House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
Last week I visited Kyiv to mark the fourth anniversary of Putin’s brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. As well as meeting President Zelensky and his Ministers, I spoke to civilians, who have been targeted throughout the war, and I told them that Britain continues to stand in solidarity with Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting for its freedom and its future, and threats to its security are also threats to the security of Europe and the UK. That is why we stand with Ukraine.
Joe Robertson
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. As we mark the fourth anniversary of the illegal invasion of Ukraine, we salute the fortitude and bravery of the Ukrainian people. As we see conflicts open up elsewhere in the world, particularly the current situation in the middle east, how do we ensure that Ukraine continues to receive all the support it needs to determine its own future, and that the future of the Ukrainian people does not slip down the agenda, leading to another frozen conflict?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is exactly right to raise the importance of continuing our focus on Ukraine. This is about our security, as well as Ukraine’s security. That is why last week I announced additional support for Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and additional sanctions to keep the pressure on Russia, particularly on its oil and gas system and its shadow fleet. That is why we are also continuing to provide Ukraine with significant military support. We will stand with Ukraine today, tomorrow and for as long as it takes.
Rachel Gilmour
I would like to declare that I returned from Ukraine last week—I was part of a cross-party delegation—and my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests will be updated to reflect that.
The newspapers and the television are this week full of pictures of people hunkering in bunkers in the middle east, but it is worth remembering that the people of Ukraine have been doing that for the past four years. The Foreign Secretary will of course be aware of the close relationship between Moscow and Tehran. Russia continues to deploy Iranian-manufactured Shahed drones to terrorise Ukraine’s population. With the crisis in the middle east intensifying, will she set out how the Government now assess the implications of these recent developments for Russia’s war in Ukraine?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is right to point out that Iran has been a key enabler of Russia’s war in Ukraine by providing thousands of the Shahed-type drones used to inflict terror on the Ukrainian people, which are now being used to launch indiscriminate attacks across the middle east and the Gulf. That is why we are working with Ukrainian expertise to provide support for partners in the Gulf. We also recognise the importance of continuing to provide that support and working to develop that expertise with Ukraine. The Ukrainian people have shown remarkable resilience, and they have been underestimated for too long.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Like the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), I would like to note that my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests will be updated to reflect the support of the UK Friends of Ukraine for our visit last week.
It was very good to see the Foreign Secretary in Kyiv last Tuesday for the very sad commemoration of the fourth year of the full-scale invasion. As the Ukrainian people have reminded us time and again, it is not just about territory; it is about their very identity. On our visit, we heard about the appalling inhumane treatment of Ukrainians who have been taken as prisoners of war by Putin. There have been constant violations of the Geneva conventions, including reports of torture and near starvation. What talks has the Foreign Secretary had and what more can she do to raise this issue in international circles and put pressure on the Russian regime to treat prisoners more humanely?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. The fact that there was such a strong cross-party delegation to Ukraine for the fourth anniversary of the invasion showed the cross-party commitment to supporting Ukraine. Like her, I met those who had the most horrendous stories of having been held and detained during the war by Russian troops, and of having been tortured. We are providing support for survivors and to secure evidence that could be used in future prosecutions, because we must hold the perpetrators to account.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary mentioned the importance of Russian oil and gas and the need to disrupt the activities of the shadow fleet. Will she confirm that she is working with allies to ensure that as much as possible is being done to stop people using Russian oil and gas, because of how important it is to reduce the cash flows that are behind Russia’s war effort?
Yvette Cooper
I confirm that we are doing exactly that. We have raised that in discussions with colleagues and partners right around the world, because we know that Russia has continued to use oil and gas to fuel its war machine. That is also why we are strengthening the operations, sanctions and pressure on the Russian shadow fleet. We will also continue to pursue further action. We would like to see international support for a maritime services ban.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
As the Ukraine war passes its fourth year, we continue to salute the bravery and heroism of the people of Ukraine as they fight for their independence and freedom. This is the moment, however, for the Government to spearhead a new campaign with our allies to starve Russia of the funds it needs to wage war. It is clear that we need to target not only the shadow fleet but the refineries in Turkey, India and China buying Russian crude so that they rapidly diversify. Will the Government now take action with our allies to put huge new pressure on those refineries? With the foundations of the Russian economy crumbling away, that action would make it much harder for Putin to sustain the costs of his war.
Yvette Cooper
On my visit to Kyiv last week, I announced nearly 300 new sanctions to target Russian revenue streams and military supply chains. More broadly, we are targeting not just the shadow fleet and the oil and gas companies in Russia directly, but those who might support them in third countries. That was our largest Russian sanctions package since 2022, and it is important that we get other countries to support that as well.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The UK strongly condemns the expansion of illegal settlements and the recent Israeli Security Cabinet decisions that introduced sweeping extensions to their control of the west bank. These actions threaten peace and stability and undermine the 20-point plan. They risk making a two-state solution impossible to achieve. Our position is clear and unequivocal: the Israeli Government must stop the expansion of settlements, they must stop the threats of forcible displacement and annexation, and they must stop the unacceptable levels of settler violence.
Andy McDonald
I thank the Minister for his answer, but since December 2015, 19 new settlements have been approved, bringing the coalition’s total to 68 in three years and around 210 overall, housing 750,000 settlers. Last month, the Israeli Cabinet approved measures to designate large areas as state property and resume land registration in area C—de jure annexation. Those steps defy International Court of Justice advisory opinions and dispossess thousands of Palestinians. Given the scale of sanctions that the UK is willing to impose on Russia, when will the Government impose meaningful trade measures, arms controls and sanctions that match the scale of Israel’s illegal actions?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is right in his characterisation of the increase in settlements. That increase has been accompanied by a very concerning increase in settler violence. I know that many hon. Members will have been shocked by the footage they have seen of these incidents. The Foreign Secretary raised those issues directly, including the risks of instability that they cause, with Israel’s Foreign Minister Sa’ar in New York last month. We will not accept attempts to advance settlement expansion under the cover of regional instability. We will consider concrete steps in accordance with international law to counter the expansion.
Caroline Voaden
Last year, the Israeli Government issued nearly 10,000 units of settlement housing tenders, which was more than the combined total of tenders over the previous six years. The extremists in Netanyahu’s Cabinet clearly have the explicit intention of undermining any prospect of a viable Palestinian state, let alone a two-state solution. The Minister said that he condemns the expansion and is considering actions to take, but will he do the right thing now and introduce a full ban on all trade with illegal settlements in the west bank, to show that this Government are truly committed to pursuing a two-state solution?
Mr Falconer
The Government are truly committed to pursuing a two-state solution; it has been at the heart of our policy in relation to Israel and Palestine for the entire duration of our time in government. As the hon. Lady will know, I have stood at this Dispatch Box and announced three waves of sanctions, and I am sure that she will have listened carefully to my remarks in answer to the previous question.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The British Government recognised Palestine last summer, and that was greatly welcomed around the world. The concern now is that Israel may be about to annex the west bank. If Israel does that, where is Palestine? The Minister spoke last week and said that they were considering concrete steps, and he has said that again today. I just wondered what they were.
Mr Falconer
I thank my right hon. Friend for that important question; I know she is extremely focused, rightly, on the deterioration of the situation in the west bank. She focuses correctly on the threat of annexation. We oppose that absolutely, as do our American counter-parts, as I am sure she is aware. I am not in a position to provide further commentary on what the steps I alluded to might yet be, for the reasons that we have rehearsed in this Chamber many times. We have taken action, including the three rounds of sanctions that I described, and we will continue to take action while the situation continues to deteriorate.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister is absolutely right: Israel must stop. What estimate has he made of the time that we have before a separate Palestinian state becomes, geographically and economically, utterly untenable?
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. Member and my predecessor for that important question. We have pointed to a whole range of areas of concern in relation to the viability of a Palestinian state. One that has not received mention so far in our exchanges, but which is vital, is the E1 development. The British Government are deeply concerned by the speed with which the Israeli Government are proceeding with a project that we completely oppose. It is clearly designed to try to split two parts of a contiguous Palestinian territory. We oppose it, and we will continue to do so.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The rapid growth in Israeli settlements in recent months has been fuelled by settler violence, which not only goes unpunished, but receives tacit support from the Israeli Government. The UK Government continue to avoid responding to the International Court of Justice’s 2024 advisory opinion condemning Israelis’ forcible transfer of Palestinians—a war crime. Last month, the UN high commissioner for human rights noted that the forcible transfer of Palestinians from their homes in the west bank raises concerns of ethnic cleansing. Does the Minister agree with his analysis?
Mr Falconer
As ever, I thank my hon. Friend for her important questions. I wish to clarify quickly. The British Government oppose forced displacement in Palestine, and that is our long-held position. While we are due to update Parliament on the wider issues posed by the ICJ advisory opinion, I would not wish for there to be any ambiguity about our position. We oppose forcible displacement and, of course, there must be accountability and justice for all crimes committed right across Palestinian and Israeli territory.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Minister says that he is concerned by the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements and the expansion of settler violence, and he says that he is considering concrete steps. He refers to previous actions, but it is now many months since the last concrete action by this Government. Actions speak louder than words. It is now way past time to end all settlement trade and impose new sanctions on those responsible for this violence.
Mr Falconer
We have taken a range of steps and we continue to take steps, including raising those issues both with our partners and directly with the Israeli Government.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
When I visited the Sudan border a month ago, I promised the women that I met in the Adré camp that I would take their voice to the United Nations, and that the world needed to listen to Sudanese women, not to the military men who perpetuate this war. That is what I did two weeks ago, when I chaired a dedicated session of the United Nations Security Council, where we considered the horrendous fact-finding mission’s report on El Fasher and ensured that Sudanese women’s voices could be heard. As I told the Council members, we need a renewed effort from across the globe to end this brutal war.
Kate Osamor
With half of Sudan’s population under 18 and millions of children growing up amid widespread violence, Sudan is confronting what many now describe as the world’s largest child protection emergency. In that context, what concrete steps will the Department take to promote and defend the UN’s children and armed conflict mandate, so that the protection of children in Sudan remains a sustained diplomatic priority across the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council?
Yvette Cooper
I can tell my hon. Friend that we continue to champion the UN children and armed conflict mandate and its monitoring work. It is clear that children are the innocent victims of this horrendous and brutal war, and that is why the world must not look away from Sudan. It is why we need a ceasefire, it is why we need to prevent the arms flows, and it is why we need to continue the humanitarian support from across the globe.
Irene Campbell
We know that conflict can dis-proportionately affect women and children and exacerbate gender-based violence. We cannot let this crisis in Sudan be ignored. There has been an alarming rise in gender-based violence and sexual abuse against women and girls. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me what further steps her Department is taking to tackle this horrific abuse against women and girls in Sudan at this time of conflict?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right; the scale of the use of rape as a weapon of war in Sudan is truly horrific. Two weeks ago, prior to the Security Council briefing, I convened an event in New York in the UN building to include four women speakers who have been working to tackle sexual violence in Sudan, and also to hear, through video testimony, from a Sudanese woman who has been working to tackle the levels of sexual violence and provide support to survivors in Chad. I have announced a new £20 million programme to support survivors of rape and sexual violence in Sudan. The voices of Sudanese women must be heard.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will read the evidence from Samaritan’s Purse to the International Development Committee last week, which reiterated the issues on sexual violence. We also heard that in refugee camps, many people have to be naked because they have had no option but to sell their clothes to get food. I am sure she agrees that is completely and utterly unacceptable. In her last statement, she said that she was seeking to engage with the African Union and to bring it more into participation in bringing a resolution to the conflict. Has she made any progress in that regard?
Yvette Cooper
I will certainly look further at the evidence and the horrendous accounts that the right hon. Member describes. We are establishing, with international partners, a coalition for atrocity prevention and justice to work on Sudan and to work together on preventing atrocities and gathering evidence. We have been pursuing some of the findings in the UN’s report on El Fasher, which talked about systematic starvation, torture, killings, rape and deliberate ethnic targeting. The right hon. Member has added a further horrendous account to that, which is why it is important not only to pursue these atrocities but to ensure that there is basic humanitarian support. That is why we are prioritising Sudan for humanitarian support as well.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Foreign Secretary has referred to the UN report published on 19 February, which said that the horrific events in El Fasher bore all the “hallmarks of genocide”. Does she agree with that assessment?
Yvette Cooper
The account in that report is truly appalling and shocking. It describes deliberate ethnic targeting of particular groups, as well as some of the most horrendous torture, and the use of rape as a weapon of conflict. The long-standing position of successive British Governments is that any formal determination on genocide is a matter for the courts. However, we should be clear that the evidence of atrocities committed by the armed forces across Sudan is staggering and horrendous, and the perpetrators must be held to account.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The UK-United States relationship has been a cornerstone of our security and prosperity for over a century, and we will never turn away from it. The Foreign Secretary and I have regular and wide-ranging discussions with our counterparts. Indeed, in the past week, we have discussed economic ties with governors from across the United States. The Business and Trade Secretary speaks regularly with his US counterparts—including, most recently, the trade representative—to reinforce the importance of delivering on our economic prosperity deal.
Blake Stephenson
Given that the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran without British involvement, and that this Government seem increasingly at odds with the US in relation to Diego Garcia, can the Minister assure me that the Government’s actions are not damaging the special relationship and increasing the likelihood that further tariffs will be imposed on the UK, driving up costs for the Great British public?
Stephen Doughty
I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Our relationship with the United States is strong; it has endured, continues to endure, and will endure into the future on the economic and security fronts. We were the first to strike a deal with the US Administration, which removed tariffs on UK aerospace exports and secured reduced tariffs for cars. That saved manufacturers hundreds of millions and protected jobs across this country.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
China’s imposition of the national security law on Hong Kong has significantly eroded the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers. We remain deeply concerned about that. Our most recent assessment was set out in the last six-monthly report on Hong Kong to Parliament in October, and the next report will be published soon. On his recent visit to Beijing, the Prime Minister raised our concerns at the highest level, including with President Xi, about the situation in Hong Kong and about Jimmy Lai’s case specifically.
Adam Thompson
Many people who have come to us from Hong Kong have made their home in Long Eaton in my constituency. Their children are thriving in our local schools, new businesses are being established, and a vibrant community is taking shape. Will the Minister outline what further steps the Government are taking, in partnership with local councils and Members of this House, to support the continued integration of Hongkongers into our towns and communities, and to ensure that those who have chosen to settle in Long Eaton feel fully welcomed as part of our community?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for his constituency work. I am proud that the UK has welcomed around 200,000 Hongkongers since 2021. We will continue unequivocally to uphold our commitment to them. As he will know, their contribution enriches our economy and our society, including in Long Eaton. We remain committed to ensuring that they feel safe, supported and valued. Indeed, for five years, the welcome programme has delivered successful integration for the British national overseas community, and mainstream provisions will continue to be available.
Daniel Francis
In addition to the situation on the ground in Hong Kong, there remains evidence of transnational repression against Hong Kong nationals living overseas, including here in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister update us on the work being done on that issue across Government Departments, and on the measures that she is pursuing to end the deliberate targeting of opposition voices in the UK?
Seema Malhotra
Any attempts by foreign Governments to intimidate or harm critics overseas are unacceptable. Freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of all people in the United Kingdom are protected by law. Ministers have raised those issues—including the arrest warrants placed on individuals in the United Kingdom by Hong Kong police—with the Chinese authorities. It is important to note that training and guidance on state threat activity is now being offered to all 45 territorial police forces across the United Kingdom.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) has just raised a case that I am aware of. I do not want to steal her thunder on that, but I will say that there is a real issue with what is happening in Hong Kong. China has trashed the Sino-British agreement. Hong Kong no longer uses common law, and every single system is being abused. When will the Government deal with these deficiencies by sanctioning somebody? America has sanctioned many people. Many other countries have too, but the UK, which used to run Hong Kong, has sanctioned absolutely nobody. Surely we should do so now.
Seema Malhotra
The right hon. Member will be aware that our concerns in relation to China’s breach of the Sino-British declaration are laid out clearly in our six-monthly report on Hong Kong. There will be a further report coming shortly, but Hong Kong is required to ensure, for example, that national security legislation upholds rights and freedoms, as is set out in the Basic Law. Indeed, we have repeatedly called on Beijing to repeal the national security law and release all individuals charged under it.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Bounties have been placed on the heads of pro-democracy activists living in Hong Kong—a shocking act of transnational aggression. May I add my voice to that of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and ask: when will the Government use our Magnitsky sanctions regime against those in Hong Kong and Beijing responsible for the unacceptable targeting of Hong Kong pro-democracy campaigners? It is time that we used those sanctions.
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member will know that any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate or harm those in the UK are utterly unacceptable. Indeed, these arrest warrants and bounties encourage reckless behaviour on UK soil, and damage Hong Kong’s international reputation. It is important that we continue to address these issues, and we will look further at the situation. We will publish our six-monthly report on Hong Kong soon.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Last month, the Foreign Secretary held an unpublicised meeting in Munich with Wang Yi, which we only know about because the Chinese Communist party boasted that the Foreign Secretary told the party that the Prime Minister’s visit to China was
“a complete success with fruitful results”
for UK-China relations. Can the Minister, on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, confirm whether or not the human rights of those living in Hong Kong were raised at the meeting? With Jimmy Lai languishing in prison, the CCP looking to toughen up the Hong Kong national security law, and Hongkongers living in Britain with bounties on their heads, on what basis was the Prime Minister’s visit a complete success? Given how little the UK got, it was a complete failure, wasn’t it?
Seema Malhotra
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had many meetings with counterparts on very important issues of national and international security in Munich, and raised a number of issues, including Jimmy Lai. The Conservatives were in charge for 14 years, and they had almost as many different policies on China during that time. They talked about state threats, but delayed the essential reform of our outdated security laws. In May 2021, the shadow Foreign Secretary launched her consultation on the new legislation, but it took more than two years to get the National Security Act 2023 passed into law, leaving our country without the powers needed to prosecute such cases.
Priti Patel
Clearly, the Minister is desperate, and is having to go backwards, rather than moving forwards to address the situation. For her information, China oppresses Hongkongers, refuses to free Jimmy Lai and supports Russia and Iran in their barbaric actions to undermine freedom and democracy. Those are issues that the Government should take a grip of now. China plots, spies and undermines our security. Rather than kowtowing to China, when will her Government wake up, deal with the threat posed by the CCP, and put China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? When will she start taking action and expel CCP diplomats, to show our disgust at their appalling actions when it comes to transnational repression?
Seema Malhotra
The Government have not yet made any decision about whether China will be added to the enhanced tier, but the right hon. Lady will know that we condemn in the strongest terms the politically motivated prosecution of British citizen Jimmy Lai. This issue remains a priority for this Government, and she is fully aware of that.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The hon. Member refers to sections 3 and 8 of the UK’s 2025 UK-Palestine MOU, which is clear on our commitment to supporting the PA’s reform agenda on education. We welcome President Abbas’s pledge in 2025 to continue reforms in line with UNESCO standards. The Foreign Secretary and I have pressed him and Prime Minister Mustafa on this personally. An external review has been commissioned to verify the implementation of those reform commitments. I will report to the House on our assessment when it is completed in the coming months.
Jack Rankin
The Palestinian Authority have given the British Government repeated assurances that textbooks are being reformed, which one would have thought would be a minimum requirement for the recognition of a Palestinian state. However, in my office, I have an Arabic-language textbook, currently in use on the west bank, that describes Arab fighters using “explosive belts” to
“turn their bodies into fire burning the Zionist tank”.
That is accompanied by an image of a gunman shooting Jews riding a tank. The book is aimed at 14-year-olds. Is the Minister aware that this is going on, and does he have any faith that the Palestinian Authority can change their ways?
