or have certain deadlines adjusted, whereas victims are rigidly bound by the 28-day window. This amendment helps to address that imbalance.
The process of applying for review of a sentence is not one that can always be readily undertaken within four weeks. It requires a knowledge of the law that often requires the instruction and subsequent direction of a lawyer, which in and of itself is a process that can often take up to, if not beyond, the 28-day window that victims are given in which to appeal. Crucial to this process is the availability of the sentencing remarks, a problem which we have partially solved in the Sentencing Act by requiring their release within 14 days, but that occupies, none the less, half the time the Government currently offer to appeal a lenient sentence.
Perhaps the most effective case for change is a human one. Victims must face and relive the most traumatic events of their lives in court. They have to re-encounter their offender in some cases—not due to the current drafting of Clause 1, I accept—and in the cases we are concerned with, they have to deal with what they believe to be an unjust sentence.
An increase to 56 days is not a drastic one; it simply increases the window to two months, and it allows slightly more time for the process to be completed. We on these Benches are also open to the idea of a longer window to apply specifically for victims and, where they are murdered in cases of extremely serious crime, their next of kin. That may be for another day.
I turn to Amendment 72, which seeks to place a clear statutory duty on the Crown Prosecution Service to notify victims or, in the case of a deceased victim, their next of kin, of their right to request a review under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. At present, whether a victim is informed of the scheme can depend upon practice rather than principle. In some cases, of course, victims are advised promptly and clearly. In others, awareness depends rather upon chance, whether it is mentioned to them by their legal advocate or at some other time during the court process, or whether they independently discover its existence. That is not a satisfactory basis on which to safeguard a right of such importance, and particularly one that is time limited within a strict statutory window.
A right that expires after 28 days, or indeed 56 if our earlier amendments are accepted, is meaningful only if the person entitled to exercise it is made aware of it in good time, and before time starts to run. Without notification, the right is illusory at best. Amendment 72 therefore proposes a straightforward and practical safeguard; namely, the CPS must write to the victim, or their next of kin, within 10 working days of a sentence being delivered, informing them of their ability to seek a review. This is not burdensome. The CPS is already engaged with victims throughout the prosecution process. Contact details are held; communication channels should exist. This amendment simply makes notification consistent and mandatory. Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has the same aim as our amendment, albeit with a marginally different mechanism. I hope that we can work together to achieve this reform.
If we are to maintain a short and strict time limit for challenging unduly lenient sentences, the least that we can do is to ensure that victims are properly informed of that right. Without such a duty, access to the scheme may depend less on justice and more on happenstance. We trust our judges, but we know that even they are not infallible. Some will be more sparing with their sentences; some will be more certain in their own judgment and not feel the need to alert victims to the scheme. Others will simply forget on occasions. This should not be the case. The Government are very well equipped to create a system in which a letter is sent out, within 10 days, alerting victims of their right to apply for a review of the sentencing. They do it endlessly in other departments; it should be a seamlessly transferable process. All are equal before the law. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, my two amendments in this group, Amendments 69 and 75, also make proposals for unduly lenient sentences, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has mentioned. From these Benches, we have been keen to improve the access that victims have to challenge what they believe is an unduly lenient sentence. I had amendments to try to achieve this in the Victims and Prisoners Bill in 2023-24.
It is worth pausing to review what has happened since 1988, when the ULS scheme started and victims were given the right to ask the Attorney-General to reconsider the sentence of their offender. One of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, concerns guaranteeing that victims are informed. Currently, the victims’ code places responsibility for informing victims about the ULS scheme on witness care units. For bereaved families entitled to the Crown Prosecution Service bereaved families scheme, the CPS should where possible, through the prosecutor and the trial advocate, meet the family at court following sentencing—if they attend the hearing—and inform them about the ULS scheme where appropriate. However, evidence from victims and bereaved families shows that this often does not happen, with many learning about the scheme only when it is too late to apply. By contrast, the offender and their legal representatives are present at sentencing and able to start planning any appeal against the sentence. In extenuating circumstances, the offender can also be given more than 28 days to launch their appeal. The offender also has post-sentence meetings with their legal representatives. It was clear then, and it remains so now, that the offender had and has more rights and support than the victim. This is not a level playing field.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I rise with a degree of caution. I entirely understand the motives behind the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, and that moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Shall we begin by trying to remember what an unduly lenient sentence is? It is one that falls outside the range of sentences that a judge, taking into consideration all the relevant factors and having regard to the sentencing guidance, could reasonably consider appropriate. In other words, the sentence must be not just lenient, but unduly lenient. One of the things the Court of Appeal must consider when it is looking at an application to review a sentence is that the offender has been put through the sentencing process, or will be put through the sentencing process, for a second time, and that it will not intervene unless the sentence is significantly below the one the judge should have passed.