Mr Falconer
As I said, there will be an external assessment. I am aware that the process of education reform, which is being led by some of our friends in the European Union, is happening grade by grade. As I understand it, there has been considerable progress on grade 12, and they are looking at some of the other grades. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to send me the textbook, to confirm which grade it relates to.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I accept that there are problems with the curriculum in Palestinian schools, but the eyes of the world are now distracted, and settlement expansion continues, as far as we can tell. I am concerned that when the dust settles and the rubble is cleared, the viability of the Palestinian state will be significantly jeopardised. Does the Minister share my firm belief that what is going on does not really represent the will of the Israeli people?
Mr Falconer
I am sure that the whole House will recognise the authority with which my hon. Friend speaks. He is right that violent settlement expansion is not the will of most Israelis; polling reflects that time and again. As the Israeli public approach Israeli elections, I hope that there will be a discussion in Israel about the appalling nature of this violence and this expansion.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Palestinian Authority continue to show an absolute disregard for the MOU, with deeply disturbing and antisemitic content still being promoted in Palestinian schools. How are the UK Government monitoring this, and ensuring that no UK taxpayer money is being used to fund that? With “pay for slay” continuing, will the Minister tell the House if he raised these concerns with the Palestinian Authority when he met their ambassador last week? What is his assessment of the payments being made? What direct action is he taking to stop “pay for slay”, such as withholding payments until this vile practice ceases?
Mr Falconer
I have tried to answer as precisely as possible on all the sections of the MOU. If the right hon. Lady has a particular area that she would like to raise, I am happy to address it, as I did the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin). I can confirm that I raised these questions in my most recent interaction with the Palestinian ambassador. She refers to what is sometimes described in public as “pay to slay”—the Tamkeen system. That is being externally audited by a United States auditor. Once we have that audit, we will be in a position to provide a further update to the House.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
The UK condemns in the strongest terms the politically motivated persecution of British citizen Jimmy Lai. We continue to call for his immediate release, and for giving him full access to independent medical professionals and all necessary treatment. The Prime Minister raised the case of Jimmy Lai when he met President Xi in January, and we will continue to raise at every opportunity.
Gregory Stafford
Jimmy Lai now faces a jail term described by Ministers as an effective life sentence. It is clear that his life sentence directly reflects this Government’s weak policy on China, so will the Minister tell us what clear steps she and the Prime Minister are taking, and—more importantly—what sanctions she and the Prime Minister will put on the Chinese, to ensure that Jimmy Lai is released, and that his case is not forgotten?
Seema Malhotra
We continue to keep sanctions under close review. It would not be appropriate to speculate on any future designations, since doing so could reduce their impact, as the hon. Member knows. However, although we will not get into the details of any private discussions on Jimmy Lai, the Government will continue to raise his case at every opportunity, as the Foreign Secretary, the previous Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have done. Diplomats from our consulate general in Hong Kong have attended all court proceedings, and continue to press for consular access.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
Sticking with detentions in China, last week I had the great honour of meeting Grace Jin Drexel, the daughter of pastor Ezra Jin, who—along with 18 other pastors from Zion House Church—was arrested and detained by the Chinese authorities last October on the very vague charge of illegal use of information online. Basically, they had an online church service. What can the Government do to advocate for the release of all the Zion House Church leaders, and to promote freedom of religion or belief for all people in China?
Seema Malhotra
Reports from within China about the detention of Zion House Church leaders are a very worrying indication of further persecution of Christians in China. This Government continue to engage with China on the issue of human rights and freedom of belief. We will continue to champion freedom of religion and belief for all and uphold the right to that universal freedom through our positions at the UN and in the G7, as well as through our bilateral engagements.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I welcome the progress that many overseas territories have made on financial transparency. St Helena, Montserrat and Gibraltar now have fully public registers of beneficial ownership, while the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands have implemented legitimate interest access registers. However, I have also been clear with those overseas territories where progress has not been quick or comprehensive enough, including the British Virgin Islands, and at the joint ministerial council in November, I pressed for further progress, and agreed to provide technical-level support for that work. We will reconvene later this month to assess the latest position, and we reserve the right to consider all options, if progress is not made. Of course, we prefer to work in constructive co-operation, recognising the wide range of constitutional arrangements, but there are crucial issues here for tackling illicit finance, and for our national security.
Steff Aquarone
Perhaps I can help with that assessment. Transparency International uncovered at least 160 cases since 2022 of luxury yachts being transferred into or out of Russia that were registered to companies in British overseas territories. While the brave Ukrainians are defending their country from a brutal invasion, Putin’s cronies are joyriding their multimillion-pound yachts, enabled by the likes of the BVI. Does this sicken the Foreign Secretary and the Minister as much as it sickens me, and can the Minister tell certain overseas territories that we are fed up with their excuses and their shielding of evil regimes and tax dodgers, and that they must deliver transparency now?
Stephen Doughty
I welcome the work of Transparency International and others in shedding light on these issues. Those are exactly the concerns that I have raised directly with overseas territories’ Governments and have expressed in this place, and we will work to ensure rapid progress on these issues.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
Tens of thousands of children have been killed, injured, orphaned, or separated from their family during this conflict. The UK has medically evacuated 50 children for treatment in the UK, but help on the required scale can only be delivered on the ground in Gaza. We are providing £81 million in humanitarian and early recovery support this year, including social protection services, which have so far supported over 335,000 Palestinian children.
Mrs Blundell
It is estimated that 40,000 children in Gaza have lost either one or both of their parents in the appalling war of recent years, leaving many as orphans without the love and protection that they need in one of the most dangerous places on the planet. As crisis engulfs the region once again and vital aid is still being blocked, what assurances can the Minister give that the UK will play a leading role in supporting those children in the long term, after all the horrors they have had to endure?
Chris Elmore
International NGOs remain indispensable to the UN-led humanitarian response, and we have supported key INGO partners, including through the Disasters Emergency Committee. In January, we marked the UK’s £3 million aid match for the middle east appeal. In total, we have provided £13 million since the appeal began. On 30 December last year, the UK led a statement with nine other countries to underline the vital role that INGOs play in Palestine. We continue to engage those organisations that have been impacted by new registration requirements, and we have raised that issue directly with the Government of Israel.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Amid the illegal attack on Iran by America and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has closed all the border crossings into Gaza. What does the Minister know of this? Food and humanitarian aid are once again being blocked.
Chris Elmore
We would like all borders, including Rafah, to be open as quickly as possible and not in a phased process. We are making representations to the Israeli Government in that regard.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
In recent days, we have seen Iran attack multiple countries that did not attack it. Just as Iran is a threat to the region and to the UK’s allies, it is also a threat to its own people. Time and again, it has responded to legitimate protests with brutal violence, as we saw in January when thousands of protesters were killed. That is why last month, alongside international partners, the UK led efforts to secure a special session of the UN Human Rights Council and imposed a sweeping package of sanctions to hold Iran to account for its human rights violations. Yesterday, the Prime Minister set out the action we are taking in response to Iran’s attacks on Gulf partners, where UK citizens are currently residing.
Mark Sewards
Not content with suppressing its own people, the Iranian regime now lashes out at civilians and our allies across the region. The new head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is an internationally wanted terrorist, implicated in the 1994 attack on the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina in Buenos Aires and responsible for the repression of the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests in 2022 in Iran. I urge the Foreign Secretary to urge the Home Secretary to implement the Jonathan Hall framework, so that we can proscribe the IRGC as soon as possible. Will she implement sanctions on those responsible for the bloody crackdowns in Iran, including Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that as Home Secretary, I commissioned the Jonathan Hall review exactly because I thought that the legislation might need to be strengthened. He has concluded that it needs to be strengthened to broaden existing counter-terrorism legislation to include state and state-linked threats. We will be taking that forward, and my hon. Friend will know that we keep all proscription decisions under close review.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
When some of us campaigned for Hezbollah to be proscribed in full, Foreign Office officials and others said that it was impossible, because it would harm diplomatic relations. That was overcome. The same spurious argument was made with respect to Hamas. That was overcome. Imagine how foolish our country would look today if we had not proscribed Hezbollah and Hamas in full. The same argument has been made by the last Government and by this Government with respect to the IRGC. Will the Foreign Secretary be clear that she will not stand in the way of the full proscription of the IRGC, so that these dangerous criminals who harm our own people and our allies around the world have no place and no home in the United Kingdom?
Yvette Cooper
I just point out to the right hon. Member that I take the threats on UK streets immensely seriously, but he was a Home Office Minister and a Cabinet Minister during an entire period when we saw Iran-backed threats on UK streets. He did nothing to strengthen the legislation in so many years in government. This Government are now taking forward measures to strengthen that legislation.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
It is currently unclear whether the turmoil unleashed by Trump and Netanyahu’s unilateral military action will bring freedom and security for Iranians who deserve a better future, but we can be certain that the IRGC will seek to crush domestic opposition and, if given the chance, export terror abroad—and that includes the United Kingdom’s streets. Members of the Iranian diaspora here, and the UK’s Jewish community, have expressed their fears of attack. May I echo the words of Members on both sides of the House, and ask whether the Foreign Secretary will work with her colleagues in heeding the calls of the Liberal Democrats and other parties for emergency legislation to enact the recommendations of the Hall review and proscribe the IRGC?
Yvette Cooper
I can tell the hon. Member that we are taking forward the legislation that Jonathan Hall has recommended, but I also tell him that we take immensely seriously any Iran-backed threats on UK streets, which is why our counter-terrorism police work extremely closely with our security services. They are pursuing live cases, and have been for some time, where Iran is suspected of being involved, and they will continue to do so, to keep all our communities safe, but particularly our Jewish communities that have been so targeted.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister updated the House on the conflict in the middle east and the Gulf. Overnight, we have continued to see Iranian strikes on Gulf nations.
The safety and security of British nationals is our top priority, and I want to update the House on support for British citizens who are in the region. As of this morning, 130,000 British nationals have signed up to the “register your presence” programme, which is vital to the FCDO’s ability to know where people are and to provide updates and advice. As Members will be aware, the airspace is still closed in many of these countries, but I am in close contact with my counterparts across the region. Yesterday, I spoke again to the United Arab Emirates about the excellent support that it is providing, and the departures that it is now securing as they become viable.
We are also working with airlines on increasing capacity out of Muscat for British nationals, with priority being given to vulnerable nationals. A Government charter flight will leave Muscat in the coming days, prioritising those vulnerable nationals. However, British nationals in Oman must wait to be contacted by the Foreign Office about these options. We will continue to work 24/7 on supporting British nationals in the region. This is a very fast-moving situation, and we have unprecedented numbers of British nationals in the region. I will continue to update Members and affected British nationals as the situation evolves.
Lauren Edwards
We are all deeply concerned about the escalating situation in the Gulf. Following the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, has the Secretary of State had any discussions with her counterparts in the US, Europe or Israel about measures to secure any nuclear or radiological material in Iran, in the light of the possibility of its trafficking as a result of current events?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. It is extremely important to ensure that Iran is not able to develop a nuclear weapon, and there are obviously concerns about the security of materials as well. Obviously, we continue to work closely with our operational partners on this issue.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Government’s indecision on how to deal with Iran has left the UK weaker and has undermined our own security, but, as the House has already started to discuss, proscribing the IRGC will strengthen our position. I proscribed Hamas when I was Home Secretary, so I have dealt with state proscriptions.
Last year, in her role as Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary spoke about bringing forward the Hall review and recommendations, and about introducing a series of powers. Let me make a suggestion. When will the Foreign Secretary and her Government provide the parliamentary time that is essential if we are to have emergency legislation to proscribe the IRGC? If she desperately needs parliamentary time that has not been timetabled so far, will she scrap the Chagos surrender Bill so we can legislate to do that now?
Yvette Cooper
Again, I point out that we have had a record number of former Home Office Ministers—both Conservatives and former Conservatives—coming forward to call for things that they failed to do while they were in government. I say to the right hon. Lady that this Government are determined to introduce legislation to take forward the Jonathan Hall review, but it is legislation that the Conservative Government could have delivered over their very many years in office. We will also strengthen the action on the Iranian threat on our streets and internationally.
Priti Patel
Events in the middle east remind us how important to our collective defence and security the Diego Garcia base and the whole of the Chagos archipelago are, and nothing should be done to undermine that. Given the latest comments from the President of the United States on the importance of the base and on the folly of giving sovereignty away, will the Foreign Secretary finally do what is right for the defence of our country, British taxpayers and British Chagossians and tear up Labour’s terrible Chagos surrender treaty?
Yvette Cooper
I say to the shadow Foreign Secretary that this Government believe that decisions should be made in the UK’s national interest and according to UK values, not according to any other Government’s national interest, whether in Europe, the US, the middle east or beyond. We will take decisions on the Chagos islands in the interests of our national security. She knows the national security issues that are at stake here. Instead of simply travelling round the world trying to undermine the UK’s national security and the decisions that we are taking, perhaps she should start standing up for the UK’s national interest.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
I want to praise the UK armed forces in Akrotiri for their huge professionalism, and for the work that they do to defend the UK’s national security. We have already increased the deployment, with additional defensive capabilities including radar, F-35 jets, and air defence and counter-drone systems, and we work closely with the Cypriot Government on safety and security issues.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister argued that the Government were distinguishing between defensive and offensive operations by US bombers making use of UK bases. On issues of such gravity, clarity is essential to avoid mission creep. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK will agree the target, and monitor the outcome, of each of these US sorties? Will the Government report those to the Intelligence and Security Committee, and can she confirm that if one were found to have hit anything other than a missile battery or missile store, the UK would suspend its agreement for the use of its bases?
Yvette Cooper
We have long-standing operational arrangements for partners and allies with which we work closely, and we ensure that those are implemented. The principles that we follow are about ensuring that there is a lawful basis for action and that it is in the UK’s interest. At a time when we have seen strikes from the Iranian regime on countries that were not involved in this conflict and where 300,000 British citizens are currently resident, I think we would find it extremely difficult to justify not taking action to support and protect British citizens who might be threatened with attack.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
The UK’s task must always be to act in the UK’s national interest according to UK values, but at the heart of that national interest and those values are things such as the NATO alliance—the transatlantic alliance—as well as our partnership with other European countries and other countries on our defence.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Yvette Cooper
What I can tell the hon. Member is that we take the safety of UK personnel immensely seriously, and I pay tribute to their service for our country. That is why we have already increased deployments to ensure that there is added radar and air protection in Cyprus, for example. We will always continue to take safety seriously and ensure that operational matters are dealt with in the normal way.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
My hon. Friend asks an important question. We are absolutely committed to strengthening our defence co-operation with the EU and European partners, but with NATO of course as the bedrock. We negotiated in good faith on SAFE, but the terms were not in the UK’s national interest, but we will continue to engage constructively across a range of areas of co-operation.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
I assure the hon. Member and the House that we are prioritising those areas of continued support in the health sphere of development funding.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Chris Elmore
We take this extremely seriously. Journalists on frontlines across the world are often how we find out where atrocities have taken place. Tomorrow I am hosting a Media Freedoms Coalition discussion, and I reassure my hon. Friend that this will always remain a priority for the UK Government.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Chris Elmore
I thank the hon. Member for his question. [Interruption.] Tomorrow is estimates day, and perhaps he would like to raise it then. On the wider point, he and I have been in correspondence, and discussions about these costs are ongoing.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Chris Elmore
Improving road safety is a global challenge. Every year, 1.2 million people die on the roads—it is the biggest killer of young people. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this to the House’s attention. Through the Department of Health and Social Care, the UK contributes £12.5 million to the Global Road Safety Facility and is represented on its partnership council, and we continue to work on this truly important issue.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
We have spoken many times about the risks to children in the west bank and Gaza. It is a priority for this Government. We raise it regularly with our Israeli counterparts, and I am familiar with the report the hon. Lady references.
Spring Forecast
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
This Government have the right economic plan for our country, a plan that is—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Look, both sides, if you are not interested, you don’t have to stay in the Chamber. I am interested, my constituents are interested, and your constituents are interested as well.
Rachel Reeves
A plan that is even more important in a world that has become yet more uncertain in the last few days. With unfolding conflict in Iran and the middle east, it is incumbent on me and on this Government to chart a course through that uncertainty, to secure our economy against shocks and to protect families from the turbulence we see beyond our borders.
I want to express my gratitude to members of our armed forces as they serve across the globe to protect our country. I want to reassure this House that I am in regular contact with the Governor of the Bank of England, with my international counterparts and with key affected industries, including our maritime sector. Tomorrow I will meet our North sea industry leaders to discuss the implications they face and work with them to manage this uncertain period.
In an increasingly dangerous world, I am proud to be the Chancellor that is delivering the biggest uplift in defence spending since the cold war, with £650 million committed in January to upgrade our Typhoon fighter jets, a new Royal Navy frigate launched from Rosyth last week and, just yesterday, our £1 billion helicopter deal with Leonardo.
I am in no doubt about Britain’s ability to navigate the challenges we face. The plan that I have been driving forward since the election is the right one: stability in our public finances, investment in our infrastructure, including our armed forces, and reform to Britain’s economy. It is a plan to reshape our economy and break with the failed ideas of the past: building growth on not just the contribution of a few people in a few places, but in every part of Britain, with a state that does not stand back but steps up; strengthening our trading relationships and our alliances; creating capacity in our economy through affordable housing, better transport and free childcare; and being an active and strategic state, building growth and economic security in an uncertain world.
Stability is the single most important precondition for economic growth. That is why we have committed to a single major fiscal event a year, limiting major policy changes to the Budget, and giving businesses and households the certainty they need. Today the new forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that our plan is the right one: inflation is down; borrowing is down; living standards are up; and the economy is growing.
This Government have restored economic stability. The previous Government allowed inflation to skyrocket to over 11%, stoked interest rates to 15-year highs and delivered the first Parliament on record where people were poorer at the end than at the start. That is the Conservatives’ record, and I recognise the impact it had on families. We promised change at the election, and I understand the responsibility on me to deliver that change. I know that the question that people will ask themselves at the next election is, “Are me and my family better off?” I am determined that the answer will be yes.
The change we promised has already started: there have been six cuts in interest rates since the general election—the fastest pace of reduction in 17 years—and inflation has fallen. For businesses, that means lower capital costs and greater certainty, and for families, it means more money in their pockets to spend in local shops and on the high street. Those interest rate cuts will save households over £1,300 a year on a typical new fixed-rate mortgage. Real wages have risen by more in the first 18 months of this Labour Government than in the first 10 years of the Tory Government.
At the Budget, I went further to deliver the change that people rightly demand. I extended the 5p cut in fuel duty for a further five months, froze prescription charges for the second year in a row and froze rail fares for the first time in 30 years, and I am taking £150 off energy bills from next month. In February, the Bank of England confirmed that inflation will fall faster because of the action I took at the Budget, and today the Office for Budget Responsibility expects inflation to come down even faster than it forecast in the autumn.
In the current global context, with the risk that rising energy prices will put upward pressure on inflation, the action that I have taken is even more crucial. Keeping inflation low and stable is the best way to support family incomes and reduce pressures on the cost of living.
But that is not all we have done: this Labour Government have funded 30 hours of free childcare for working families; we are rolling out free breakfast clubs at primary schools; and we are set to achieve the biggest reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since records began by reversing the shameful two-child limit imposed by the Conservatives. That is the moral choice, for the children who will no longer go to school hungry and for the women who will no longer suffer the grotesque indignity of the rape clause. Scrapping the two-child limit is an enduring investment in our children and in our future to realise the potential of young people that would otherwise be wasted.
The Tories have said that they would reinstate that destructive policy, and now Reform is saying exactly the same thing—two parties united in their intention to plunge nearly half a million children back into poverty at a single stroke. If you import failed Tory politicians, you get failed Tory policies too. Labour—and only Labour—has the right economic plan for our country. [Hon. Members: “More!”]
Last year, we demonstrated the resilience of Britain’s economy in the face of global headwinds with the fastest growth of any G7 country in Europe. Today the Office for Budget Responsibility has updated its growth forecasts, including reflecting lower net migration. Average growth across the forecast period is largely unchanged, while the OBR has adjusted the profile of GDP so that it grows slightly slower in 2026—[Interruption.] And then faster in both 2027 and 2028. GDP is forecast to grow by 1.1% in 2026, 1.6% in both 2027 and 2028 and 1.5% in both 2029 and 2030.
I have always said that growth is for a purpose—to make working people better off. I can confirm that GDP per person is set to grow more than was expected in the autumn, with growth of 5.6% over the course of this Parliament. That compares with a fall in GDP per capita in the last Parliament. By the next election, after accounting for inflation, people are forecast to be £1,000 a year better off. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I did not hear the Opposition that time!
We promised change, and we are delivering that change. The economy is growing, living standards are rising and inflation has fallen, but I am not satisfied with those forecasts. I know that the economy is not yet working for everyone and that the deep economic scars left by the Conservative party and their mates in Reform are still blighting the lives of too many people.
In today’s forecasts, unemployment is set to peak later this year and then fall in every year of the forecast period, ending at 4.1%, which is lower than it was at the start of the Parliament. However, young people in particular are still suffering from the aftermath of years of Tory mismanagement. In the last five years of the previous Government, the number of young people not in education, employment or training increased by 113,000. The number of inactive young people reached record highs under the Conservative Government, and over the last decade, apprenticeship starts by young people fell by 40%.
This Government will not leave an entire generation of young people behind. We are already taking action to prioritise young people with additional investment to reform apprenticeships and through the £820 million youth guarantee, providing young people with employment support and a guaranteed job. In the coming weeks, I will set out more reforms to undo the Tory legacy of neglect, and give young people the support and the opportunity that they deserve.
In the face of global uncertainty, we beat the forecasts last year. In the year ahead, the choices that we are making give me confidence that we will beat them again. In the year ahead, more of the choices that we have already made will come into effect: discounts on business energy costs; trade deals with India, the US and the EU; reforms to back our entrepreneurs; investment in our infrastructure; skills funding for further education; and more planning reforms—progress opposed by the Conservatives, opposed by Reform, opposed by the Liberal Democrats, and opposed by the Green party too. It is Labour and only Labour that has the right plan for our country.
Our plan for growth is grounded in a profound rejection of the failed economic dogmas of the past—the trickle-down, trickle-out thinking that produced ever-diminishing returns for working people. I know that an economy cannot be working if it is delivering for only a few people in a few places; I know that it matters where things are made and who makes them; and I believe that the working people who keep our country moving deserve a fair day’s pay for an honest day’s work.
Since the election, I have been making the big choices that will bring about the deep structural changes that our economy needs so that it works again for working people: the choice to take on vested interests and back the builders, not the blockers; the choice to increase public investment and protect our public finances with new fiscal rules; and the choice to give people in all parts of our country the opportunities that they deserve by reforming the Treasury spending rules in the Green Book to unlock investment in all of our urban, rural and coastal communities. Those are the right choices for our country—for security, stability and growth. Today’s forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that they are starting to pay off. I am clear-eyed about where the opportunities for the British economy lie in this Parliament and beyond.
In my second Mais lecture in two weeks’ time, I will set out three major choices that will determine the course of our economy into the future: to go further in strengthening our global relationships, breaking down trade barriers and deepening alliances with our European partners for a more secure and connected economy; to go further in backing innovation and harnessing the power of AI, so that entrepreneurs and innovators thrive here in Britain, and so that working people reap the rewards; and to go further in transforming our economic geography so that we can build growth on a broad and stable basis, spreading opportunity and unlocking opportunity in every part of Britain.
I came into politics because I believe in Governments who stand up for working people; that everyone, no matter where they grow up, deserves security and a fair chance to achieve their potential; and that being able to manage the bills, afford a home and pay for a holiday should never be too much to ask. When Governments lose control of the economy, as the Tories did, it is working people who pay the price—in their pay packets, in their bills and in their mortgages.
That is what the Conservatives inflicted on working people over 14 years. We had austerity, which cut off investment; Brexit, which cut us off from our closest trading partners; and Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget, cheered on by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—oh, he’s not here today. [Laughter.] Five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors, and 11 plans for growth, and at the end of it all, it was the only Parliament on record where living standards were worse at the end than they were at the start, and there was a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. That is the Conservatives’ legacy.
And make no mistake, the Tory tribute act on the Reform UK Benches would do exactly the same thing. They may have changed the colour of their rosettes, but the British people will not forget that they are the exact same people who wrecked our public services and our public finances in the Tory Government—the same people, the same policies, and the same disastrous outcomes for working people.
The Tories left our country, our people and our allies exposed. They had no plan and no intention to fund their pledge to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. Reform UK would go one step further, by ditching our allies and siding with Russia, while the Green party wants to take us out of NATO and jeopardise our alliances. Green Members are shaking their heads. I do not know if they have changed their policy, but it was to take us out of NATO. Let me be clear: it is Labour and only Labour that can provide social justice, national security and fiscal responsibility.
In its forecast today, the Office for Budget Responsibility shows that we are set to reduce borrowing by nearly £18 billion compared with the autumn. This year we are set to borrow less than the G7 average—something that the Tories never achieved in any of their 14 years. The forecast today shows that public sector net borrowing is set to fall from 4.3% this year to 3.6% next year, then to 2.9%, 2.5% and to 1.8% in 2029-30. Even after funding other measures announced since the Budget, including the new special educational needs system that was set out by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary last week, headroom against the stability rule in 2029-30 has increased from £21.7 billion to £23.6 billion, and headroom against the investment rule is also higher at £27.1 billion. Debt is now set to be lower in every year of the forecast compared with the autumn. It is because of the choices that I have made to keep our public finances stable and restore our credibility that we can invest in the priorities of working people. That means investment in our communities with Pride in Place; investment in our schools to fix crumbling classrooms and give every child the education that they deserve; and investment in our NHS, to bring waiting lists down and with a record cash settlement.
I have never accepted that we have to choose between social justice and fiscal responsibility, because there is nothing progressive, nothing Labour, about spending £100 billion a year—that is £1 in every £10 of what the Government spend—just paying the interest of the debt racked up by the Conservatives. After their disastrous mini-Budget, our debt interest rate soared towards the highest in the G7. From my Budget to this forecast, while average yields rose for the rest of the G7, yields on UK Government debt fell. The Tories squandered Britain’s credibility. My plan is rebuilding it.
Already, because of the action that I have taken, we are expected to spend nearly £4 billion less on debt interest next year than was forecast in the autumn. If we stay the course and stick to our plan, and our debt interest returns to the G7 average—where it was before the Conservatives wrecked things with Liz Truss’s mini-Budget—we will have £15 billion a year more for the priorities of working people and to make working people better off. That is the prize on offer. That is the prize within our grasp.
This is the right plan—a plan that is more necessary than ever before in a world of uncertainty. It is a plan for a stronger and more secure economy; inflation and interest rates falling; resilient public finances; and in every part of Britain working people better off. Every additional patient treated in an NHS hospital, every child lifted out of poverty, and every breakfast club in every school is because of the choices that we have taken and because I have the right plan for our country.
Let this House be in no doubt: every pound that we have invested, every pound in the pockets of working people, and every pound that we have secured in this forecast today can be wiped out by a change of course. We must reject a return to austerity, protect our public services and invest in Britain’s future. We must reject the temptation of easy answers and reckless borrowing, protect family finances and get the cost of living down. We must reject the political instability that would put at risk all the progress that we have made.
My plan is the right one. I am in no doubt about how great the rewards can be if we stay the course. The forecast today confirmed that the choices this Government have made are the right ones: stability in our public finances, interest rates and inflation falling, living standards rising, more children lifted out of poverty, more appointments in our NHS, more investment in our infrastructure, a growing economy, and more money in the pockets of working people. These are the right choices, this is the right plan, and I commend this statement to the House.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Is that it? What utter complacency—a Chancellor in denial. She speaks of stability, but what planet is she on? She has lurched from putting up taxes to destroying growth and headroom, and then to coming back and putting up more taxes, with more growth destroyed. Round and round we go, like a fiscal twister, ripping up everything in its path. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I will hear the shadow Chancellor. People need to recognise that there are two sides—let us hear the other side now.
Sir Mel Stride
Thank you, Mr Speaker; they just do not like the truth—that is the truth of it.
As our economy bleeds out, what does the right hon. Lady do? She comes to this House with nothing to say and with no plan—unless, of course, doing nothing is a cunning plan to avoid those U-turns further down the line. She is weak. She has even stripped the OBR of its ability to assess whether she is meeting her fiscal targets. Let it be remembered that at this time in this Chamber, this weak and chaotic Government gave up on the British people.
The right hon. Lady has nothing to say to us today. This is not a spring statement—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Gardiner, I expect better. We have to listen to you on a Thursday night; I do not need to hear you now.
Sir Mel Stride
No, they do not like it, Mr Speaker; they do not like the truth.
This is not a spring statement. It is a surrender statement. The Chancellor has the temerity to suggest that she is creating the conditions for renewed growth. She is rather like a dodgy estate agent standing in a crumbling building with the roof gone, the windows gone and the floor gone, saying, “Just think of the potential.” But that potential has been undermined by the terrible state of our public finances.
When it comes to the deficit, the right hon. Lady knows that borrowing this year is almost double that which was forecast at the time of the general election. She knows that the forecasts are predicated on the numbers that she has given to the OBR, which it has to accept. That includes squeezing spending at the end of the Parliament, and raising taxes and energy bills at the same time. We know that is unrealistic, and the reason we know it is because she and the Prime Minister have no backbone when it comes to taking difficult decisions. That is what we saw before the Budget: winter fuel payment—U-turn; welfare reform—U-turn; two-child benefit cap—U-turn. It is what we saw in a short period after the Budget: farm tax—U-turn; family business tax—U-turn; public houses—U-turn.
On the deficit, when the right hon. Lady rises again, will she tell the House how she will fill the £6 billion black hole in the special educational needs and disabilities budget? She mentions, quite rightly, the Iran war and the greater threats that our country faces, but could she explain how she is going to fund what we have been urging: 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament? How will she fund that—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Seriously, we need to hear this—[Interruption.] Oh, I can help hon Members if they do not want to hear it.
Sir Mel Stride
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The right hon. Lady says the cost of borrowing is coming down, but does she not know that the cost of borrowing in this country has been the highest in the G7 —[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Somebody needs to switch their phone off; this is not acceptable.
Sir Mel Stride
Our borrowing is even higher than Greece’s. Indeed, if debt were a Department, it would be the third largest spending Department in Whitehall. That is money not going on the people’s priorities, but simply being flushed down the drain. The right hon. Lady puts great store in the latest forecasts on debt and says that it is coming down, compared with the forecasts back in the autumn, but if we strip away her dodgy definition of debt, we can see that it will be going up in just about every year of the forecast period.
The right hon. Lady has the audacity to praise her own performance. She points to growth, but does she not know that, only last month, the Bank of England downgraded growth for both this year and next year? A moment ago, she said that the Government had beaten the forecasts for growth from last year. The forecast at the beginning of last year was for 2% growth, but the growth outcome at the end of last year was 1.3%. By my mathematics, that is not an improvement. It should be of considerable concern to the entire House that the right hon. Lady clearly thinks that it is.
The right hon. Lady points to interest rates coming down, but does she not know that her ruinous inflationary policies have seen interest rates higher for longer, meaning more expensive mortgages for hundreds of thousands of people across our country? She was slightly coy about unemployment—because, of course, we know that it now stands at a five-year high. Under every single Labour Government in history, unemployment has risen, and this Government are no exception.
The right hon. Lady is fond of saying that she is simply asking people to pay a little more tax. Well, I do not remember the taxman phoning me up and asking me if I would awfully mind paying a little more tax. And what does it mean? It means workers struggling, employers laying off staff, and tens of thousands of the most talented people in our country going to other places, where they believe the opportunities are greater. That is what a little more tax means. And what has that tax done? It has destroyed and deeply damaged entire sectors of our economy. Hospitality has seen almost 100,000 job losses since this Government came to office, and that has particularly impacted our youngest people.
Youth unemployment is the highest in Europe for the first time in a quarter of a century. The dreams, aspirations and hopes of young people—of all those bright young faces—have been smashed on the altar of the right hon. Lady’s incompetence. What is her message to young people today? Her message today has been that her so-called plan is working, but what is the reality? Inflation? Up. Borrowing? Up. Spending? Up. Tax? Up. Welfare? Up. Unemployment? Up. All this speaks to the weakness and chaos of this Government. Is it any wonder that her so-called plan is not working? Our energy costs are among the highest in the world, and yet she is doubling down on net zero. Given where we are, the first thing that the right hon. Lady should do is get rid of those taxes on North sea oil and allow us to start exploiting those opportunities.
We have a welfare bill that is spiralling ever upwards, but what does the right hon. Lady do? She removes the two-child benefit cap. We have taxes heading to the highest level in history because of her choices, destroying the futures of men, women and children right up and down our country—and there is no contrition, no apology and no plan to do anything about it.
It does not have to be this way. At our conference, we set out how we can control public spending with £47 billion of savings, especially on the welfare bill, with some £23 billion of savings. We are a party that believes in work, rather than benefits. We are a party that will do something about it. We are a party of work; Labour is the party of “Benefits Street”. We will bring taxes down to kick-start the economy, abolish stamp duty, scrap business rates for businesses on our high streets, and give our young people a £5,000 tax cut. We have a cheap power plan. We will fix student loans and invest in apprenticeships. Though our golden rule, we will get on top of the deficit and, by doing that, grow the economy.
That is our plan. What is the right hon. Lady’s plan? The truth is that she has no plan, or, as her Health Secretary said, there is
“no growth strategy at all”.
Even if she did have a plan, she would be too weak to deliver it, given the psychodramas swirling around No. 10, the almost daily scandals visiting the door of the Prime Minister, the sight of a person once at the highest level in the diplomatic service being carted away in a car by the police, and Back Benchers calling the shots. The Chancellor’s credibility has gone. The Prime Minister’s chief of staff has gone. His Cabinet Secretary has gone. But somehow the Chancellor hangs on.
Through the chaotic fog, the drums are drawing ever closer. The British people deserve so much better. So, for the hard-working people in our country crushed by taxes, for those denied employment, for the farmers and the family business owners who have suffered in fear for too long, for every hollowed-out high street, for every young person robbed of their future, for every elderly person struggling to survive and for the generations yet to come, we say: go!
Rachel Reeves
I know that the OBR did not publish the forecast until I sat down, but I still think the shadow Chancellor could have done a little bit better than that. To be honest, I was hoping that the Leader of the Opposition was going to respond today; after that performance, I expect she does, too! [Hon. Members: “More!”] Don’t worry; I’ve got more.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Conservatives set out their economic policy at their conference a few weeks ago. Well, they had 14 years to set out their economic policy, and it is because of their economic policy that they are now sitting on the Opposition Benches. Today’s performance is yet another reminder of how irrelevant the Conservative party now is. I hate to break it to the shadow Chancellor, but people stopped listening to the Conservatives a long while ago. And we can see why: because whether it is in office or in opposition, the right hon. Gentleman’s party and his leader have been wrong about the economy time and time again. They opposed economic responsibility and backed Liz Truss—wrong. They opposed closer ties to Europe and backed Brexit—wrong. They opposed cuts in child poverty and want to repeat austerity: wrong values, wrong economics—they are just plain wrong.
After last year’s Budget, the right hon. Gentleman’s leader predicted with characteristic foresight that borrowing would increase every year. She was wrong: borrowing is now coming down faster. That is faster than under the Tories—well, that is not difficult, because under them it went up—it is faster than forecast in the autumn and it is faster than in any other G7 economy. Last year, the Leader of the Opposition told us that energy bills would rise. She was wrong; they are coming down by £117 next month. She also told us that there would be no more Tory defections to Reform. How is that one going?
Let me let me return to the substance of the shadow Chancellor’s remarks—although I have had to reduce this section somewhat! He mentioned student loans, but he neglected to mention that he was in the Government who tripled university tuition fees, froze thresholds and oversaw higher interest rates, which led to the problems we are in today. On special educational needs, the Conservatives left a system in utter crisis, as every parent, every child and every school will tell you, so we will take no lessons from them. But in terms of where the money is coming from, that is set out today in the documents. Of course, the shadow Chancellor does not know that because he did not even bother listening to my statement.
The shadow Chancellor mentioned defence, but he neglected to mention that it was his Government who left office without any plan to fund their pledge to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. It is this Government, with me as Chancellor, who are delivering the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war.
The shadow Chancellor mentioned the welfare bill. I have to say that that was a little bit rich, because he neglected to mention that the welfare bill rose twice as fast in the last Parliament and that he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. His Government broke the welfare system, and it is this Government who are fixing it.
The shadow Chancellor mentioned youth unemployment. As I said, there is more that needs to be done, after the Conservatives increased the number of young people not in education, employment or training by 113,000 and slashed the number of young people starting apprenticeships by 40%. We will take no lessons from them. They are the arsonists, not the fire brigade, and if they cannot be honest about the mess they made, no wonder they cannot recognise that we are fixing it.
Today’s forecast shows that debt is down, borrowing is down, inflation is down, and interest rates are down from 5.25%, where the Conservatives left them, to 3.75% today. And what about investment, living standards and growth? They are all up. Let me break it to the shadow Chancellor and to his leader: there is no blank page for the Tory party—no year zero. They gave us chaos and instability; Labour is fixing it. They gave us austerity; Labour is investing in Britain. They gave us 14 years of barely managed decline, and we are reversing it. We know that if they ever get the chance, they will do all of the same again: more chaos, more kids in poverty, and more and deeper cuts. It would be terrifying if there was any prospect at all that they would ever win an election again.
The Leader of the Opposition can keep turning up every week, but it is a total waste of time. Her party is the past and not the future. I do not know what is more pathetic: the culprits who jumped ship and joined Reform and its Russian mates, or the culprits who stayed in the Conservative party and pretended that the last 14 years never happened. Either way, the choices are clear: investment with Labour or austerity with the Conservatives; stability with Labour, or more chaos with the Conservatives—wrong leader, wrong choices, wrong plan. Only Labour has the right plan for our economy and for our country.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I have to say that the sound and fury from the shadow Chancellor is extraordinary, given that it was his Government who ran the country and its citizens into chaos, with interest rate and inflation increases under the Truss mini-Budget. I welcome today’s forecast partly because there has been so little speculation along the way, which I am sure the Chancellor, the markets, the public and businesses welcome. That is the stability and confidence that we need to see. The Chancellor laid out her three choices to promote growth. She will be appearing in front of the Select Committee next week, when we hope to probe her further. In the meantime, can she tell us which of those three areas to grow the British economy she is most excited about?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The biggest change that we can make is ensuring that growth takes place in all parts of our country, rather than just for a few people in a few parts of Britain. The changes to economic geography that we have started by changing the Green Book to give every part of our country the fair chance to get the investment and opportunity that they deserve mean that growth will benefit everybody, not just a small few.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The country is paying the price for two anti-growth Labour Budgets. Growth has flatlined, youth unemployment is up, and the cost of living crisis grinds on, pushing people and businesses to the brink. So we plead with the Chancellor: please, for the sake of our country, put a laser-like focus on getting a better trade and defence deal with Europe so that we can protect our country, get Britain growing again and end the cost of living crisis.
The Chancellor said that she will make an announcement about trade relationships in a couple of weeks, but the Government are already 18 months in. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to announce the Government’s intention to negotiate a new UK-EU customs union to kick-start growth, cut red tape for business and build ties with our reliable allies in the face of Trump’s chaos. Why didn’t she?
The spring statement comes at a critical time for our national and economic security. OBR projections will soon be out of date. Trump’s illegal actions in Iran this weekend will be felt in people’s pockets right here in Britain, with the cost of fuel and food set to rise. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to scrap the fuel duty hike, which is due this September. Why didn’t she?