Law officers often receive applications—I say this with some experience, as I was a law officer from 2010 to 2012, and in England and Wales it is the law officers who have the ability to make these applications to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division—on the basis that the person complaining about the sentence just thinks it is not adequately severe, but that is not the test. One therefore needs to not encourage an expectation—this is what may follow from the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton—that, by getting a government department or the Crown Prosecution Service to write to a disappointed victim or family member, it must follow that the CPS, or whichever government department is required to do this, agrees, or that it will lead to a successful appeal before the Court of Appeal.
I remember that all sorts of people used to read newspaper articles about a particular sentence that often bore very little resemblance to the sentencing remarks or the details of the case. Sometimes, in some newspapers, you would get an editorial saying that it was a disgrace that this lenient judge has done this, that or the other, and that something must be done, and all sorts of people would then write to the law officer’s department demanding that something be done. Very often the sentence was passed in relation to an offence that did not come under the scheme, or, if it did, on proper examination it did not fall within the ambit of what the Court of Appeal was likely to disturb. So I suspect that all sorts of expectations could be built into the public mind, which could lead only to disappointment.
Secondly, there is something to be said about finality. Although one does not always have any sympathy for a criminal defendant, they are entitled to justice and finality. Having sentenced people, I assure noble Lords that sentencing can be difficult, certainly for a judge who is dealing with, shall we say—I do not mean this in a silly way—the less serious types of criminal offence that none the less come within this scheme. I always found sentencing to be the most difficult part of the judicial function. This is a generalisation, but if you are a High Court judge dealing with criminal cases, the chances are that you will probably have to decide the tariff only on life sentences. But if you are sitting in the Crown Court as a recorder or circuit judge, you may very well have to deal with all sorts of quite complicated considerations when working out the just sentence for a particular defendant based on the facts of a particular offence. It is not always easy.
In my experience of having to seek the advice of the Treasury counsel and making up my own mind about whether an application should go to the Court of Appeal, I found that, by and large, the overwhelming majority of judges passed a just and correct sentence—when I say “correct”, it is not a binary exercise—that was entirely defensible and not the sort of thing that the Court of Appeal would have disturbed. To encourage people to make applications would be a mistake when it is going to lead only to disappointment.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
The amendment would not encourage the CPS, or whatever the notifying body is, to encourage the victim to appeal; it would merely be notifying them of the right. Does the noble and learned Lord accept that?
Lord Garnier (Con)
I can see what the printed words say, but if the Crown Prosecution Service was to write to the victim saying, “Do you realise that you can apply to the law officers to have this sentence reviewed by the Court of Appeal?”, it would give an imprimatur and an indication. That is the implication, and we should resist it.
I do not want to go on too long. Anybody can write to the law officers to say, “Will you review this sentence?” It does have to be a victim, or the family or next of kin of a deceased victim. There are plenty of avenues available to the public and to victims if they wish to explore this. To come back to my first point, we need to exercise a degree of caution before opening the floodgates to lots of disappointment.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to which I have added my name. I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord has said, but this is not an attempt to encourage lots of challenges to unduly lenient sentences. It is, above all, an attempt to achieve a degree of parity between the way offenders and defendants are treated.
The intent of the amendment it to suggest that a government department nominated by the Secretary of State should do the informing. It would need to be a body that was viewed as genuinely neutral, but it would be perfectly possible to inform the victim of their right and make quite clear the orbit within which an appeal against an unduly lenient sentence is likely to be successful and the parameters beyond which it would be highly unlikely to be considered, so as to make very clear to the victim, from the very beginning, the possibility of their having a case that might be over the threshold as opposed to being clearly below the threshold. It is entirely possible to imagine that one could create that.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, when I say that I will be brief, I will be very brief. I have listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. He is quite right in his observations, and particularly about the ultimate test of whether a sentence is set aside because it is unduly lenient. However, I think the answers have already been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell: this is a notification. The CPS is not taking a position on the merits of making the application; it is just setting up a timetable.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I will deal first with the existing time limit. We are listening—I am making a “we are listening” speech—not just to the strength of views in this Committee and in the other place on the time limit for the unduly lenient sentencing scheme but to the victims themselves. We are consistently hearing that this time limit is simply not long enough when victims are processing the outcome of the case, and I am extremely sympathetic to their representations. A ticking clock is the last thing that they need at a difficult time. The Government have been persuaded by arguments that something needs to be done, but we want to make sure that we get this right. Currently, we have been given a number of conflicting views on the best way to go about this. I would like to meet all noble Lords who have tabled amendments, and indeed any other interested Members of your Lordships’ House, to discuss the best way forward.
Turning to the question of notification, it goes without saying how important it is that victims are made aware of the ULS scheme. It is another subject that comes up over and again; it is not much of a right if you do not know that you have it. I am afraid that I am not persuaded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, saying that we should not tell people that they have this right in case they want to use it—if that is not what he meant to say, I apologise and withdraw the remark. The way it is supposed to work is this. Under the victims’ code, police-run witness care units are required to inform victims about the unduly lenient sentencing scheme within five working days. However, we are hearing that this is not happening, so we need to ensure that it does. The question is how best to go about it.
At present, I am not persuaded that putting the obligation into primary legislation is the best way. The first reason is that, usually, if you create an obligation, you have to create a penalty for the breach. The second is that if you want to change it, you have to amend primary legislation in order to do so. The victims’ code is a statutory code of practice. Last week, we launched a consultation to ensure that we get it right and that the code is fit for purpose. Again, we would welcome your Lordships’ engagement with that consultation before it closes on 30 April, and any other ideas before we reach our final conclusion. For now, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I am delighted that the Minister is in listening mode—I might win one at last.
Dealing with my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier’s points, I think the point is simply this: we certainly do not want to encourage victims down the road of hopeless applications which actually make things worse for them and make them more disappointed. Extending the time limit of itself does not do that; that is simply extending the time limit. Informing them properly does not do that, and the CPS could, I am quite sure, design a standard form letter which states the time limit for doing this but that the parameters —it would not use that word, obviously, but plain English —for an application are limited, so people should not raise their hopes. That would be the way forward.
I would be very happy to meet the Minister after the recess to discuss this. There is merit in the idea of guidance or guidelines—that seems attractive. We seem to be moving in the right direction, so that there might be an extension of time to 56 days and that the 28-day time limit on any basis might be extended where exceptional circumstances arise, and that on any basis there should be some mandatory obligation on the Crown Prosecution Service to notify victims of their right, and I hope that that would include next of kin in appropriate cases. I think that addresses everything. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Sater
“Dealing with offenders for crimes committed as childrenWhere a court is dealing with an offender for a crime committed before the age of 18 but at the time of the first court appearance the offender is older than 17 but younger than 21, the offender must be dealt with by a youth court and sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines which apply in a youth court.”
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 68 is in my name and those of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and my friend the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and I thank them for their ongoing support.
This amendment revisits an issue I previously raised during the passage of the Sentencing Bill. I return to it because I feel so strongly that this anomaly in our criminal justice system is one that must be resolved and merits further and careful consideration by this Committee. It concerns children who commit offences while under the age of 18 but who, through delay in proceedings entirely outside their control, are first brought before the court only after their 18th birthday. Under the current system, they will be sentenced as adults, losing access to youth-specific disposals, including referral orders, youth rehabilitation orders and the support of youth justice services, even though their offending behaviour occurred during childhood.
As I previously said, this can only be described as a postcode lottery in sentencing outcomes. If two young people commit the exact same offence at the exact same age in similar circumstances, and one happens to live in an area where their case reaches court before their 18th birthday and the other does not, the first will get all the support from the youth court process, while the second defendant, not because of the seriousness of the offence or their maturity, will end up in the adult court. The consequences of not being part of the youth justice process and the subsequent treatment of criminal record disclosures can affect a young person well into adulthood, including their future employment prospects. The Bill provides an opportunity to look at this issue, correct an unfair anomaly and ensure consistency in sentencing.