Young people are angry and fed up. The next generation of young people could always expect that they would have a better life than the generation before, but that promise for today’s young people has been ripped away. Almost 1 million young people—the highest in more than 10 years—are now unemployed. We are facing a youth unemployment crisis. The Chancellor’s youth guarantee is simply a sticking plaster for the damage that has been done by the jobs tax. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to reverse the jobs tax changes that have undermined job opportunities for young people and part-time workers. Why didn’t she?
Graduates are being ripped off. They have studied hard—[Interruption.] Graduates are being ripped off—[Interruption.] They have studied hard, they have done everything they were told to do, but they are facing eye-watering repayment costs and they are struggling to get on in life. On this issue, it is a plague on all our houses—partisan point scoring does no favours to those young people. We have set out what we would do. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to end the repayment threshold freeze, putting £100 back in graduates’ pockets in the first year, rising to £210 in the third. Why didn’t she?
With great instability and conflict around the world and a move away from the rules-based system to great power politics, we must look urgently at building our national energy, defence and food security. In so doing, we can and must turn the necessity of building national resilience into strategic opportunities for economic growth. We welcome the fact that the Government have done a deal for helicopters with Leonardo, as a result of the calls from these Liberal Democrat Benches, especially hon. Friends from the south-west, who have raised this issue week in, week out. The Chancellor could have used today’s spring statement to launch a new defence bonds programme as part of a plan to spend 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. Why didn’t she?
Finally, I will come full circle. I said that the country has paid the price for two anti-growth Labour budgets. The OBR today is clear: the downgrade in growth in 2026 is bigger than the upgrade in the next two years combined. We have to stop the cycle of short-term Treasury tax grabs over long-term growth. Our United Kingdom is an amazing country and has enormous potential, but we cannot take that for granted. We must accept that we are stuck in a rut, in a doom loop of low economic growth, and that is a big problem. I urge the Chancellor to take the measures that I have outlined to protect our country, to get Britain growing again and to end the cost of living crisis.
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Member gives less an economic programme and more a wish list of things that she would like to see, without any means at all of paying for them. She seems oblivious to the things that the Government are doing. She says that we should have a closer relationship with Europe, and I agree—I said it in my speech—yet she omitted to mention that that is exactly what the Government are doing. We have taken action, as the hon. Lady knows, with a sanitary and phytosanitary deal to back British agriculture and on Erasmus, and it is this Labour Government who are working with our EU neighbours to tackle illegal gangs and to improve our security.
The hon. Member calls for a big cut in taxes, but VAT at 20% as the standard rate is the rate the Liberal Democrats introduced when they were part of the coalition Government, and it has been ever since. We have provided £4.3 billion of support in business rates and further support for pubs and live music venues. If the Liberal Democrats want to deliver on this enormous unfunded promise, perhaps the hon. Lady would like to tell us which public services they would like to cut this time. They cut enough public services when they had a chance and were in office, but they are too scared to tell us which ones they would cut today. Is it the NHS? Is it schools? Is it investment in our regional transport infrastructure? Who knows? She will not tell us.
It is quite extraordinary to hear the Liberal Democrats having the nerve to raise student finance when they trebled tuition fees when they were in government and created the plan 2 scheme. In fact, it was a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State who oversaw that policy, and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), was in that Cabinet meeting when they signed off that decision. We will take no lectures from them about how to support our young people.
The hon. Lady says that they have set out what they would do on student finance. Is that a bit like what they did in 2010, when they set out what they were going to do on student finance? In 2010, what was it that they were going to do with tuition fees? I think I remember. That’s it: they were going to abolish tuition fees. But that is not what they did, is it? What did they do? Oh, they tripled them. Why should we believe a word that the hon. Lady says now on student finance?
Some of us have not forgotten that they teamed up with the Tories to cut our police, cut local government and cut our armed forces spending. We are dealing with the consequences. This is why we are investing in our public services: to fix the damage that they did with the Conservatives. What have they been doing? They are opposing our investment in the NHS, because that is what it means when they say they want to reverse the tax changes that we have brought in. The only reason we have £29 billion more a year to spend in the NHS is because of the tax changes that we made. The Liberal Democrats need to understand that they cannot have one without the other. They oppose our plans to build more homes. They oppose our plans to make work pay. They opposed VAT on private schools to help the 93% of kids in our state schools. They are simply not serious.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her strong statement and, in particular, for her words on deepening our alliances with our European partners. This is crucial for bringing down the cost of food and for healing the economic self-harm done by the Conservatives. The Bank of England has said that her cuts to energy bills will help bring inflation down to around its target from next month. Will she commit to going further and continue to shield our constituents from global price shocks?
Rachel Reeves
The Bank of England forecast that the actions that I took in the Budget last year would reduce inflation by around 0.4 percentage points, and that inflation will be back close to target from April. That reflects not just taking £150 off energy bills, but freezing prescription charges and rail fares. The events unfolding in Iran and the middle east have resulted, over the last couple of days, in gas prices going up by more than 60% and oil prices by more than 10%. That shows why our plan to take money off energy bills and ensure that our public finances are in a stronger place mean that we are in a better place than we would have been 18 months ago, after the mess left by the Conservatives.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
Given what the Chancellor has just said about gas prices going up by nearly 50% in the past week, her Budget promise to reduce household energy bills by £150 will ring hollow for many people. If the cost of living is the real concern, is the biggest mistake not to increase taxes by £66 billion, which is the equivalent of nearly £2,300 per household? If that money is needed for public services, nearly all of that—£54 billion, in fact—could be got by reducing the welfare bill to 2019 levels. Is it sustainable to keep raising taxes on people in work in order to pay ever more benefits to people not in work?
Rachel Reeves
I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but he left a massive black hole in the public finances. There had not been a spending review for years, and during that time inflation went through the roof because the Conservatives lost control of the public finances. We had to find the money to properly fund our national health service. It is a bit rich for the Conservative party to say that we should bring welfare spending down when it presided over a huge increase in welfare spending.
On the burden of taxation, our choices ensured that those with the broadest shoulders pay higher taxes. We got rid of the non-dom tax status and we are introducing the higher value council tax, VAT on private school fees and the energy profits levy. We are ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders pay the higher prices, rather than allowing the increases in inflation and interest rates in the last Parliament, which hit working people.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
The plan that the Chancellor has set out this afternoon shows that inflation, debt and bills are down, and that headroom, growth and living standards are up. That is testament to a plan for stability that is working, but that stability would be undermined if she surrendered to the idea of the £47 billion-worth of unfunded tax cuts set out by the Conservatives, so will she resist those calls? As fiscal headroom opens up, will she look again at what can be done to drive down energy costs for small business and genuinely reform business rates, so that we are backing our wealth creators, and not gambling with the public finances, as the Conservatives did?
Rachel Reeves
We are backing the innovators through the reforms that we made in the Budget last year to make it easier to list in London, and easier to raise finance in the UK. We have permanently changed business rates, so that we have a lower multiplier for high-street businesses and smaller businesses, particularly in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector. We did that by putting £4.3 billion into the system. All of that money would have been withdrawn by the Conservatives.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Undoubtedly, every Government deals with different challenges, and I note that the Chancellor did not mention the challenge of covid in the last period of government. When I was in the Treasury, I did everything I could to support businesses with bounce back loans, and to support our public services, but clearly, covid significantly scarred the economy. When the Chancellor last stood at the Dispatch Box, the “Economic and fiscal outlook” said that growth this year would be 1.4%. It is now 1.1% and flat over the period. The big strategic choice that this Chancellor faces, as the world is different in her tenure in office, is whether she will grip welfare spending at a time of grave insecurity in the world, because an open promise to raise defence spending some time over a five-year period will not cut it for this country’s best interests.
Rachel Reeves
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the work that the previous Government did on covid, and of course it was right to support people with furlough and bounce back loans, but it was not right to hand money to friends and donors to the Conservatives through covid contracts. We are getting the money back that they wasted. I say again that it is a bit rich of the Conservatives—especially as the shadow Chancellor was previously the Work and Pensions Secretary—to talk about welfare spending when they presided over a 113,000 increase in young people not in education, employment or training. We have already made reforms to universal credit to narrow the gap between the health element and the standard element. That will ensure that more people are out looking for work, and employment has increased since the start of last year.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work is a fundamental part of the British contract, but many self-employed people, and many of those on low wages, are paying to work because His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has failed to update its mileage rates for 15 years, while the cost of petrol, road tax and the rest has increased significantly. Can the Chancellor do what the Conservatives failed to do, and ask HMRC to update its mileage rates, so that working people are not paying to go to work?
Rachel Reeves
I would be happy to arrange a meeting between my hon. Friend and the responsible Minister. I recognise that this is an issue; it is being raised with me by the trade union Unison, among others. This does not just affect self-employed people; it also affects other people in work.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
In the three months to December, unemployment reached 5.2%, the highest rate for nearly five years, and youth unemployment has hit a staggering 16%. Training, hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues affecting businesses of all kinds across the country. The 2024 Budget added over £5 billion of employment costs on to retailers, almost half of which came from the changes to employer national insurance contributions, with the cost of employing a full-time worker in a retail job rising by 10%, and by 13% for those working part time. One in five people’s first job is in retail, so what steps are the Government taking to tackle these unaffordably high employment costs for the businesses that provide entry for young people into our job market?
Rachel Reeves
What the hon. Lady fails to mention is that the Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that unemployment will come down in every year of the forecast, and will end at a lower rate than it started. It would be a bit more plausible for her to make these points if she did not oppose everything we are doing to grow the economy, whether that is constructing a third runway at Heathrow airport or building the homes that families desperately need.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The rail fare freeze benefits constituents who have seen rail fares rise by 60% since 2010. Also, the recent announcement of two new railway stations in Newport East is warmly welcomed. Can I encourage the Chancellor to continue to invest in Welsh transport infrastructure?
Rachel Reeves
Constituents in my hon. Friend’s Newport constituency will benefit when they commute to work or college, or travel to meet friends in Cardiff, Swansea, Bristol and elsewhere. In addition, we are building new railway stations and investing in new transport infrastructure in Wales with the £450 million that we announced at the spending review last year.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Chancellor’s words on defence simply do not reflect the reality, at a time when the world has never felt more unstable. Every corner of our armed forces is being asked to find cuts. People in Gosport need only look out of their window to see that all our Type 45 destroyers are laid up in Portsmouth harbour, and this is the first year since the 1980s that we have not had a ship in the Gulf, at a time when the middle east is a tinderbox. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary is on its knees, and defence companies are being tied up with bureaucracy, dither and delay. The Chancellor has mentioned a couple of contracts, but so many of them are bogged down with dither and delay from this Government. She is gaslighting the British people. This is a disaster for our defence, and for our armed forces. When will she face reality?
Rachel Reeves
I am the Chancellor who has overseen the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We are spending more on defence than the previous Government were spending. That is why I was able to announce a helicopter contract worth £1 billion yesterday. It is why a new frigate came from Rosyth last week, and it is why we have been able to invest in the Typhoon jets. I will not take any lessons from the Conservatives, when we are increasing defence spending and they oversaw a cut.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the changes to the Green Book to support investment in coastal and rural areas. Can the Chancellor confirm that they will lead to investment in transport infrastructure in places like Cornwall, to support the investment being made in our industries, particularly the £50 million going into our critical minerals strategy?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has done to promote the investment opportunities in Cornwall. The Green Book means that for the first time, different parts of the country—urban, rural and coastal communities—will all have a fair chance of getting the investment that they need. This Government’s critical minerals strategy will have a direct impact—it is already having it—on Cornwall, where the National Wealth Fund is investing in lithium and tin, as I saw at first hand when I was there last summer.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
We have just heard a 40-minute, self-aggrandising monologue on how wonderful everything is in the economy. Does the Chancellor have any clue how her tone-deaf monologue will have landed in the real economy, where growth has been downgraded, unemployment is soaring and the cost of energy has just spiked? There was nothing in her statement about what she intends to do on a strategic level when energy goes to the price it was during the height of the Ukraine crisis. Rather than reading her pre-prepared SNP attack lines, will she guarantee that she will step in and protect bill payers if those prices endure?
Rachel Reeves
We have taken action to reduce energy bills by £150 from next month. As I said in my speech, because of the stability that we have returned to the economy, and the cuts in interest rates, in inflation and in the cost of Government borrowing, we are in a strong position to respond to the headwinds from the middle east and Iran.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The conflict in the middle east is a reminder of the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, which set the price of our energy bills for consumers and businesses; 80% of the time, gas sets the price of electricity. The £117 reduction in bills that the Chancellor announced in the Budget is welcome, but will she recommit to giving long-term stability to our energy prices, and to bringing bills down in the long term, by supporting investment in the generation of renewables and nuclear, in the expansion of the grid, and in battery storage, which will help domestic and industrial consumers at the same time?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for that important question. He is absolutely right: whether through the successful auction round 7 that we have just completed for investment in new renewable energy, or through the planning reforms to make it even easier to build grid connections and wind farms, we are taking action to secure our energy supplies. Through the spending review last year, we invested in Sizewell C and small modular reactors, which will be built in Wales by Rolls-Royce.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Does the Chancellor now accept that there is a correlation between increasing national insurance contributions on employers and higher unemployment, or does she still believe that those two things are not connected in any way?
Rachel Reeves
There is definitely a correlation between the number of years that the Conservatives are in office and how much worse off working people are.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and her commitment to growth in all parts of the United Kingdom. Could she set out in a little more detail what Barnett consequentials arise from her statement? Does she agree that it is increasingly important that, in May, we elect a Government who will spend that money wisely, which means electing a Labour Government in Holyrood, led by Anas Sarwar?
Rachel Reeves
In last year’s spending review, we set out a record settlement for the Scottish Government, as well as for the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. I can tell the House and my hon. Friend that, because of the decisions that we are making, I am able to announce an additional £900 million in resource departmental expenditure limits spending, and £20 million in capital departmental expenditure limits spending, for the Scottish Government over the spending review period between 2026-27 and 2028-29. Like her, I very much hope that it will be Anas Sarwar and a Labour Government spending that money, rather than the SNP wasting it and presiding over longer NHS waiting lists.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The Chancellor is like a rogue landlord who keeps squeezing the tenant with higher and higher rent, and all the while, the property is going to rack and ruin. I do not know who she is speaking to, but she needs to get out and talk to hard-working people who are hard up right now—people who are worried about their bills and the lack of good jobs—rather than the extremists she cosies up to for votes. The Chancellor’s next scheme for raising taxes on working people is to hike fuel duty at the pump. Will she cancel that measure, and give some relief to care workers, white van men and other hard-working people who get up in the morning and drive to work? They are the backbone of this economy.
Rachel Reeves
May I be the first to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new role? I know that it was not the first job that he wanted, or indeed the second, but he makes a spirited intervention none the less. I am not sure whether he shared that one with George Osborne. I can offer one piece of advice: the thing about betraying your party is that you have to stop asking your old friends for advice. Perhaps, given that the right hon. Gentleman called his new colleague “Zia Useless” a couple of months ago, he needs all the friends he can get. It might have been a couple of weeks ago, but he used to be in a party that, just three months after losing office, was going to get rid of the fuel duty support. That was in the plans that we inherited, and we scrapped them. [Interruption.] Conservatives Members say that is rubbish, but it was in their last Budget. Indeed, it was in the right hon. Gentleman’s Budget and manifesto.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I absolutely agree that this year the British public will start to feel the difference that it makes to have a Labour Government. Will she expand on what she is doing to ensure that all dimensions of inequality—inequality of income, wealth, power and health—are tackled, and that the benefits are felt in all communities across the country?
Rachel Reeves
The OBR confirmed today that, by the end of this Parliament, people will be £1,000 a year better off. That is compared with the fall in living standards under the previous Government. My hon. Friend’s constituency benefits from Pride in Place funding, through which we are investing in the places that were forgotten about and left behind during 14 years of Conservative government.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I hope the Chancellor will accept that I have challenged successive Governments over inadequate defence spending. If she does, will she also accept that it is not a wise idea to keep comparing current defence spending with the levels of defence spending “since the cold war”? We are not in “since the cold war” now; we are in a hot war in Europe and an incendiary war in the middle east. Does she know what percentage of GDP Mrs Thatcher spent during the cold war years of the 1980s? I will give her a clue: it was twice what we spend now in terms of percentage of GDP.
Rachel Reeves
A year and a half ago, the right hon. Gentleman stood on a manifesto that had absolutely no explanation of how his party would increase defence spending. This Government have increased defence spending. I am surprised that he criticises that, rather than welcoming it.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chancellor for outlining how we will finally turn the corner on the 14 years of suffering felt by many of my constituents and people across the country. Many people still complain about the cost of living, and they are impatient for change. I hope that, through what the Chancellor has set out this afternoon, we will start to see that turn. Rightly, we are seeing a change in business rates, but my constituent who owns Chocolate Dino has highlighted that central London rateable values are still high, while small business rates relief thresholds have remained static. That is having such a big impact on independent and small businesses. Can the Chancellor look into other areas to ensure that such businesses, which are the backbone of UK plc, can thrive?
Rachel Reeves
In my hon. Friend’s constituency, thousands of children will be lifted out of poverty from next month because this Labour Government have chosen to get rid of the two-child policy that was introduced by the Conservatives and supported by their Tory tribute act friends on the Reform Benches. On business rates, I am sure that the Secretary of State for Business and Trade or a relevant Minister would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. The changes that we have made mean that there is a permanently lower multiplier for smaller businesses and high street businesses.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Many small and medium-sized enterprises add value to our towns and villages, but I am concerned about their survival. The Community Waffle House in Axminster is a community interest company that is struggling under the pressure of last year’s national insurance increases. Waffle Axminster boasts £3.9 million in public sector cost avoidance and value created, according to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport wellbeing valuation for reduced loneliness. Will the Chancellor consider VAT relief to take account of the public sector cost avoidance by that CIC and other hospitality businesses?
Rachel Reeves
This Labour Government have permanently reduced the multiplier faced by small businesses and high street businesses—the business rates system that we inherited from the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman mentions VAT. When Labour left office in 2010, VAT was 17.5%, and the Conservative Government, with the help of the Liberal Democrats, increased it to 20%. It has been there for 15 years. If his party wants to cut taxes, it also has to explain which public services it is going to cut. We have increased spending on the health service by £29 billion. That was the right decision, but it was only possible because of the tax decisions we have made.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
The stability the Chancellor has brought back to our economy has allowed us to allocate record levels of infrastructure investment. Alongside the Green Book review, this creates the conditions for meaningful investment in previously left-behind places like Lancashire. Yet, as the review highlights, places like Lancashire that do not yet have a mayor can lack the capacity and capability to bring forward fully investable business cases. In recent months, myself, Lancashire colleagues and leaders of Lancashire combined authority have written to the Government asking for interim capacity funding to develop fully investable proposals. The need is urgent, so will the Chancellor meet me and colleagues to discuss how we can bring forward the game-changing growth projects that Lancashire needs?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for his constituents in Rossendale and Darwen, and he was also a big advocate for the reforms to the Green Book that we managed to bring in at the Budget last year. Because of those changes, we will now look more favourably at investment opportunities in rural areas, coastal communities and places that have been left behind. I welcome any suggestions for specific investments in his constituency, either through the British Business Bank, UK Export Finance or the National Wealth Fund, all of which have had their budgets expanded under this Labour Government.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
The Chancellor stands there and says that living standards are up and the economy is growing, but people can see the reality in their everyday lives: unemployment up month on month and energy bills higher than when Labour came to power. The latest figures in fact show that per person, our economy is shrinking, yet she stands there and says she has
“the right economic plan for our country”.
Does she have any idea how that sounds to people out there who are working harder than ever, with less and less left over at the end of every month?