As I have said previously, the youth justice system exists for a reason. Those of us who have worked in youth justice know how the youth court has specifically trained magistrates who emphasise welfare, education and rehabilitation and can turn young lives around and reduce reoffending. Without this support, their future could be bleak. In the passage of the Sentencing Bill, my friend the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier spoke in support of addressing this anomaly, and I am grateful once again for their support today. I was encouraged by the support of the Minister. While he stated that youth sentencing lay largely outside the scope of the Sentencing Bill, he made it clear that the Government had a great deal of sympathy with the issue. He also indicated that there may be merit in looking at this issue further, while understandably pointing to the need to consider the wider implications across the justice system. I took that as a constructive response. It is in the same spirit that I bring the matter back today.
This amendment simply seeks to ensure that, where offending behaviour took place during childhood, it is assessed and addressed through the correct lens—one that reflects age, maturity and culpability at the time of the offence, rather than being determined by administrative delay entirely outside an offender’s control. I return to this issue today because I feel so strongly that we must address this clear anomaly. I hope that the Government will be willing to take a second look at this and consider how it might be resolved. I beg to move.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to be able to support my noble friend Lady Sater’s amendment. I have heard her express these views before, I heard her express them just now, and there is nothing more to be said. I urge this Committee to get on and agree with her.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Sater, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for tabling Amendment 68. We agree with the principle that children who commit crimes should thus be charged as children, even if by the time of their court appearance they are above the age of 18. What matters is the mental state of the offender at the time the offence was committed, not the lottery of when he or she comes to court. The amendment seeks to ensure that there is no loophole preventing this being the case, and we therefore hope that the Government will agree with that aim.
Amendment 70 in my name concerns the collection and publication of data relating to offenders’ immigration history and status. This is a sensitive issue. Illegal immigration has long been a core political issue for voters and has become even more salient in recent years. There continues to be widespread misinformation and unfounded assertions, both in person and online. That is because empirical evidence concerning immigration has not always been readily available. People perceive changes occurring as a result of policy, but often operate under the assumption that the Government are shielding themselves from transparency. That is not the case, of course, but it must be dealt with.
Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than with crime rates. The public feel less safe, they see the demographic change and they link the two. This is problematic. It can lead to misguided opinions about certain parts of society. There is no available data to inform opinions of what the true position is. Non-governmental studies and disjointed data releases have repeatedly justified this connection, but the lack of clarification from the Government still leaves room for the general public to be decried as fearmongering or bigoted. It is not just policy: people deserve to know the impact that government policies are having on their everyday lives, especially when they can have immediate impacts on their safety.
We say that there is a clear case to publish crime data by immigration status. Accurate and comprehensive data allows for informed debate and evidence-based policy. At present the information is scarce, it is fragmented and it leaves the public, and indeed policymakers, reliant on conjecture. If transparency and open justice are priorities, to release offender data by foreign national status and immigration history would provide clarity, support public confidence and allow all sides to address the facts without speculation.
The Minister will be aware of the time we have previously spent on the topics in Amendments 71 and 74. Amendment 71 would exempt sex offenders and domestic abusers from being eligible for early release at the one-third point of their sentence, while Amendment 74 would reaffirm the Government’s policy of favouring suspended sentences but once again seeks to exclude sexual offences and domestic abuse from the presumption. Custodial sentences should of course by judged by the extent to which they deter reoffending. We accept the Government’s belief that short custodial sentences often do not serve this end, but reoffending cannot be the sole metric by which the nature of a punishment is decided. The prison system at least prevents individuals from offending while they are incarcerated.
For sexual offences and domestic abuse, these considerations are not abstract, certainly for the victims. Victims’ lives, safety, sense of security, the opportunity to reorganise their lives and perhaps move or otherwise change their way of living, are directly affected by whether an offender is at liberty or in custody. In 2019, the first year for which comparable data is available, there were 214,000 arrests for domestic abuse and 60,000 convictions, a conviction proportion of 28%. In 2025—six years later and under this Government—there were 360,000 arrests for domestic abuse but only 41,000 convictions, a drop from 60,000 and a conviction rate of just 11%. Something must be done.
The Government have highlighted the scale and seriousness of sexual offences and domestic abuse. They have described violence against women and girls as a “national emergency”. They have committed to strategies including specialist investigative teams and enhanced training for officers, and demonstrated recognition that these crimes demand careful handling. It would be inconsistent to promote such measures while making it easier for offenders of these crimes to avoid immediate custody.
This principle also extends to early release. It becomes a moral question rather than a purely empirical one when an offender has drastically altered the life of a victim by means of their crime. I do not think it reflects who we are as a society if we say that those who commit as invasive and exploitative a crime as sexual assault or domestic abuse should not serve the full extent of their sentences.
I end by saying I hope the Liberal Democrats will support these amendments. They have made it a point of principle, as have we, that victims of domestic violence deserve targeted measures to prevent them suffering further harm. Their justice spokesman in the other place, Josh Barbarinde, tabled a Bill last year to prevent domestic abusers from being released early under the Government’s SDS40 scheme. They now have a chance to put their principle into practice, as Amendment 71 would have exactly the same effect. I hope they will be able to offer their support.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I start with Amendment 68 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sater. She spoke passionately about this issue during the passage of the Sentencing Act and I pay tribute to her wealth of experience on this topic. As a former youth magistrate and a member of the Youth Justice Board, I have a lot of sympathy for the issues raised.
However, this amendment would radically change the youth justice landscape. As the noble Baroness knows, sentencing guidelines already make it clear that, when an individual is dealt with as an adult for crimes that were committed when they were a youth, they are to be sentenced as though they were being sentenced at the time that they committed the offence and not when they appear before the court. They also state that the courts have got to consider not only the chronological age of the offenders but their maturity and other relevant factors that remind the court they are not just mini-adults and need to be treated differently. Our position is that we remain concerned about the operational and legal complexity associated with a proposal like this. We are worried that we may not be able to achieve this during the passage of the Bill. However, I would like to speak to the noble Baroness, if she is willing to meet with me, and let us see what we can do.
Amendment 70, in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, aims to place statutory duties on the Crown Court, HMCTS and the Secretary of State in relation to collecting and publishing data on sentencing. This Government remain committed to developing the data we publish on foreign national offenders. The Ministry of Justice has already taken action to increase transparency on the data published and, notably, in July, for the first time the offender management statistics included a breakdown of foreign national offenders in prison by sex and offence group.
Baroness Sater (Con)
I thank the Minister for her very positive response. I welcome and appreciate her offer to meet. I know it is difficult and complex, but I appreciate the further conversation with her. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Local Power Plan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, although I have no outside interests which impact directly on solar farms and onshore wind, I declare my interest in having worked in the wider field of energy transition since my time as Minister for Energy.
I start by reflecting that we all want clean energy, we all want full engagement with local communities, and we all want to work towards an energy policy based on energy security, sourced from trusted supply chains and, above all, delivering affordable energy. This announcement should be tested against these criteria, for we support community energy enthusiasm where it makes economic sense. Does the Minister agree that reducing energy bills comes only by increasing reliable generation and decreasing costs, yet the local power plan does not come with a generation target nor an analysis of the extent to which it will contribute to reducing bills? If these are not central factors within the policy, I am afraid that it will for sure be time and money misspent.
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, it seems to exclude wider system costs, and it does not give a full picture of future bill levels. Does it include the load in grid costs to get the power to market, given that many of the wind projects being considered are in Scotland? How does the plan impact on Labour’s promises to cut energy bills by £300, not least given that they have risen by £190 since Labour came to power? How does this initiative change that?
I had a good look at the map of all the proposed projects in the CfD allocation round 7a. There were only two small wind projects in England, some in south Wales, and the vast majority of the other wind projects were in Scotland. Given that there were only two wind projects in England, can the Minister comment on whether this will lead to further increases in the already staggering bill for curtailment—paying wind farms not to produce—because of the grid constraint from Scotland to the south, the B6 boundary, and the cost of debottlenecking that, which is estimated to be north of £50 billion?
Can the Minister comment on whether this initiative is good for employment? There has been real concern recently, which the Minister will be aware of. The OEUK talked a lot about his policies and the redundancies in the offshore sector, and fears that the industrial contagion will spread to onshore supply chain and manufacturing communities. To put this in context, on average, 1,000 direct and indirect jobs are being lost each month from the oil and gas sector. Without intervention, this rate of job losses will continue to 2030. RenewableUK has said that these initiatives being proposed for renewables may create 4,000 more jobs from now to 2030, as against the 50,000 losses of jobs in oil and gas. How does that help employment in the UK? The GMB union’s Scotland secretary, Louise Gilmour, gave the same warning:
“There is a human cost to these decisions that goes beyond the bottom line of this year’s budget and impacts workers, families and communities in Scotland and across Britain. The economic case for easing the financial pressures on our offshore industries is clear and compelling but so too is the moral argument for slowing the rushed and needless abandonment of workers and their communities”.