Rachel Reeves
It is good to see the hon. Member still on the Conservative Benches—I thought she was going to be joining her Tory tribute act friends over there with the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). What the Office for Budget Responsibility document shows today is that people are going to be £1,000 better off by the end of this Parliament, whereas under the previous Government living standards fell, and GDP per capita is set to be 5.6% higher by the end of this Parliament, whereas under the previous Conservative Government GDP per capita fell.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will hear a lot from politicians today—although it appears not from Reform Members, because they have all gone—but does she agree that the most important people to listen to are not those making the sound and fury in this room but those who lend money to the Government? They believe that her proposals are worth lending money against, and for that reason, the amount we will be spending on debt interest is falling. Unlike the Conservative party, they think the UK is a good credit risk in comparison with other G7 nations. Will she say more about how she can bring electricity prices down to support the growth that she is all about?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend knows that if we can improve living standards and also reduce how much we are spending on servicing the debt racked up by the Conservatives, we will have more money to spend on the priorities of people in Chesterfield and elsewhere. The numbers today confirm that we will be spending £4 billion less on debt interest next year than was forecast even in the Budget just a couple of months ago, and that is because of the stability that we have managed to return to the economy. Under the Conservative Government, before Liz Truss, we were spending the average of the G7 on our debt servicing costs. That rocketed under Liz Truss. We have already managed to reduce some of that borrowing premium, but if we continue, we have a £15 billion prize on offer, and that will be money to spend in our communities, on the priorities of working people, whereas under the previous Government, we just spent more and more on servicing debt interest costs.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The result in Gorton and Denton shows that voters want bolder action from politicians against sky-high privatised bills and rents and want no families to be left struggling in poverty. Will the Chancellor listen and scrap her dysfunctional fiscal rules, starting with scrapping the overall family benefit cap, which still means that over 200,000 children are not getting the help they need to live if not a nice life, at least one without needless grinding hardship?
Rachel Reeves
I believe in fair taxes, and I believe the wealthy should pay their fair share, but I believe in bringing that about in a credible way that actually delivers for our constituents. That is why, in my two Budgets, I have ended the non-dom loophole, charged VAT and business rates on private school fees, raised capital gains tax and introduced a high-value property tax, which I believe the Green party opposes in London. The hon. Member failed to mention her party’s policy on defence and defence spending. This is important, especially now. We know that the Green party wants to leave NATO. She does not want to say it, but it is her party’s policy.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor agree that sound management of the economy has provided the fiscal headroom to invest in large infrastructure projects, in contrast with Scotland, where the SNP Government cancelled the Glasgow airport rail link and sold off the land at a loss?
Rachel Reeves
To be honest, when the SNP gets involved in infrastructure projects like trying to build a couple of ferries, it all seems to go horribly wrong. That is why, despite the fact that the SNP Government have had a record settlement from us, NHS waiting lists in Scotland continue to increase, while in England and Wales, under Labour Governments, they are falling.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Business has been crushed by the taxes brought in by this Chancellor. Just a year ago, in a fairly gloomy forecast by the OBR, it was suggesting 1.8% GDP growth over the forecast period. That has now been reduced to 1.5%. If the central mission of this Chancellor—and supposedly this Government—is economic growth, how can she stand there today and say it is working, when it has been marked by the OBR that she is going in exactly the wrong direction, making all our constituents poorer? Can she please explain that to the House?
Rachel Reeves
That is just completely wrong. What the OBR says today is that people will be £1,000 a year better off by the end of the forecast period and that GDP per capita will increase by 5.6% after having fallen under the previous Government. Yes, productivity growth was revised down at the Budget, because of the policies of the previous Government. It has not been revised today.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I was a young person while the Tories were in power, and the reality is that they locked my generation out of home ownership, living standards were worse than those of our parents, and the public services we relied on growing up were cut because of decisions made by their Government. I remember the mini-Budget, which meant that I saw interest rates on my student loan rise—a student loan that is so high because of the plan introduced by the coalition Government and because they changed maintenance grants to loans. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only the Labour party can change this country for young people, who finally have a Government that will match their ambition?
Rachel Reeves
When I visited Kettering with my hon. Friend recently, it was just ahead of the capital investment in new SEND provision in her constituency, so that more young people—some of the most vulnerable—can be educated locally in Kettering, with better outcomes for them.
On student finances, the last Government lost control of inflation, and, of course, student loans under plan 2 and other schemes are linked to inflation. Because we have reduced inflation, we will be reducing how much interest people pay on their student loans. That is the best way to help them.
Rachel Reeves
I hear some shouting from the Conservative Benches. Inflation went to more than 11% when they were in government, and they froze the threshold on plan 2 student loans—which they introduced —for many years.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Chancellor raised a laugh at the start of her statement when she said she was following the right policies for this country—policies that have resulted in lower economic growth, higher unemployment, people staggering under an increased tax burden and businesses being damaged by employment taxes, and yet she has shown no change. Why has she not addressed the issues of lowering the cost of employing people, reducing the tax burden on hard-working people to help with the cost of living crisis, and reducing energy prices, which have been driven up by the net zero policies followed by this Government? Does she realise that people will be angered and amazed at her complacency today?
Rachel Reeves
GDP per capita, which is what matters in people’s everyday lives, has been revised up by 5.6% over the course of this Parliament. Unemployment is set to fall in every year of this Parliament, and to be at a lower rate at the end of the Parliament than when it started. We are taking £150 off energy bills from next month. In the spending review last year, we announced a record settlement for the Northern Ireland Executive. I can confirm today that that settlement increases further, by £318 million over three years for RDEL spending and £10 million for CDEL spending, and that money can be spent on the priorities of the people in Northern Ireland.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I commend the Chancellor on her laser-like focus on young people, including on apprenticeship starts and maintenance grants. Will she work with the Education Secretary so that by the autumn, when the exact impact of this awful war in the middle east will be clear, we will know whether any help can be given to graduates, so that they can become the next people to get mortgages and to get on to the housing ladder?
Rachel Reeves
The £800 million that we are spending on the youth guarantee, together with the increase in money we are spending on further education and apprenticeships, will all benefit young people, including the 60% of young people who never go to university. We are also reintroducing maintenance grants to help the poorest students and we are reducing inflation, which will mean that people pay less back every month on their student loan. My hon. Friend rightly mentions that we set out major fiscal policy in the Budget, but with the events unfolding in the middle east and Iran, we need to ensure we can fund all the Government’s priorities and all the priorities of our constituents.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
We have heard several different discussions about defence today, but may I remind the Chancellor that yesterday morning an Iranian Shahed drone struck the runway at RAF Akrotiri? It was not taken out by any counter-drone technology—technology that was due to be included in the defence investment plan that the Minister for the Armed Forces informed me would be announced in autumn 2025. It is now spring 2026 and, despite the fact that we have had a Budget and now a spring forecast since the autumn, we have still not seen the defence investment plan. Will the Chancellor assure us that all the recommendations from the strategic defence review that the Government have pledged to deliver will be delivered in the defence investment plan when it is announced?
Rachel Reeves
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be able to do an awful lot more because we are increasing defence spending compared with the legacy that was left by the Conservative Government, and it will be the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war because of the decisions that we have made as a Government. Because of our Prime Minister’s decisions at the weekend, we are degrading Iran’s capability to continue these attacks.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement. The thing that animates my constituents most is the cost of living and the crisis in their living standards—a crisis that came about as a result of the failed economic policies of the Conservative party, whose record on living standards in the last Parliament was the worst on record. My constituents particularly welcome the action on energy bills, rail fares and childcare, but will the Chancellor confirm that she and the Government will continue to focus on driving up the living standards of my constituents through every future policy, piece of legislation and Budget?
Rachel Reeves
People in Basingstoke will benefit when they commute to work on a train, when they pay for their prescriptions and when they get their energy bills, which are coming down next month. Reducing borrowing and the cost of borrowing means that we have more money to spend on the priorities of people in Basingstoke, rather than just paying the interest on the debt racked up by the Conservative party.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The OBR’s forecast has again downgraded oil and gas revenue. From March to November last year, it was downgraded by over 41%, and from November to March this year, it has been downgraded by another 20%. By 2030, we are now expecting only £100 million in tax returns from the oil and gas industry, which used to return billions of pounds every year, because production is falling and investment is going abroad. When the Chancellor meets oil and gas companies tomorrow—I hope she has a great meeting—they will tell her that they need the energy profits levy to be taken away, because it is costing jobs, investment and energy security. Will she listen to those companies or will she keep ignoring the sector?
Rachel Reeves
Our country will continue to rely on oil and gas from the North sea for many years to come, but I encourage the hon. Lady to read the documents properly. The reason why the money from the energy profits levy—just that levy, not all the other taxes paid —falls is because oil and gas prices have fallen sharply since last year’s Budget. Of course, oil and gas prices have increased hugely in the last couple of days. The increase in oil and gas prices was the reason why the Conservative Government introduced the energy profits, and they used that money to take money off people’s bills—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady needs to go back and do her homework—that is just the money from the energy profits levy and the amount reflects the lower energy prices. As some of her colleagues have mentioned, those energy prices are unlikely to persist after what Iran has done.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The OECD and the International Monetary Fund have both recognised the importance of the Government’s fiscal discipline, which is important given the increasingly volatile global economic environment. Will the Chancellor set out more actions that she has taken with others across Government to control public spending, so that the Government can prioritise the long-term investments that boost our global competitiveness and dynamism, and fulfil our defence spending requirements?
Rachel Reeves
By controlling public spending, we can get the cost of borrowing down, as we saw in the most recent public finance numbers. They showed the biggest ever January surplus—in fact, the biggest ever surplus—on the Government national accounts, meaning that we have more money to spend on people’s priorities because we are controlling spending and bringing in the tax revenue that is needed. That is the first time that has happened, and it is because of the choices that we have made as a Government.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The Chancellor refers to opportunities that young people deserve. However, hundreds of college students in my North Devon constituency have spent weeks unable to travel to college due to flooding and rail closures. Will the Government confirm that they will invest in their life chances by doing more to upgrade our transport infrastructure, especially our rural railway lines, such as the Tarka line in North Devon, because that infrastructure is not working?
Rachel Reeves
I am happy to ask the Secretary of State for Transport or one of her Ministers to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about that specific issue in his constituency. As he knows, as a Government we are committed to increasing capital investment by £120 billion over the course of this Parliament, because we know about the importance of infrastructure, whether it is energy infrastructure to get energy bills down, rail infrastructure to get people to work or digital infrastructure to make the most of the AI revolution.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
While I recognise the wisdom of increasing budget headroom and I very much welcome the record Budget settlement the Chancellor has given to Welsh Government, so that they can fund and improve public services, can she explain how she is ensuring that those with the most wealth pay their fair share, so that our Welsh Labour aspiration of “fairness you can feel” becomes a reality for my constituents in Llanelli?
Rachel Reeves
I can confirm that because of the choices in today’s spring forecast, the settlement for the Welsh Government over the next three fiscal years will mean an additional £514 million RDEL and £15 million CDEL to spend on the priorities of the Welsh people. It is important to me and to this Government that we ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share. We have introduced VAT and business rates on private schools, we have got rid of the non-dom tax status, and we are introducing a high-value council tax to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share, and that, as a result, we need to ask for less from ordinary working people.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
Small businesses play a critical role in the economy of places such as Ceredigion Preseli. As the Chancellor will know, increased energy costs have put real pressure on their ability to operate in recent years. In the light of events over the weekend and the crisis in the middle east, what consideration are the Government giving to additional support to help small businesses to meet rising energy costs?
Rachel Reeves
We are only a couple of days into this conflict, and it is important to see where things go in the next few days. As I said in my statement, I am in regular contact with international counterparts right across the world, including in the middle east, with the Governor of the Bank of England, and with sectors—both maritime and oil and gas—that are most affected by what is happening. However, people can see from the actions of this Government—whether that is taking £150 off domestic energy bills or the extension of the supercharger to help energy-intensive industries with their energy costs, which will come in next month—that we are determined to help people. In addition, as I just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), today’s spring forecast includes an additional £540 million of RDEL spending and £15 million of CDEL spending, which the Welsh Government can spend on the priorities of the Welsh people.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Through the National Wealth Fund and the Kernow industrial growth fund, this Labour Government have invested over £100 million in Cornish critical minerals and renewables, which in turn has unlocked vast sums of private sector investment. Does the Chancellor agree that it is precisely because of this Government’s careful nurturing of the UK economy that she can help unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger, and that while Opposition parties scurry around TV studios trying to talk down the UK economy, she is just getting on with the job of fixing the mess they created?
Rachel Reeves
There are huge opportunities in the Cornish economy—in defence, energy and critical minerals—as I saw when I was in Camborne and Redruth and in other parts of Cornwall last summer, including visiting the South Crofty tin mine, which has received National Wealth Fund money. That, alongside the Kernow plan, gives me great confidence that the opportunities that exist in Cornwall will be invested in, both by this Government through our public finance institutions and by the private sector.
Dr Luke Evans
I want to raise the issue of the freezing of thresholds and its effect on the state pension. When the Chancellor froze thresholds in the Budget, she told Martin Lewis that some people would be pulled into paying tax, but would not have to pay small amounts of tax or do a tax return. The updated forecast now says that 600,000 pensioners will be drawn into paying tax this year, and that figure will rise to 1 million by the end of this Parliament. Could the Chancellor set out what the definition of “small amounts of tax” is, and what mechanism she will use to ensure that those pensioners do not have to do a tax return?
Rachel Reeves
As I said after last year’s Budget, if a person just gets the basic state pension, they will not be paying tax. We will set out more details in the coming months.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
In Portsmouth North, we inherited a new reality from the previous Government. People felt that new reality in the form of a closed shipyard, stretched households and Tory food banks that kept popping up everywhere. People were struggling with higher mortgages, high street shops and pubs were closing, and there were cuts to education, SEND and apprenticeships. I know that many are desperate for rapid change, but I hope they can see from our statement today that we are on the right track, with retail sales and wages rising, six interest rate cuts, defence investment backing jobs in my city, and a renewed focus on SEND, education and apprenticeships. Does the Chancellor agree that in coastal communities like Portsmouth, stability and long-term investment, not cuts, are how we build household confidence, put more money in people’s pockets and secure a future for my residents?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. To support me in getting more Members in, can questions please be short?
Rachel Reeves
I know that my hon. Friend’s Portsmouth constituency will benefit from Pride in Place funding to invest in those places that were forgotten by the previous Government. It will also benefit directly from the uplift in defence spending, which will ensure not only our country’s security, but good jobs that pay decent wages in Portsmouth. Our reforms to the Green Book mean that coastal communities will get their fair share, and will get an opportunity to bid for funding to help grow their economy through the £120 billion that we are putting in for capital investment.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
If lifting the two-child benefit cap is such a moral imperative for this Labour Government, could the Chancellor advise the House why only 20 months ago, a commitment to do so was entirely absent from the Labour party manifesto and why, 19 days after that election, Labour withdrew the Whip from seven of its MPs for the apparent crime of voting for that moral imperative?
Rachel Reeves
I have always been clear that any policies that this Government announce will always be fully costed and fully funded. It was not until last year’s Budget that I was able to guarantee that. We have set out how that policy will be funded—through the gambling tax and by cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could advise the House why he wants 500,000 children to return straight into poverty.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
We have heard a lot about young people today, but in my constituency, the thing that young people really want is the chance to own their own home. For years, they have been locked out of that because of sky-high mortgage rates thanks to the policies of the Conservative party. I welcome the six interest rate cuts that this Government have overseen. Will the Chancellor elaborate on what more we are doing to help young people in West Brom get on the housing ladder and to bring down the cost of borrowing?
Rachel Reeves
I know that families and young people in West Bromwich and across the country want to get on the housing ladder. That is why we have committed to build 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament and why we have returned stability to the economy, allowing the Bank of England to cut interest rates six times. It is also why, in my Mansion House speeches, I have announced regulatory reforms to make it easier for banks and, crucially, building societies to lend more to first-time buyers, and they are doing just that.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Chancellor must be concerned that none of the good news she has shared with us today is being felt by people in the real world. Inflation is down, but she will know that that does not suddenly make things more affordable, and interest rates are down, but she will know that millions will lock into higher-rate deals this year when their fixed-rate terms expire. Combine that good news with higher taxes, higher unemployment and a slowdown in growth, and it is no wonder that people still feel as squeezed this year as they did last year. If the Chancellor’s plan is working, when will people actually feel the benefit?
Rachel Reeves
In every month since I became Chancellor of the Exchequer wages have risen faster than inflation. We have increased the national minimum wage and the national living wage to put more money in the pockets of the poorest people, and the interest rate cuts mean that a typical family getting a fixed-rate mortgage will be paying £1,300 less a year than when I became Chancellor. The OBR confirmed today that GDP per capita will rise by 5.6% over the course of this Parliament. I recognise that the legacy of the previous Conservative Government still runs deep and that it will take a while for people to feel the impact of these policies, but I am confident that this will be the year that things start to turn around.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor agree that restoring confidence and hope for families in Wolverhampton and Willenhall is achieved through a stable economy, with borrowing, debt interest and inflation falling faster than expected, moving away from the chaos of spiralling mortgage rates and towards the stability of falling rates?
Rachel Reeves
I was very pleased recently to spend some time in my hon. Friend’s constituency, where we met a family who are now able to get on the housing ladder because of the reduction in interest rates. Instead of living with mum and dad, that couple and their young child are now able to get a home of their own. That is only possible because of the stability that we have returned to the economy, giving the Bank of England space to cut interest rates six times since I became Chancellor.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Chancellor claimed to be cutting debt, but she will know that paragraph 5.9 of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” says that
“Public sector net borrowing is forecast to increase”
public sector net debt
“in each year, by an average of £92 billion”.
To avoid misleading the House, will she correct the record?
Rachel Reeves
The OBR has revised down the level of debt in every year of the forecast.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, and for the decisions she has taken to ensure the stability of our public finances so that we can improve our public services. As she will know, the number of individuals in the probation system is at an all-time high, with violent reoffending perpetuating the cycle of crime and leaving the public at risk. What steps will the Treasury take to drive down the number of staffing vacancies in the Probation Service, so that those in the service can work relentlessly to reduce reoffending and ensure the safety of the communities we represent?
Rachel Reeves
As Chancellor, it was my responsibility to make sure that we had fair settlements in the spending review for every Department. That included a big uplift in the settlement for the Ministry of Justice so that we can invest in probation staff, in prison officers, and indeed in prisons, which were full to bursting point when we came into government because of the legacy of the previous Government.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is not just an uncertain period for North sea workers; it is a crisis, and it has been a crisis for years. Investment has completely disappeared, jobs are being haemorrhaged and events make it even more clear why we need a home-grown energy supply and why we cannot rely on importing from overseas. Will the Chancellor, as she meets North sea leaders tomorrow, listen to their calls on the energy profits levy, give confidence on the future of the industry and ensure that my constituency and those across the UK do not continue to haemorrhage these jobs?
Rachel Reeves
I am meeting representatives of the North sea oil and gas sector tomorrow because of the huge volatility we are seeing in oil and gas prices. Since the Budget, the OBR forecasts show a sharp fall in oil and gas prices, but we have seen some of that reverse in the past few days. If that continues, it will put pressure on the bills that all our constituents pay. It is important that we get the right balance between taxing profits and making sure that our constituents can fill up their car and pay their gas and electricity bills.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I warmly welcome that the UK will now, thanks to these Labour choices, spend £3 billion less per year on debt interest up to 2030. My constituents need to feel that in their daily lives, so will the Chancellor further outline how we will unlock the ability to tackle living standards by spending less to service debt? How might that support local infrastructure?
Rachel Reeves
We are spending £100 billion a year on interest payments on Government debt. That is spending not on reducing Government debt, but just on the interest on Government debt, which is £1 in every £10 of what the Government spend. I think there are better ways to spend that money, and that is why I am determined to start bringing down the debt and, crucially, to reduce the interest payments on that debt. The OBR confirmed today that next year we will spend £4 billion less on interest on Government debt, because of the decisions we have made to return stability and give confidence to investors.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The spring statement began well by outlining the desperate international situation and by praising our armed forces, but does the Chancellor agree that her remarks would have been all the more credible had she announced that the dither and delay that has plagued defence spending over the past 18 months would be brought to an end, and had she set a date for the publication of the much-delayed defence investment plan?
Rachel Reeves
It is a little rich for the Conservatives to talk about dither and delay when it comes to defence spending. They had 14 years and defence spending fell as a share of GDP. We are providing the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war, and that is the right decision in light of the challenges we face. Frankly, if the Conservative Government had made those choices sooner, we might not be in such a position today.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to reducing Government debt, the 95,000 children in Scotland being lifted out of poverty and the revival of Glasgow’s military shipyards, where we will build Labour boats, which, unlike SNP boats, will work and have real windows. Does the Chancellor agree that it is a disgrace that, despite more than £11 billion extra for the Scottish Government, NHS waiting lists in Scotland are at a record level and standards in schools are falling?
Rachel Reeves
Some 95,000 children in Scotland will be lifted out of poverty, and today we have been able to announce a further uplift in the budget available for the Scottish Government. We can only hope that it is a Labour Government, not an SNP Government, who have the chance to spend that money. Otherwise, I fear more increases in NHS waiting lists and worse results for kids at schools, because that is the SNP’s legacy.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Chancellor calls this the right plan, but for whom? Is it the right plan for farmers being taxed to death, WASPI women still waiting for justice, small businesses and hospitality firms barely surviving or hard-working childminders set to lose their 10% tax allowance? The price of energy is rising excessively because of the escalating conflict involving Iran. Families and businesses are already worrying about heating their home or filling their cars, and they have been given no hope—nothing—today. What they see is soaring public spend on housing and support for asylum seekers, and unachievable and expensive net zero spend while their own bills are rising. When will this Government put hard-working British families first?
Rachel Reeves
The Northern Ireland Executive came to us asking for additional money this year to fund their priorities, which we have provided. Today’s settlement includes an extra £380 million in day-to-day spending and £10 million in capital spending for the Northern Ireland Government to invest. If the hon. Lady does not want that money, I am sure other parts of the country would like it.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Derby will be the home of Great British Railways, which, with rail continuing its journey back into public ownership, will be focused on serving passengers rather than profit. Under the previous Government, rail fares rose by 60% between 2010 and 2024. Under Labour, they are frozen. Does the Chancellor agree that bold measures such as that to tackle travel costs will help bring down the cost of living?
Rachel Reeves
I was pleased in the Budget last year to announce the plan for Derby, alongside my hon. Friend and her neighbour the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and the Mayor of the East Midlands. Derby will benefit from hosting Great British Railways, and we will all benefit from better train services under Great British Railways. Rolls-Royce will benefit from higher defence spending and higher energy spending, including on small modular reactors, bringing more good jobs paying decent wages to Derby.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Blairite policies told 50% of my generation to go to university. Looking back at those conversations, we see that rarely did anyone ever talk about who would pay for those students to go to university, or how the jobs market would then take on that amount of graduates. It is clear that the student finance system does not work, and the goalposts keep shifting with Government policies. I think there is a cross-party view that something needs to be done. Does the Chancellor view it as a serious issue, and what does she plan to do about it?
Rachel Reeves
The view of the electorate just 18 months ago was that it was time to get rid of the Conservatives, because of the broken system that they had left, whether that was student finances, the NHS, our prisons or our crumbling schools. As a result, the hon. Member is sitting on the Opposition Benches, where I expect he will be for many years to come.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we saw with the shadow Chancellor’s performance that the number of times a politician points their finger is often inversely proportionate to the number of valid points they make? The valid points that really matter to my constituents in Rugby and the surrounding villages are that there have been six interest rate cuts under my right hon. Friend’s chancellorship, inflation is coming down, we have the highest growth of European nations in the G7 and far too much more to mention.
Rachel Reeves
It was a real pleasure after the Budget last year to join my hon. Friend at a community centre in Rugby, where I was able to talk to his constituents about the benefits of the £150 cut in energy bills. The conversation I remember most from my hon. Friend’s constituency was with a woman who had lost her husband just six months before. She had four children and will benefit from the changes we made by getting rid of the two-child limit. That is a conversation I will not forget, and it is the difference we are making in government.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Monkton Elm garden centre, with its 400-cover restaurant employing 120 staff, has been hit by a £70,000 increase in its business rates this year as part of £178,000 in costs put on by the last Budget. If the Government will not accept the 5% cut in VAT that the Liberal Democrats propose—we would fund that by a tax on banks, by the way, not from cutting services—those at the garden centre would like to know whether the Chancellor will none the less extend the 15% discount to pubs on their business rates to restaurants? That would give our local businesses the support they need and give everyone the boost they want to see in our economy.
Rachel Reeves
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are conducting a review of how the Valuation Office Agency calculates business rates, including for our hospitality sector. The last time that the Liberal Democrats were in office and they had a choice over VAT policy, they increased it from 17.5% to 20%. I am not sure why the public should believe that this time it would somehow be different.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for acknowledging the incredible contribution of the workforce at Rosyth to the roll-out of the Type 31 frigate last week. I also thank her for the ongoing investment in energy infrastructure, particularly as we see increasing challenges in the middle east coming towards energy bills. May I ask her to ensure, as she has up to now, that we keep an eye on that situation involving energy bills and, whenever possible, that we invest both for our future energy security and to help people in the short term when that is necessary?
Rachel Reeves
It was a real honour for me to be able to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and see the Type 31 frigates being built there. This Government are investing in defence, and in the skills of our young people so that they can get the jobs in these expanding sectors—unlike the SNP Government in Scotland, who are not investing in our young people. Too many defence companies are having to bring in labour from abroad because of the SNP’s dislike of defence spending.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
For all the Chancellor’s words about forecasts, reality bites when the real unemployment figures are examined. The figure today is 5.2%, the highest since the pandemic, and youth unemployment is at a considerable high. Instead of relying on forecasts that are never, ever right, should we not be asking how many more people need to lose their jobs, and how many more young people need to go without one, before the Chancellor accepts that it is her policies that are not working?
Rachel Reeves
The previous Government presided over a 113,000 increase in the number of young people not in education, employment or training, and the number of youth apprenticeships was cut by 40%. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that unemployment among young people is a challenge? It is because of the decisions that the previous Government made. That is why we are putting more than £800 million into a youth guarantee, it is why we are putting more money into further education—which his Government failed to do—and it is why we are expanding the number of youth apprenticeships. We recognise there is a challenge. The difference between our Government and the hon. Gentleman’s is that we are doing something about it, and they never did.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, and welcome the OBR forecast that unemployment will fall to 4.1% by the end of the current Parliament. No doubt that will have been driven by excellent policies such as the youth guarantee and the apprenticeship reforms. The NEET rate remains stubbornly high, though, so may I urge the Chancellor to target any additional headroom that may be available at helping more young people into work and training? Investing in young people is good for them, good for society and good for the UK’s finances, and it is also the best way in which to reduce our welfare bill in the long term.
Rachel Reeves
This Government are investing in young people, by ending the two-child limit, investing in further education—which was neglected by the last Government—and increasing the number of young people who can go on to study or take apprenticeships, and, indeed, through the youth guarantee, which is worth more than £800 million. As I said in my statement, though, we want to do more to tackle the legacy that we inherited from the Conservative Government to ensure that more young people have the opportunity of work, training or a college place.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Given what is happening in the middle east at the moment, there is a concern that petrol and diesel prices will spiral upwards. If that happens, taxation revenue on fuel will do the same. Can the Chancellor commit today to keeping taxation revenue at its current level, thereby reducing tax on fuel to help ease any future cost pressure?
Rachel Reeves
I think it can be seen from the policies that we have introduced over the past year that we are determined to address the cost of living challenges that we inherited from the Conservative party, whether by freezing rail fares, freezing prescription charges, extending the 5p cut in fuel duty until September this year or, indeed, introducing Fuel Finder to improve competition between forecourts and bring down petrol and diesel prices—but of course, as I said in my statement, we are carefully monitoring the impact of what is happening in Iran and elsewhere in the middle east, and we will do everything in our power to ensure that working people do not pay the price for that conflict.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
We know that the volatility of oil and gas prices has driven the high cost of living over the last decade. We also know that renewables cut the wholesale costs of electricity because they reduce the amount of time for which electricity prices are driven by gas. Does the Chancellor agree that, given the inevitable impact of the events in the middle east, our drive for clean energy is the right thing to do both for bills and for economic stability, and that those who are advocating continual reliance on oil and gas, and not investing in clean energy, are actually committed to higher bills and to our continued reliance on foreign instability?
Rachel Reeves
Oil and gas will play an important part in our energy system for many years to come, including oil and gas from the North sea, but we do need to improve our energy security. That is the lesson from Ukraine that this Government are addressing by investing in small modular reactors at Sizewell C, but also investing in wind farms and solar farms, because we have got to wean ourselves off foreign oil and gas and prices that are dictated by international markets. That is why we are investing in clean energy, and what we are seeing unfolding in Iran and elsewhere in the middle east shows how necessary those policies are.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
A large part of my constituency’s economy depends on hospitality, tourism and our independent high streets. Those who run pubs, cafés, arts venues, restaurants and hotels are telling me that they are being squeezed from every direction, by higher employer national insurance, rising energy bills, and uncertainty over business rates relief. Does the Chancellor understand the damage that this is doing to communities like mine, and will she commit today to proper business rates reform and targeted support for hospitality and leisure?
Rachel Reeves
The best thing we can do to support our high streets and small businesses is ensure that more people have more of their money in their pockets to spend not on the essentials but on the things that they want to do—for instance, in local shops in the hon. Lady’s constituency. That is why we are taking £150 off people’s energy bills, have frozen prescription charges, and are freezing rail fares.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Whether by delivering a record-breaking fair funding settlement for our council or backing Team Derby, this Government are definitely turning the page on years of brutal Tory austerity. However, many in our city still feel left out and left behind because of the depth of those austerity cuts. Will the Chancellor work to give every neighbourhood the tools that it needs, so that every place is decent to live in?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend’s question goes to the heart of the issue. We have done an awful lot in the last year and a half to bring down interest rates and ensure that people have more of their own money in their pockets—and there is more of that to come, with the two-child limit going from April, the £150 off energy bills from April, and last weekend’s changes in rail fares. But all that is against a backdrop of 14 years of people being made worse off by the choices of the Conservative party. I do not expect people to feel all the benefits of the changes we have made straightaway, but I believe that the changes that will come in the next few months will start to be felt in the pockets of people in Derby and across the country.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Government want growth—we all want growth—but surely the Chancellor can see that the carbon tax that will result from extending the marine greenhouse gas emission regulations to the ferries, which are the economic lifeline to Northern Ireland, in circumstances in which there are no zero-emission alternatives, will add hugely to the consumer costs of my constituents and will disincentivise growth. Will she look again at that imposition, especially in view of the fact that the Scottish islands, which depend equally on the ferries, have been given an exemption?
Rachel Reeves
It is important that we wean ourselves off oil and gas prices that are set on international markets, but I absolutely accept the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point, and I am happy to suggest that the relevant Minister meet him.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
The Liz Truss Budget in September 2022 affected many homeowners, with mortgage rates shooting up and the average two-year fixed rate exceeding 6%. When I was working in the mortgage industry, I saw the impact of that on working people’s finances. That is still being felt, but does the Chancellor agree that it is because of the actions of this Labour Government in restoring economic stability that we have seen six interest rate cuts since the general election—a welcome relief for many? The Opposition parties, by contrast, have no credible plan, and would return this country to the devastating days of Liz Truss.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend speaks with authority about mortgage costs, given the jobs that he did before he became a Member of Parliament. It is true that, since the general election, somebody getting a fixed-rate mortgage will be paying £1,300 less a year than they were when we came into office. That means they have more money to spend on their high streets, on their families and on the things that matter, rather than just paying for the essentials, the price of which went up under the Conservatives.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
Economic policies introduced by the previous Government piled more and more pressure on my generation, adding to intergenerational unfairness, and nowhere is that more clear than with plan 2 student loans; to declare my interest, I still owe more than £40,000. The policy proposed by the Conservative party will not do anything to alleviate the cost of living pressures on young people. Given the better economic outlook that we have seen today, will the Chancellor meet me and other MPs who are concerned about the plan 2 student loan system to talk about how we can make the system fairer and more sustainable?
Rachel Reeves
To help the generation that my hon. Friend speaks about, we have introduced the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and we are also bringing down interest rates and inflation. That makes it easier to get on the housing ladder but also, crucially, reduces the interest rates on both plan 2 student loans and other students loans, the threshold for which was frozen for 10 years under the previous Government.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
On days like this, I am particularly grateful that NHS waiting lists are falling. Although it seems a long time ago that we heard from the shadow Chancellor, I was very concerned about his blood pressure; he is no longer in his place, so I hope he has gone to get that checked.
It is important that we take a breath and look at what the economy is actually doing. Borrowing is down, inflation is down and headroom is up. I particularly welcome today’s news from the OBR that investment in housing, as part of the economy, is up. Does the Chancellor agree that we need to continue to invest in housing to make sure that people’s aspirations to buy their own home are supported by this Government?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is right about the shadow Chancellor’s blood pressure—but, frankly, I am worried about his future employment prospects.
NHS waiting lists are falling because of the money that we have put in, but my hon. Friend makes a point about overall investment in the economy. After lagging behind pretty much every other advanced country in the world, since the general election we have had the fastest investment growth in the G7.
Madam Deputy Speaker
For the final question—the one we have been waiting for—I call Chris Vince.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement about two hours ago. Fortunately, my Shakespeare quote for the day is “brevity is the soul of wit”, so I will be very quick. We know that the national debt soared under the last Government, and that £1 in every £10 is spent on servicing that debt. What difference can we make to public services in Harlow if we can spend less on debt repayment and more on those services?
Rachel Reeves
It is not Shakespeare, but I always say, “Save the best till last.” If we can spend less money on paying the interest on debt, we will have more money to spend on our NHS, on our defence and on keeping taxes down. That is only possible if we return stability to the economy, and the OBR forecast shows that we have the right plan. Inflation and interest rates are coming down, while Government borrowing costs, Government borrowing and Government debt are on a downward path. That compares with the situation under the previous Government, who lost control of the public finances and, as a result, lost control of family finances. In 18 months, we have begun to turn that around. Is there more to do? Absolutely—but we have started on that course. If we stick to the plan, the prize at the end is huge.
Bill Presented
Geotechnical Data
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the collection of, setting of standards relating to, and secure sharing of geotechnical data derived from ground and site investigations; to require the integration of such data into the National Underground Asset Register; to confer duties on statutory undertakers and public authorities in connection with certain such data; and for connected purposes.
Nearly 200 years ago, in 1835, three of Britain’s leading geologists—William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick and Charles Lyell—wrote to the Board of Ordnance to argue for something quite simple: that this country should properly understand what lies beneath its feet. They said that proper geological maps would stop money being wasted in the search for coal and materials. Such maps would improve road construction, guide the construction of canals, help drainage, identify building materials and strengthen agriculture. Out of that thinking came what we know today as the British geological survey. Those geologists’ big idea still stands strong today: that when we understand the ground properly, we can build better, build cheaper and build faster.
We talk a lot in this House about growth and opportunities. As someone who joined the House after working for the best part of 20 years in construction and infrastructure, I am pretty happy about that, because I come from a sector that is the economy made physical. It creates the homes that people live in, the energy networks that power industry, the transport systems that connect people to work, and the water infrastructure that makes development possible. When infrastructure policy is done properly, it reduces poverty. It reduces living costs, unlocks employment and widens access to opportunities, tackling poverty at its roots.
However, growth rests—quite literally—on the ground beneath our feet. Geology underpins everything that we do. It influences groundwater and resilience to flooding, and determines whether a project succeeds or runs into delay and redesign, yet whereas our engineering capability in the UK has advanced enormously over the years, the way we treat data has not kept pace with the digital age. Ground investigation data is collected in vast quantities every year in every corner of the UK, at great public expense. Borehole records, soil classifications, and rock core and groundwater data all get collected from ground investigations, but too often, that data is siloed, commercially locked away, lost between projects, or simply duplicated because it cannot be accessed. That means that we are paying twice to drill the same holes for the same data, facing avoidable surprises, and seeing delays to nationally significant infrastructure projects and planning applications. At the end of the day, that is increasing cost and programme risk. It is a profound waste of money and time that this country cannot afford to leave unresolved. If we are serious about speeding up delivery in this country and getting Britain building again, we cannot ignore the knowledge that we have already paid to collect.
The Government have recognised this problem in part, and are rightly investing in the national underground asset register to map 4 million km of pipes and cables beneath British streets, but the register focuses on the assets that we put into the ground, not the factual data about the ground itself. Although we are modernising how we map buried services, we are not yet systematically ensuring that factual ground investigation data, where it exists, can be securely shared and reused through the same national platform. That is what this Bill seeks to address.
The Bill is not a radical rewrite but a focused, proportionate extension of existing plans. It would bring factual ground investigation data and underground asset data into one place, and build on UK industry’s initiatives on format to allow data to be readily inputted and accessed digitally. It proposes that we initially limit this information to borehole records, site investigation reports, and soil, rock and groundwater data. It does not mandate the extensive, retrospective and expensive upload of data, but it does mirror the regulations created under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 to determine what data is shared, where and in which format. The Bill builds on the successes of other nations, such as the Netherlands, which has successfully implemented such a scheme and is already seeing great results. In short, it complements the current framework and what the Government intend to do; it does not change it.
The economic case for the Bill is very strong. The Government believe that the national underground asset register, even in its current state, will generate over £400 million of savings per year. However, the reuse of ground investigation data has been estimated to be worth an additional £1.2 billion per year to the UK economy, and will massively reduce the carbon footprint of construction. We have some proof for those lofty figures, because the British Geological Survey’s national geological repository, based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), has already returned up to £36 for every £1 invested, saving £1.5 billion through data reuse.
Those numbers echo the 1835 argument that good geological information prevents waste and improves the use of capital. Early access to ground investigation data sets up projects for success, reducing uncertainty and the chance of delay or cost increases. To give a real example that Members may know about, the cost of ground investigations for High Speed 2 phase 1 is over £300 million. That is £300 million of public money spent on data that will be locked away for decades and lost, but that could be used to help better deliver the growth that we need.
Before bringing forward this Bill, I wanted to make sure that what I am proposing is deliverable, not just a great theoretical idea that will never get off the ground. I am truly grateful for the fact that, through thorough engagement with professionals from AtkinsRéalis, Arup, Mott MacDonald, Arcadis, the British Geological Survey, the Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists, the British Drilling Association and academic experts, it is clear that there is public sector, industry and expert support for my proposals. All were clear that the current system leads to duplication and inefficiency. They want clarity, standards and proportionate regulation that enables the provision and reuse of data, and levels the playing field.
Above all, I pay personal tribute to Holger Kessler—he joins us in the Gallery—the geologist and geoscientist who sparked my idea of including ground data in the national underground asset register. I also pay personal tribute to Theo Shaw, my head of office—also sitting in the Gallery—who now knows more about geology and geotechnical engineering than any parliamentary staffer would probably ever want to.
Ultimately, this Bill is about delivery. It updates nearly 200 years of legislative thinking for the digital age. For too long in this country, we have announced ambition and failed to modernise the systems around that ambition to ensure that it is realised. If we are serious about building 1.5 million homes, reinforcing our grid, strengthening our water infrastructure and delivering clean energy, we must modernise the way we handle the knowledge that underpins all that. This Bill closes a structural gap, strengthens an existing reform and supports growth.