Does the Minister agree?
I turn to an exceptionally important point. This announcement is principally about solar energy, and solar imports come from China. The Minister of State, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, stated in a debate initiated in this House recently that
“human rights are a non-negotiable part of this Government’s approach to China”.—[Official Report, 2/2/26; col. 1301.]
This is an initiative to import Chinese goods. Well over 80% of PV modules used in the UK have significant Chinese content, and the true figure is very likely to be above 90% when you include panels made by Chinese-headquartered manufacturers—for example, Jinko, Trina, LONGi, JA Solar and Canadian Solar, all of which are Chinese in origin—and the non-Chinese brands whose wafers, cells or polysilicon is sourced from China. Some 80% to 85% of the global polysilicon that is needed comes from China, and the UK imports almost all its PV hardware. Installers and trade bodies routinely report that Chinese supply chains dominate the UK market because of price and scale. In the map for AR7, we are talking about a widespread, historic, major increase in solar imports from China. This local power plan depends on Chinese goods.
I simply ask the Minister whether he can tonight guarantee that no imported polysilicon, no panels being installed in our schools at the moment under GBE’s first initiative, and no solar content on any of the panels that is foreseen by this particular measure will come from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. A very large share of the world’s solar grade polysilicon has recently come from China, and a significant part of that comes from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
It is a simple question and I hope the Minister can answer it by saying that there is absolutely no polysilicon that comes from that autonomous region. If he cannot answer it, it would have been wise and sensible to consider that question first. When comfortable that the Government could answer it in the affirmative, he could then come to the Palace of Westminster and bring forward this initiative for a historic increase in the import of solar panels.
In conclusion, can the Minister also say in this context why the Secretary of State, who is fast becoming a night manager, went to China a year ago, signed an MoU and locked it in his safe, marked “secret”, to be hidden from the public and not to be scrutinised? Why did the Government not publish it? They have published all the other MoUs that the Secretary of State has signed but not the one he negotiated with China a year ago. Why is it secret? Is there a reference to solar supplies from Xinjiang? Is there no reference to human rights? The Prime Minister has recently called for open government and honesty with the public. Surely, by locking it away out of sight, this is doing exactly the opposite; above all, to the local communities which are going to benefit from these solar initiatives. What is there to hide?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we very much welcome the publication of the local power plan. This is a landmark moment: up to £1 billion of funding from Great British Energy for local community energy. This is the largest public investment to date. Our communities stand ready to generate their own power, cut bills and keep wealth circulating locally. They have been waiting for the Government to back them with serious funding and a level playing field.
We, and many others across the House, campaigned to secure community energy on the face of the Great British Energy Act 2025. We are pleased to see that commitment transformed into this concrete plan. Our communities should rightly be able to partner in, and directly benefit from, the renewable revolution. The vision is one we support.
Great British Energy aims to support an initial 1,000 local and community projects by 2030. However, I would like to see these plans going beyond programmes that the private sector can deliver itself; for example, a programme of community wind energy for our coastal communities. I would also like to see a broader range of technologies used, and greater integration with the warm homes plan. The four pillars—direct funding, expert advice, market innovation, and regulatory reform—are what community groups have asked for.
Delivery is where this plan will stand or fall. Although the plan is launched this month, the first grant schemes will not open until the spring and the new Great British Energy local products will not be piloted until the summer. There are hundreds of shovel-ready projects just waiting for capital finance. Will the Minister commit to an early fast track for schemes that can demonstrate that they are ready to build this year?
We welcome the commitment of up to £1 billion, but there is a clear gap between this figure and the £3.3 billion previously promised for community energy. Has this ambition been scaled back? How much of this fund is expected to go to actual deployment and how much on facilitation, advice and central programme costs? We recognise the importance of help with these processes but want reassurance that this will not become a scheme where too much is swallowed by planning and too little reaches the projects themselves.
The Government acknowledge that a lack of fair routes to market has held back community energy for too long. Without a genuine right to local supply, underpinned by statute, community groups will remain disadvantaged. The local power plan refers to developing new local energy supply models and a local energy platform, including smart community energy and virtual PPAs. When will the Government bring forward the regulatory changes needed to make them a reality? Can the Minister also confirm that legislation to create a clear right to local supply remains part of the Government’s programme?