Nearly 200 years ago, Parliament supported the creation of a national geological capability because it understood that better ground data leads to better outcomes. This Bill leads on from that legacy. The United Kingdom, which led the world in establishing the British Geological Survey, should not fall behind. If we understand the ground properly, we can build better and build more, and when we do that right, we will expand opportunity and tackle poverty. That is Labour policy in action, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mike Reader, Alistair Strathern, Mr Luke Charters, Noah Law, Kirsteen Sullivan, Rachel Taylor, Perran Moon, Ms Polly Billington, James Naish, Lizzi Collinge,Amanda Hack and Cat Eccles present the Bill.
Mike Reader accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 April, and to be printed (Bill 395).
Sustainable Aviation Fuel BilL (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 11 June 2025 (Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Question agreed to.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.
Clause 1
Direction to offer revenue certainty contract
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 6.
Keir Mather
I am pleased that the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill has returned to this House with only a small number of Government amendments. I am grateful to Members of both Houses for their engagement and constructive approach throughout the Bill’s passage. I wish to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for his skilful steering of this Bill through its initial stages. I also thank Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill for his valuable support, and for leading the Bill so effectively through the other place. The Government brought forward six amendments, which were agreed to, and we are considering them today.
Lords amendments 1 to 3 ensure that the Secretary of State can enter into revenue certainty contracts only when the supported SAF is produced at a facility in the United Kingdom. Throughout the passage of the Bill in the Lords, peers provided thoughtful and collaborative suggestions on this topic, and I am grateful to them. The amendments to clause 1 provide that sustainable aviation fuel is to be regarded as “UK-produced” where any part of the process for converting feedstocks into fuel occurs within the UK. These amendments give the industry a clear and confident signal of support, and align with our intended objective for this Bill: the objective of supporting the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel industry.
Lords amendments 4 to 6 require the Secretary of State to consult the devolved Governments before making regulations under the powers in clauses 1, 3, 10 or 11. This ensures that devolved Governments are fully engaged on matters in their areas of competence.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I very much welcome the leadership that the Government are taking on this important industry. How much sustainable aviation fuel does my hon. Friend anticipate that the UK will be able to provide, and after his amendments have gone through, is it still likely that we will depend on imports of sustainable aviation fuel, alongside the stocks we have in the UK?
Keir Mather
To meet the provisions of the SAF mandate, we believe it will be necessary to have a mixture of sustainable aviation fuel produced in the United Kingdom and SAF imported from overseas. However, the Bill creates a revenue certainty mechanism—the first of its kind—to drive this nascent market to increase SAF production. We believe that the mechanism will demonstrably increase the amount of UK-produced SAF in the system, and will have an impact on the production of the good, skilled jobs in our energy industry that we all care about so much. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend that we believe that the Bill is the right process to go through to stimulate this industry, and to give investors the certainty that they need that the UK Government stand four-square behind the creation of sustainable aviation fuel in this country.
Clause 1(8) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations extending the period in which they can direct the counterparty to enter into contracts by up to five years at a time. Clause 3(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring the counterparty to maintain a register of information on revenue certainty contracts, and to publish details about the contracts. Clause 10(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that require the counterparty to pay a surplus to levy payers, and require levy payers to pass on the benefits of that surplus to their customers. Clause 11(4) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations amending financial penalties to reflect inflation, and to specify the basis on which a company’s turnover is to be determined for the purpose of those penalties. The amendments do not affect the delivery of the Bill or its underlying policy intent, and final decisions in relation to the regulation-making powers in the Bill will continue to rest with the Secretary of State for Transport.
The Government’s objective is to implement the revenue certainty mechanism for the SAF industry effectively across the whole of the United Kingdom and to work collaboratively with the devolved Governments to do so. I am grateful for the engagement on the Bill from across the devolved Governments and pleased to confirm that we have obtained legislative consent from all three devolved Governments. I therefore commend all six amendments to the House and urge Members to support them.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the shadow Minister, Greg Smith. I believe it is your birthday. [Hon. Members: “Aw!”] Happy birthday!
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could not have asked for a better birthday treat than to debate this issue with the Minister and with everyone else who has shown such a huge interest in the Bill this afternoon.
When the Bill first came before the House, the Conservatives were clear that we support the innovation that underpins sustainable aviation fuel. Aviation matters enormously to this country: for families, for trade, for connectivity and for our standing as a global hub. The challenge has never been whether to decarbonise aviation, but how we do so without damaging competitiveness or pricing ordinary passengers out of flying.
From the very beginning, we set a clear test. If the British public are underwriting a revenue certainty mechanism, whether directly or through levies that will inevitably feed into ticket prices, the economic benefit must remain here in the United Kingdom. That was not an afterthought. It was not something we discovered halfway through the Bill’s passage; it was one of the central arguments we advanced from day one. Throughout Committee and on Report, I pressed Ministers on how the contracts would work in practice. How would domestic production be prioritised? How would we prevent a scenario where fuel was largely produced overseas, given minimal processing here and then rebadged as British simply to qualify for support? Without clarity, that risk was real.
My noble Friend Lord Grayling brought that concern into sharp focus in the other place. His amendment made the principle explicit: if sustainable aviation fuel is to receive support under a revenue certainty contract, it must genuinely be British. He made the point clearly: we cannot design a system that can be gamed. We cannot allow mostly complete fuel to be shipped here, polished up a bit, and then presented as a domestic product. That would not be an industrial strategy; it would be box-ticking with a Union Jack on it.
What has happened since? The Government tabled Lords amendments 1, 2 and 4, restricting revenue certainty contracts to UK-produced sustainable aviation fuel. That principle was not explicit in the Bill, as introduced. It is explicit now and I genuinely welcome that. That change, however, did not appear out of thin air. It followed sustained pressure from those of us on the Conservative Benches here and in the other place. It was Conservatives who identified the gap, made the case and tabled the original amendments. I am grateful that the Government have now listened and moved.
Of course, the detail matters. The definition of “UK-produced” refers to any part of the process of converting feedstock into fuel taking place in the United Kingdom. That must not become a loophole wide enough to taxi an A380 through. The intention is clear: real production, real value added and real jobs here. We will ensure that the practical application reflects that intention.
There is also a broader point to the amendments, which speaks to capability. The United Kingdom has genuine strengths in synthetic fuel and e-SAF. We have companies demonstrating 100% synthetic flight, developed right here in the United Kingdom. We have world-class engineers and researchers. We have the technical expertise to lead. What we should not have are British passengers ultimately bearing the costs while overseas producers capture the opportunity.
Now is not the time to relitigate the plus or minus £1.50 on fares argument we had in previous stages, but for the record I say that the Opposition are watching closely. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are assured that the non-HEFA—non-hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids—requirements contained in the mandate will be met by industry at no more than the same cost to the passenger?
Mr Perkins
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I wish him a happy birthday. I am interested in what he has to say. I think the Government have to be given some credit for bringing forward this signal that pushes the industry, in terms of both support for it to produce here in the UK and the mandate. Will he clarify whether he supports the SAF mandate as currently legislated for, or is he saying that he supports only it if it will not lead to any additional cost?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for his kind birthday wishes. We do support the SAF mandate. We do support the decarbonisation of air travel, as well as other means of travel, but it has to be done in a way that is economically viable not just to the industry but to all of us who ultimately pay to fly—or to go on a train or a ship, or whatever it might be—through the fares we pay. That is why the Opposition have been so laser-focused on the direct impacts on fare payers, as well as on the wider industry.
The wider point, to return to the Lords amendments we are debating, is to ensure that the economic value of decarbonisation, which the British state is mandating through the legislation we pass in this Parliament, actually benefits British producers, British researchers, British engineers, and the incredible array of innovators and talent we have here in this country.
With these amendments, the Bill is closer to meeting the test we established at the beginning of the first debate: that the sustainable aviation fuel policy the Government are pushing should reduce emissions while reinforcing the UK’s industrial base, safeguarding competitiveness and supporting high-skilled employment across the country. Indeed, our position remains clear: environmental responsibility, along with economic realism. That will be what protects competitiveness. We will continue to scrutinise the framework carefully as it develops, but on the fundamental point that British passengers’ money should back British production, the Government have adopted the Conservative position. Perhaps if they listen to us a little more often, they might find the turbulence a great deal lighter.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) a very happy birthday. I am sure the rest of the Conservative Members are waiting for him at the party—I know they like those. How was that, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Current events in the middle east have once again demonstrated the volatility and vulnerability of global fuel supplies. A cleaner aviation sector should also be a more resilient one. Producing sustainable aviation fuel at home reduces exposure to geopolitical shocks, while giving airlines and passengers greater long-term certainty. It is for that reason that I believe the Lords amendments are vital. This is about our home and our circular economy.
Before Parliament, I worked in the water industry for 30 years. One of the projects I led was working with farmers on practical measures to prevent flooding, including planting winter cover crops in between pea harvests to protect soil and reduce run-off. Those same winter cover crops, or similar ones, can also play a role as a feedstock for sustainable aviation fuel. That is why I see a real opportunity here to line up environmental improvement and the economic benefits that come from SAF. Better soil structure and less erosion mean better outcomes for our local waterways and a healthier local environment, while farmers and rural communities can gain an additional income stream from doing the right thing for their land.
Since coming to Parliament, one of my biggest goals has been the reopening of Doncaster Sheffield airport, which is essential to local jobs, growth and prosperity. But I want to go further still: I want Doncaster Sheffield airport to become a beacon of cleaner, greener aviation, and sustainable aviation fuel is a huge part of that transition.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the reopening of Doncaster airport is not only critical so that we are part of the sustainable aviation future, but to create the high-skill, high-wage jobs in the green economy that young people in Doncaster deserve?
Lee Pitcher
I certainly do agree. In the business case for Doncaster Sheffield airport, the South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority says that around 5,000 jobs will be created directly, with the creation of many more jobs indirectly. When I visit schools, as my hon. Friend does, I see our future pilots, engineers, manufacturers and aircrew. You know what, Madam Deputy Speaker? I want people to live in Doncaster, work in Doncaster, have their careers in Doncaster, spend their leisure time in Doncaster and basically have the passion for the place that I do. I know that my hon. Friend does, too.
DSA is ideally placed to lead on how we become a cleaner, greener aviation economy locally. It is surrounded by agricultural land and is close to the Humber, the UK’s leading hub for green energy and fuel. A domestic SAF industry means more UK manufacturing, more skilled work and more investment in the kind of modern facilities that can power regional growth. We know how important that is right now.
Taken together, the benefits are absolutely clear: for our countryside, we can improve soil and water outcomes, support more resilient farming and restore nature; for our rural communities, we can open up new opportunities, diversify incomes and improve productivity; for industry, we can build manufacturing capability and secure supply chains here at home; and for aviation, we can reduce dependence on volatile foreign oil and give the sector a credible route by which to decarbonise. Globally, we can reduce the carbon impact of air travel, which is exactly what we need to do if we are to meet our climate goals in a way that supports jobs and prosperity and secures the planet for our children and future generations. This is the right approach for an industrial strategy that is serious about delivery and an environmental strategy that is serious about our future.
If we are asking the public to help to de-risk and scale up a strategic fuel, the jobs, investment, apprenticeships and manufacturing capacity should be created right here, right now in the UK. These amendments keep the value chain onshore, strengthen British supply chains and ensure that decarbonisation supports growth in our communities, not just demand somewhere else.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Even taking into account the Lords amendments, we continue to welcome steps to decarbonise our aviation industry, including investment in sustainable aviation fuels. I repeat the Liberal Democrat point from Second Reading that SAF is just one step in that direction; in the longer term, it needs to complement rather than detract from investment in zero-carbon flight technology.
I thank the Government for their engagement in the other place and for bringing forward these amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness Pidgeon for her work and advocacy to strengthen the Bill. To that end, the Liberal Democrats support all the amendments. We support Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3, which will help to provide revenue certainty that can relate only to UK-produced aviation fuel, and Lords amendments 4 and 5, which will simplify industry consultation requirements, while noting the way in which Lords amendment 6 will bring in an overarching consultation requirement. We support the duty placed on the Secretary of State through Lords amendment 6 to consult before making regulations under the Act, including its focus on consultation and engagement with the devolved Administrations, which, of course, is always important.
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I conclude my remarks. I only regret that I lack the skill of the shadow Minister in making aviation puns.
Mr Perkins
I warmly welcome the Bill, which will boost home-grown production of sustainable aviation fuel. I also welcome the work done on the Bill in the other place and believe the amendments strengthen it. My hon. Friend the Minister should be heartened by the fact that the amendments he presents today are not being lambasted from all sides; instead, everyone seeks to claim credit for them, which is a nice place for him to be. The Conservatives, characteristically, have added this matter to the list of things they are now calling for but did not do during their 14 years in power. None the less, I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith).
Mr Perkins
I will happily give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene on his birthday.
Greg Smith
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is correct that we did not pass the legislation during our time in government. No Government can do everything during their time in power. As we are having a fair debate here, will he at least accept that an enormous amount of work was done by the previous Government, which led to this Government being able to bring forward this Bill so quickly in the first Session of this Parliament?
Mr Perkins
I can neither confirm nor deny what the hon. Gentleman says. Frankly, I am not certain about that—he may well be right. I was not seeking to create great division on this, although I do think my general point remains. None the less, as I say, I thank him for what he has said and for his support for the Bill. We have plenty of things to argue about; let us not dance on the head of a pin in this area where we are all agreed.
The Government are clearly committed to greater aviation expansion. The recent work of my Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee, has demonstrated that it is possible to achieve the Government’s ambitions to have that growth while protecting nature and the environment. However, the Committee has also demonstrated that that is not by any means inevitable, and that sustainable aviation fuel is one aspect that must play a growing role alongside a suite of other measures if the Government are to reduce carbon emissions from aviation while driving that passenger and economic growth. It is absolutely crucial that the Government take action not just on sustainable aviation fuel, but on the many other elements that will be necessary both to keep the Government’s promise and to keep them out of the courts and from being judicially reviewed. It is important that this is one of a number of measures.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman rightly points to the need for a suite of measures to deliver the Bill’s objectives and the overall reduction in fossil fuel usage by the aviation sector. One of the means of doing that is to massively ramp up green hydrogen production, which will have to happen over a number of years. I am sure that the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), whom I have seen bobbing, will no doubt point to that. A quick way to kick-start that marketplace and boost sustainable aviation fuel would be to increase the amount of hydrogen that can be injected into the gas grid to 20%. The evidence is there to say that it would work. It would act as a massive kick-start for the industry. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Mr Perkins
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point—it is definitely something worth considering.
The Government have given an important commitment to meet their climate change and environmental targets at the same time as expanding airports and growing the economy, and I welcome that commitment. It is a hugely important promise, but it is also a huge challenge. Sustainable aviation fuel can deliver emissions savings compared with traditional kerosene fuel. Increasing its use is a vital piece of the puzzle in decarbonising aviation.
The revenue certainty mechanism introduced in the Bill will provide the minimum price guarantee for producers of SAF in the UK, so whoever was responsible for it, I welcome these amendments. The price certainty will encourage investor confidence in bringing commercial-scale SAF plans to the UK and bringing SAF production and jobs. Alongside that revenue certainty mechanism, the Government have introduced a SAF mandate: a legal obligation on fuel suppliers to the UK to provide an increasing proportion of SAF to airlines. That policy is also essential to driving the uptake of SAF.
What assessment has the Minister made of when these SAF mandates will be achieved? Does he think that they will be achieved in the next year? If not, at what point does he expect those mandates to be met? The Government do not believe that we need to follow the advice of the Climate Change Committee and see demand management alongside a suite of other measures as one of the approaches. Instead, they believe that we can get greater amounts of sustainable aviation fuel. Will my hon. Friend tell me how important it is to see the industry achieving these early mandates if we want to give confidence that they will be achieved in much greater numbers in the future?
Despite these welcome policies, the Environmental Audit Committee heard evidence—I think the Minister confirmed that today—that the UK would not be able to provide sufficient SAF to service the level that the Government expect the industry to use. We know that imported SAF is not currently recognised in UK carbon budgets as being a genuine reduction in emissions. Although I understand the Government have plans to include international aviation emissions within their carbon calculations, the UK has yet to formally legislate to include those emissions within the carbon budgets, despite both this and the previous Government agreeing to do so. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will prioritise parliamentary time to introduce the necessary legislation to formally include international aviation emissions within the UK carbon budgets?
The Environmental Audit Committee also heard evidence from the Whittle Laboratory at Cambridge University that, while moving to 25% of fuel usage to SAF would offer substantial emissions reductions, the reductions become much less certain beyond that point, because moving towards SAF could push up its price when compared with other sectors. That could lead to the potential of reduced availability of feedstocks for other sectors and a move beyond utilising waste products towards having to grow and cut down crops purely to serve the aviation sector. Therefore, if we go beyond 25% and start aiming for 50%, 60% and 70%, the certainty of this being an environmental and carbon reduction becomes much less certain. I wonder what assessment my hon. Friend has made of that research and whether he has visited the Whittle Laboratory. I also had the opportunity to listen to its modelling on this, so I wonder what he made of it.
Finally, will the Minister reassure me that he will not allow SAF production from feedstocks, potentially undermining the environmental sustainability and the emissions savings of SAF? Has he had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Energy, Security and Net Zero around the likely needs for the very same stock as part of our energy production in the future, particularly given the potential growth of data centres? Does the Government have a collective approach on the need for both sustainable aviation fuel and biofuels servicing our energy sector? With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will bring my comments to a close.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have taken me by surprise by not picking me last.
I thank the Minister for opening this debate. I also thank the shadow Minister for his comments and wish him a very happy birthday. Without wanting to get into any party political back and forth, I would like to say that we had a really productive Bill Committee, in which Members from all parts of the House came together collaboratively because we all wanted this to be a success. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who saw the Bill through Committee, was a huge driving force in ensuring that it will get on the statute book and that we will see the benefit of it.
I am being a little bit naughty, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is rare for me, but I particularly wanted to speak in this debate today because I was a member of the Bill Committee—one of my first in this place—and I saw the legislation through all its stages, from First Reading to Committee, only to miss Third Reading due to being on paternity leave. I think that on this occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will agree that I did get my priorities right.
However, as the Bill returns to this Chamber for the consideration of Lords amendments, I want to say how genuinely excited I have been to be part of this process. I believe that the Bill will make a difference not only to the aviation industry, which is hugely important to my constituency of Harlow, but also to Harlow itself. As I have mentioned previously in this place, my constituency starts at the end of Stansted airport’s runway. If my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East was in his place today, he would point out that Stansted airport is part of the Manchester Airports Group, so I am doing him a service by mentioning that.
This Bill will make a huge difference to people in my constituency. Hundreds of people are employed at Stansted airport, but Stansted airport college also has huge links with Harlow college. An earlier speaker mentioned how, when he goes into schools, he sees the younger people as the cabin crew, the pilot and the ground staff of the future. I have had the pleasure of visiting Stansted college—I did let the Leader of the Opposition know that I was visiting her constituency—to see the huge difference that that made to young people. We are not just talking about jobs; we are talking about careers and high-level occupations. I am really pleased that we will see 4,100 more jobs at Stansted airport because of its expansion. I am not expecting all of those 4,000 people to come from Harlow—although I have put in a request to the Manchester Airports Group—but that would be nice to see. We also know the difference that this Bill will make to the environment.
Naysayers will say that the increase of SAF production is not the answer, and that we need to decrease the number of people who fly, but we must be realistic about that. As I have said before, the expansion of Stansted airport will mean an additional 4,000 jobs for my area of the country. Aviation supports business travel and freight for millions, but SAF will also help to deliver on the green, clean energy and growth that has been so important to this Government. We know that, over its lifetime of usage, the use of SAF will reduce greenhouse gases by 70%, which is something that we can all get behind.
I know that I am expected to speak about the amendments, so I will briefly touch on Lords amendment 6. I am confident that the Secretary of State and the Minister will continue to consult those they consider appropriate ahead of any legislation. I am very reassured to hear the Minister say that he has already engaged with and got support from the devolved nations on this matter, but will he reflect on the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) about how SAF production could be part of the Government’s wider aims and the conversations he has with Energy Ministers about getting to net zero? Decreasing our carbon usage and green energy are so important to that. When I go into schools and meet the pilots, cabin crew and ground staff of the future, the No. 1 thing they bring up are their concerns about climate change.