The Government are right to recognise that delays and the cost of connections to the grid are among the principal reasons why community schemes have failed. The plan speaks of obligatory response times from DNOs, and of working groups with network companies, but what concrete powers will Ministers use to ensure that these things happen in practice? This matters especially when the technical and regulatory thresholds are already stacked against smaller schemes.
We strongly welcome the intention to introduce a mandatory shared ownership offer for larger renewable developments, and the indication that shared ownership templates and guidance with be published this spring. This could enable fairness into the next generation of large-scale infrastructure. What minimum stake will communities be guaranteed? How will the Government ensure that the offer is genuinely attractive rather than nominal? When will the Government publish the full community benefits framework, so that communities are not left at the mercy of voluntary schemes and of whatever crumbs are left over from the big companies? Will the framework include clear criteria on what counts as meaningful benefit, and will it be underpinned by statutory guidance?
One of the most promising elements of the plan is the commitment to build up local community capacity through expert teams and a “community energy in a box” toolkit, providing standardised documents and advice. Our most underserved areas have previously had the least spare capacity. Communities facing high deprivation, or with small and overstretched councils, lack the volunteers and technical skills needed even to begin. What criteria will Great British Energy use to define these underserved areas? Will they benefit from higher grant-to-loan ratios and more proactive outreach so that they do not miss out?
In the June 2025 spending review, £2.5 billion was allocated for small modular reactors—almost a third of Great British Energy’s existing budget of £8.3 billion. That decision pre-dated the finalisation of the local power plan and of GB Energy’s strategic plan for local energy. Does the Minister accept that the Treasury’s raiding of the Great British Energy budget has constrained what could otherwise have been a more ambitious and better-resourced programme for local power? It may have delayed the scaling up of exactly the projects the Minister is now bringing forward.
The local power plan has the potential to be transformative. Local, community-owned energy is one of the most powerful ways to cut bills, rebuild trust and take people with us on the journey to net zero. To realise this promise, we must move swiftly from plan to practice, getting money out of the door quickly, cutting through grid and regulatory barriers, and ensuring that every community has a fair chance to generate, own and—crucially—sell its own energy locally.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords for their thorough and constructive response to this Statement on the local energy plan, and for their general support, particularly for the local power plan itself. I particularly thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his forensic analysis of the detail of the report and for the various questions he asked, over and above what I took to be his very strong support for what the local power plan is trying to do: substantially to enhance the ability of communities to own and run their own energy arrangements and to distribute the benefit of those arrangements back to the local communities themselves. I know the noble Earl has been looking into and opining on this issue for a very long time, and I too have something of a track record in it.
I understand, therefore, why it is necessary to get the detail of this right. I hope that this evening I will be able to say one or two things about how that detail is going to be got right, but if there are things that I have missed, I will certainly be happy to write to the noble Earl, putting some of those things exactly into the place they should be. But I think I can give him an assurance that we have thought about most of the things that he has raised this evening.
Indeed, we see those things as an essential part of the move forward with the local power plan, so that communities can, for example, start to trade in local energy, have security and resilience in their local plans and benefit from a substantial hand-holding operation that is designed into Great British Energy’s approach to the 1,000 projects that it is hoped we will be able to get under way in this Parliament. We hope that those will be as robust as they can be with the sort of support that Great British Energy will give them—not just by throwing a little bit of money for a local community project and hoping it works, but actually being with those local communities right down the line, from development and first thought to the “valley of death”, where it gets to operation. I hope that the noble Earl can take some assurance from the fact that we have thought out the whole process, not just the first part of it.
As far as the ambition of the local power plan is concerned, the £1 billion is based on what we think can be reasonably accommodated, invested in and sorted out, and that is the 1,000 projects in this Parliament. That is not the end of the matter; there is potentially a lot more to come. Even within that £1 billion, there are other sources, from the National Wealth Fund and various other things, that can come into play to add resource to the investment. So the idea that a large part of what was supposed to be the original investment has been lost, I am afraid, is not correct; it is more about how we get through the process of this over the period of time, making it work constructively as we go forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for the Opposition, concentrated much more on the other part of the Statement, which concerned the results of the second part of AR7, which was the solar, tidal and onshore wind pots that came within AR7. He was, I think, generally supportive of the results of AR7. In AR7, we have secured a fantastic step forward in terms of the deployment of solar, a very substantial and encouraging initial deployment of tidal stream and the beginnings of the establishment, or re-establishment, of onshore wind, which, as the noble Lord will recall, was banned, in effect, by the previous Administration. So it is perhaps not surprising that we are building onshore wind back up again in this round, when it had been dormant for a long time previously. Overall, these are really good results, which, by the way, will in their own right lead to the development of a very large number of additional jobs in this sector. Indeed, overall, it is thought that the programmes that are under way will lead to perhaps 10,000 direct and indirect jobs over the next period.
In addition to that, the Government are quite earnestly engaged in what we might call a just transition process, which the noble Lord will know is under way, of making sure that those people who are working in the high-carbon industries, which will largely be replaced by these low-carbon industries, are able to transfer their skills and their contribution to the development of the low-carbon industry. Indeed, there are active retraining and reskilling programs under way. Examination of the skills in the high-carbon and low-carbon sectors show that something like 70% to 80% of jobs in the high-carbon sector are certainly transferable to the low-carbon sector, provided the skills are in the right place. It is not just a question of creating lots of new jobs. It is a question of making sure that as many of the jobs in the high-carbon sector—which, yes, will go as gas, for example, retreats in front of the new low-carbon regime—that can be translated to the low-carbon sector are indeed supported to do so over the period.
The noble Lord was also at pains to talk about how supply chains can avoid becoming involved in slave labour and abuses of human rights in the production of those supply chains. He was quite right to mention that, and it is something that we are obviously very concerned about on this side, as the supply chains for low-carbon power establish themselves. Certainly at the moment, the world supply of solar panels rests substantially with China. Of course, there are a large number of initiatives around the world to diversify that supply chain from China to other solar panel manufacturers, such as solar panel developments within the UK. That is the first point.
The second point is that GB Energy has established an ethical supply chain unit to support robust human rights due diligence and transparency in line with the UK’s legislation on modern slavery and the international human rights framework, including the UN guiding principles on human rights. GB Energy will be exploring alternatives to diversify high-risk supply chains and collaborate with partners to improve renewable supply chain transparency and accountability in the UK. Work is at hand to make sure that we are as robust as we can be in terms of those concerns about modern slavery and exploitation of human labour. The noble Lord will be aware that it is often very difficult to trace supply chains accurately as to exactly where they are coming from and going through, but I hope he will agree that we are doing and will do as much as we can to ensure, within that difficulty, that there is proof against those concerns about modern slavery and other practices.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, this is a most welcome initiative. Energy poverty and security of supply have been a real concern for years for people in many parts of our country. I have three short points that I would like my noble friend the Minister to address. Does this mean that the consumer will get improved energy security and resilience? Will it save them money on their energy bills once the scheme is up and running? How does the local power plan balance affordability, reliability and decarbonisation under the worst-case scenarios, and what trade-offs are we prepared to make if there is a conflict in our goals?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady Gill for her carefully thought-out contribution. These are questions that we need to make sure we have got right as far as a local power plan is concerned.
The first thing I can say is, yes, the local power plan will start saving people substantial amounts of money on their bills. That will not necessarily be absolutely everybody under all circumstances, but certainly, provided that the local power plan is carried out properly, there will be lots of opportunities for the return on the investment that has been put into local communities through those schemes to come back in some instances directly off people’s energy bills.
As I mentioned in response to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, one of the things that we are doing is making sure that we have all the back-up material for the local power plan, which would give effect, for example, to people’s ability to trade locally, although that may require legislation. But that will mean, in conjunction with code changes, for example, there will be an ability of local power projects to deliver direct benefits, not just in the traditional way of the developer giving a little bit of money to the local community to help the village hall or whatever. This is about real changes not just in people’s energy relationship; the fact that they own the energy themselves and can get direct benefit from it will, I think, quite transform the local scene.
By the way, because that is all local and if it can be integrated with local power systems generally, it will add quite considerably to the resilience of the country’s energy supplies. It is all based in the UK, it goes around in the UK, the benefit comes out in the UK and it is a considerable addition to the energy security of our country. I hope that my noble friend can take some assurance that we have thought about all these issues and are determined to make sure that they are firmly a part of the local power plan as it rolls out.