Finally, it has been a pleasure to be part of this process and see this Bill through Parliament. The Bill is a clear sign that this Labour Government recognise the importance of our aviation sector for the future of young people and for business and international trade. It is also clear that the Government recognise the importance of green energy solutions to ensure that this country and the world have a positive future. Although I missed Third Reading—this is the joke coming—I am glad to be here for the Bill’s final descent towards Royal Assent.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
As a fellow member of the Bill Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), I welcome the return of the Bill to this place. Its progress is an example of the common-sense approach of this Labour Government.
With airport expansion and infrastructure expansion—such as, perhaps, the Glasgow airport rail link—necessary to support growth in every corner of the United Kingdom, and given the need to decarbonise the sector without pricing the ordinary Brit out of their holiday, the Government’s approach to aviation and this Bill has been the right one. While some Opposition Members—absent from their Benches—seem keen to condemn aviation and its economic benefits to the dustbin of history, this Bill takes the right approach. It will aid the Government’s growth commitment to the aviation sector alongside the progress being made on airspace modernisation.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I am pleased to support the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill and the Lords amendments. The Bill is about backing a world-class aviation sector and supporting its growth in a way that meets our decarbonisation responsibilities. The fact that SAF could contribute to the 65% reduction in emissions needed by aviation to meet net zero by 2050 is a useful reminder that technological development can ensure a future for higher carbon emitters while improving our environment. That is policy in action, and it will reduce disruption to consumers—something that we also have to bear in mind.
SAF matters not just for its decarbonisation credentials, but for its clear potential to support job creation and economic growth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) said, it will bring into existence a circular economy, including flooding alleviation and the development of feedstocks. That would perhaps alleviate some of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) about the source of feedstocks.
Increasing home-grown SAF production can position the UK as a leading destination in this new market. Low-carbon fuels can support up to 15,000 jobs and contribute up to £5 billion to the economy by 2050. That is not an abstract prospect for those of us who represent communities built on industry and energy. In northern Lincolnshire, we already see what that can mean. Phillips 66’s Humber refinery in Immingham—in my neighbouring constituency—is the UK’s first and largest commercial scale producer of SAF. I was pleased to discuss the potential for the expansion of SAF operations with P66, especially given its recent acquisition of the Lindsey oil refinery site, which has a uniquely placed direct pipeline to London Heathrow.
It is of the utmost importance that UK refineries such as P66’s Humber refinery play a crucial role in the transition to and upscaling of cleaner fuel sources. That would retain the domestic skills base and supply chains that communities such as mine depend on. That is why I particularly welcome Lords amendments 1 to 3, which will ensure that the Secretary of State can enter revenue certainty contracts only where the supported SAF is produced in the UK. That is a crucial step in protecting domestic industrial growth. Given recent global events that other colleagues have referred to, the amendments present straightforward, sensible safeguards that help the UK to build fuel capability and resilience in an ever volatile global fuel supply chain.
For SAF to be a success, and as we build the market, we must get the wider policy framework right, including carbon pricing and the UK emissions trading scheme. The ETS can support sustainable aviation fuel investment, but it needs to be negotiated with care so that British industry has the clarity and confidence it needs to invest for the long term. It must not face uncertainty or any unintended disadvantages.
I support the Bill and welcome the Lords amendments. I look forward to working with the Government to strengthen the link between ambition and real industrial opportunity here at home, creating jobs and career opportunities in communities such as Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
A few of my colleagues have been offering jokes. I was not able to prepare detailed remarks, so I hope they will forgive me if I just wing it. [Laughter.]
Although we have discussed decarbonisation a number of times in this debate, it has not been said yet that the Bill is about addressing the climate crisis. That incredibly important and urgent piece of work demands the utmost urgency and ambition. For that reason, I naturally support it and what it is trying to achieve. Similar mechanisms have been incredibly successful in developing the thriving renewables industry that we now see in the UK, which provides a lot of our energy.
It is worth while recognising that the Bill is part of a much longer journey to decarbonising aviation. I declare an interest early in my remarks: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hydrogen. In a very long timeframe, we can potentially see aviation using cryogenic hydrogen as a fuel source, so we should keep that in view.
Similarly, SAF has various generations of development, with different feedstocks and mechanisms of production. The fuels also have different characteristics and ways of interacting with gas turbine technology. Therefore, the devil will absolutely be in the detail of the mechanisms that the Government are putting forward to build a market for the various generations of SAF. I hope we will see more detail about that strategic approach as this legislation goes forward.
It is important, as the amendments make clear, that the UK benefits from what we are doing in the Bill. I am passionate about seeing the whole UK low-carbon energy supply chain building and scaling rapidly. That includes electrons—the Government already have very ambitious goals around decarbonising electricity—as well as molecules and hydrogen. We are still awaiting the hydrogen strategy. I recently spoke to the Minister about that, and I understand that it is close. It is incredibly important that we have an ambitious and comprehensive strategy for the development of the hydrogen economy in the UK that does not just serve a small number of industrial clusters but underpins our decarbonisation of electricity, provides dispatchable power and provides an opportunity for industrial renewal as we move forward.
Hydrogen is an important feedstock for producing SAF by any route. We need a hydrogen economy, and for that we need a price. For a price, we need storage and transmission. As we fulfil our desires for SAF to be ambitious, bold and effective in decarbonising, we must also do the work as a Government to build a hydrogen economy to establish that anchoring price, as well as demand and production, so that we can see a thriving, decarbonising aviation sector, the renewal and regeneration of the whole UK industrial sector, and an absolute renaissance underpinned by low-carbon energy—both electrons and molecules.
Keir Mather
Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be remiss of me not to start by asking for the leave of the House to speak again, and then wish a very happy birthday to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). I was so keen to wish him a happy birthday, I nearly put a foot wrong when it came to parliamentary protocol. I had the pleasure of celebrating my birthday during consideration of the Railways Bill with the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). May I say, it was raucous, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) will attest?
I thank the shadow Minister for his support for the Lords amendments and for his strong support for the principle of decarbonisation of aviation. I am starting to receive slightly mixed signals from the shadow Transport team as to how passionately they stand behind this prospect across different modes of transport. Perhaps that is one to be hashed out over a beer at his birthday celebrations. I am glad that the shadow Minister agrees with the Government amendments. He is right to point to the economic value of decarbonisation across the United Kingdom and the need to focus on value for money for taxpayers. We are committed to delivering that in the revenue certainty mechanism by controlling the scale and the number of contracts that are entered into, as well as the prices that are negotiated in each contract. I assure him that the cost of the scheme and the impact on passenger ticket prices will be kept under continual review. I do not just acknowledge his commitment to be vigilant on this issue; I actively welcome it, and I thank him for his contributions.
May I also acknowledge the presence of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)? I have already thanked him for his work on the Bill, but he was not in the Chamber, so I would like to take the opportunity to restate my thanks to him for getting this crucial legislation to where it needed to be.
I turn to the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson). They were right to focus on and say that the benefits of SAF production must be felt in my home of Yorkshire as well as in Lincolnshire and across the United Kingdom. The point about Doncaster Sheffield airport is important, because the consumers who use our airports and seek to use aviation travel to connect themselves to the world also care that they can do so in a form of technology that the Government are doing their utmost to try to decarbonise. I am glad that they feel that that level of ambition is reflected both in these amendments and in the Bill as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) also pointed to that.
The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), was right to say that SAF is only one piece of the puzzle in aviation decarbonisation. Hydrogen flight, greenhouse gas removals and airspace modernisation all require focus. Those points were also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and for Worcester (Tom Collins).
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield asked me about the concerns about crop use in SAF. Currently, crop-based SAF will not be eligible for the SAF mandate, but a call for evidence on the subject is open and will close on 16 March. More broadly, he asked me a range of questions that were quite detailed, some of which lie outside the exact scope of the Lords amendments. I would therefore be grateful if he would write to me and set them out so that I can give him the full response that he requires.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow for his contribution. He is right to point to the skills benefit that the generation of a thriving UK SAF industry can bring to his constituents and to support the work in Stansted airport. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) also raised the important point of ongoing questions surrounding the Grangemouth refinery. I reiterate, as he asked me to, that we are calling on investors to come forward and join us in the major opportunity to secure the long-term industrial future of Grangemouth as a hub for our clean energy future. With Government backing, we believe that now is the time for private sector partners to step forward and help shape the next chapter for Grangemouth. The National Wealth Fund stands ready to invest £200 million to support those new opportunities. I encourage my hon. Friend to keep working with us, and we are ready to engage with investors on that point.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
A5036 Park Lane footbridge
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The original footbridge over the A5036 at Park Lane, Netherton, provided a safe crossing for thousands of children and adults for decades. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the pedestrian footbridge over the A5036 at Park Lane West junction is rebuilt, honouring the original promise to restore the bridge and ensuring safe and convenient access for the community.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Bootle, Merseyside,
Declares that the footbridge over the A5036 at Park Lane West Junction should be rebuilt because the removal of the bridge in 2022 has caused significant inconvenience and safety concerns; further declares that the original bridge provided a safe crossing for thousands of children and adults for decades; and further declares that the proposed alternative crossing does not meet the needs of local residents and users.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that the pedestrian footbridge over the A5036 at Park Lane West Junction is rebuilt, honouring the original promise to restore the bridge and ensuring safe and convenient access for the community.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003166]
SEND Provision: Local Authorities
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I welcome many aspects of the special educational needs and disabilities White Paper, especially those on early intervention and increased funding. We know that most local authority SEND staff care deeply, and we are grateful for them for that, but local authority SEND provision is chronically underfunded and too often this has led to corner cutting, a culture of dishonesty and brutalisation. I fear that the Government have seriously underestimated the scale of harm. One mum wrote on my Facebook page:
“My daughter is self-harming and suicidal. EHCP behind by weeks. Discharged by CAMHS as educational setting is the main reason for mental health struggles and has to change before any work can be done. We are just left watching our children suffer. How is breaking the law by all these services allowed and not prosecuted?”
To this point, Mathew Purchase KC has said that the schools White Paper has
“a lot of good intentions, but which, on the face of it, are going to reduce the ability for children and families to enforce what they are legally entitled to.”
Last week I published, with The Times, 20 cases of avoidable SEND child suicide caused by failures by local authorities. All 20 of those children would have had their education, health and care plan rights removed under the Government’s plan, so would potentially have been even more vulnerable. Three of their mums have asked me to speak about their children.
Patricia Alban is here today. Her son Sammy was autistic. His local authority removed his EHCP. Despite 13 referrals by the police to the council, it refused to provide him with any of the support he needed. After a history of suicide attempts, Sammy died, aged 13, after falling from a harbour wall. His inquest concluded that he died from
“inadequate support from the local authority and mental health services.”
My constituent, Jen Bridges-Chalkley, started college in October 2021. She was 17 and had been diagnosed with autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Her local authority failed to update the college, through her EHCP, about her risk of suicide. One month later, she was dead. Her 81-page inquest report detailed continuous and prolonged failures by her local authority to provide the support she needed.
Eivie White was 13 when she killed herself, after years of denials and failures by her local authority to provide the support she needed for her autism. Her older sister found her body. She had to continue sleeping in the same bedroom in which Eivie had hanged herself because the local authority would not provide new housing. Six months later, Eivie’s best friend killed herself, aged 13.
Those are just three of over 200 testimonies I have received about avoidable SEND child suicide—it is an epidemic. It is our country’s duty to protect our most vulnerable citizens. How can the Government even consider cutting children’s rights?
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
I thank the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for his powerful and sobering speech, and for securing the debate. He and I have talked before about his research, which is heartbreaking and demonstrates powerfully the need for change. We have arranged a date for me to visit and speak to some of the families he is working with, and I am happy to make time after the debate to talk with the families who are here today. This is just unimaginable loss.
The hon. Member set out that he has gathered 200 stories, but I understand that there are thousands more stories in which children and families have been failed. I have travelled around the country to talk to families, and I have also heard so many stories.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for his truly emotional and very caring speech. While the Minister is travelling around the country, will she spend some time in west Somerset, where 2,500 children are on the crisis list?
Georgia Gould
I thank the hon. Member for inviting me to speak to families in her area.
The conversations that I have had have so often been about parents battling for years to get the support that they know their children need, as the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley said, and about the powerlessness they feel as they watch their children struggle and fall behind.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
At my online advice surgery yesterday, I met constituent Jenny Wilson, who has fought tirelessly for her son Maxwell to receive support from their local authority—he is without a formal diagnosis. Jenny and other parents in my constituency would like to know what more the Government are doing to help children who do not have a formal diagnosis and are still being denied EHCPs or any additional support.
Georgia Gould
I very often hear that exact story: too much support is locked behind a diagnosis that takes years, or behind a bureaucratic process. The reforms that we have set out move investment directly into schools and services that wrap around schools. We are introducing two new layers of support—targeted and targeted-plus—that will be available to children, without that battle for external validation. Teachers will be able to draw on that to support children in their classrooms. That is backed up by two new pieces of investment: £1.6 billion going directly into schools; and £1.8 billion into a new “experts at hand” service, to pay for speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, educational psychologists, specialist teachers and others who will support schools. Their support will be available for young people, including the one mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Chris Coghlan
I agree with what the Minister says, and it is good that all this provision is coming in, but I simply do not understand why, if she is so confident that these reforms will work, it is necessary to reduce children’s rights. I know that she is likely to say that the Government are not doing so, but it is the view of KCs—an authority I trust—that that is happening. In theory, if the reforms succeed, the demand to exercise those legal rights should naturally fall, because families should not need to use them, so whether or not those rights are there should be slightly irrelevant. However, if the reforms do not succeed, those rights gives families whose trust has collapsed the peace of mind that they can, in the worst cases, go to a tribunal and save their children’s lives.
Georgia Gould
It is really important to say to families that we are expanding their support and their rights. There will be new legal duties on schools to develop these new layers of support, which will mean that support is available earlier.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for securing this debate. It is so important that the lived experiences of parents are valued by local authorities and other services, and too often they are not. In 2023, two of my constituents, Jo and Chris, tragically lost their son Leo to suicide. Leo was a bright, intelligent, inquisitive child. He was also neurodivergent and struggled with his diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. He is featured in the Times article that the hon. Member mentioned. The coroner’s report into his death found that he had been failed by multiple agencies over a sustained period. The hon. Member kindly reached out to Jo and Chris to learn more about what happened to Leo and the lessons that could be learned, and I am really grateful to him for doing so. Will the Minister agree to meet me, so that we can ensure the voices of parents like Jo and Chris are given the weight that they deserve?
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that tragic story. Of course I would be willing to meet him to discuss it further. These are stories of failure, and we need to do better for these families and change things. We need a system in which every school is set up to support children with special educational needs and disabilities. We are making it mandatory for every teacher to be trained to support children with special educational needs and disabilities, investing directly in schools to provide that support and setting out new national standards and new accountability for schools.
The hon. Member for Dorking and Horley made a really important point about families still being able to apply for specialist support. Any individual who feels that their child is not getting the support they need through the targeted or targeted-plus offer will be able to have a needs assessment. If they are unhappy with the needs assessment, they will be able to go to the tribunal to challenge that decision, so there will be individual redress in the system.
But it cannot just be for individual families to hold the system to account, because that is the system we have at the moment, with families having to take on legal battles, and for those who do not have the resource, it is not possible to do that. We in the Department for Education and Ofsted have to hold institutions to account. We are really clear that we will provide more support for councils—we are supporting them with 90% of their deficits—but with that support comes much stronger accountability.
Chris Coghlan
I have repeatedly raised with the DFE over the last year very serious misconduct by Surrey county council, including concealing for over 14 months the fact that it had the highest number of complaints in the country and reclassifying complaints as inquiries to reduce complaint volumes. As far as I am aware, no disciplinary action has been taken. This is not a party political point, because it is a Conservative county council, and I know that, off the record, some Conservative county councillors feel exactly the same way about their own administration.
I worked with the Department of Health and Social Care on reforming the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and I was very impressed by its willingness to acknowledge misconduct and the need for accountability and transparency in that case. To be frank, all I have seen from the Department for Education is a culture of protecting one’s own and of cover-ups. When will serious action be taken against local authorities that commit misconduct on SEND and systematic lawbreaking? The Secretary of State for Education said that local authorities will be held to account, but given what has happened with Surrey county council, how can we have any confidence that they actually will?
Georgia Gould
Following the letters that the hon. Member and others wrote to the Secretary of State, she instructed further intensive activity in Surrey, including a number of deep dives into the issues that were raised, which will report back shortly. There are SEND advisers going in, and there is very close monitoring of what is happening in Surrey and the progress being made, but I take the wider point that families have made to me and Members across the Chamber that there needs to be greater accountability for local authorities. We recognise the challenging circumstances that local authorities have been in, but more investment is going in, and with that investment has to come stronger monitoring, accountability and intervention when there is failure.
As is set out in the schools White Paper, we are strengthening what we are able to do in a number of areas. We are very clear that if there is repeated and long-term failure, we will take SEND from local authorities. Working with the Disabled Children’s Partnership, we are setting out new conditions under which local authorities will need to learn from tribunal judgments, publish action plans on the back of them and show much greater transparency and action.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I particularly thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for securing the debate and for the manner in which he introduced it. Since he has been in this place, he has been a strong advocate for SEND families, and I thank him for that.
The Minister has heard me talk about Sara Sharif before, and my hon. Friend has talked about her during the debate. We are clearly very concerned about children’s services in Surrey county council and I hope that we have shown that intervention is needed. The Minister may disagree, but I beg her to take away that we want to ensure that the culture of children’s services at Surrey county council is not transferred to West Surrey council or East Surrey council in the future. If the Government agree with my assessment that intervention is needed now, they need to intervene to ensure that that culture is not transferred, so that we have the fresh start that vulnerable children in our constituencies so desperately need.
Georgia Gould
As I set out, we have appointed a SEND adviser who is offering that challenge to Surrey county council. We will continue to monitor the situation very carefully and I await the outcomes of the deep dives. I will be meeting parents, along with the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley, to hear directly from them. I am committed to continuing to work with all the relevant MPs to ensure that children are getting the support that they need in Surrey. More generally, I am committed to ensuring that there is strong accountability and monitoring of performance, as well as putting in new investment and support.
I want to address the concern mentioned by the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley that some young people who had previously had support will no longer get that support under the new system. I refer colleagues to the draft annexes that set out the specialist provision packages. I hope that those annexes reassure them that, as well as looking at children who have physical disabilities and complex learning difficulties, two of the specialist provision packages focus on social and emotional needs, and the interface with mental health.
Chris Coghlan
I fully believe that the Minister’s heart is in the right place, but for me the test is what lawyers and KCs—not to big them up too much—are saying about the White Paper: specialist educational lawyers are clear that the White Paper is reducing children’s rights. I would love to support the White Paper, but our country desperately needs reforms in this area, as this debate has highlighted. If the Minister wants my support, she will have to satisfy KCs that there is no reduction in rights, and at the moment there is.
Georgia Gould
Attached to the schools White Paper and the SEND consultation document is our own analysis of children’s rights and all the areas where we are strengthening them. I want to be really clear that the intention of the reforms is to bring in more support earlier and to extend the rights that children have access to.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Minister is being generous with her time and I thank her for giving way. I want to reiterate the point about the families who have already gone through the system and who have fought for EHCPs, many of whom have had to go through tribunals and feel like they are having to do everything on their own. I come from a mental health background, and I am surprised that the system does not have what I would call a care co-ordinator to support families who are going through this difficult process.
Families are genuinely scared that the Government’s proposed reforms will lead to a stripping away of support. In my constituency, where we are served by Surrey and Borders partnership NHS foundation trust, it takes a year and a half to get an autism diagnosis, and even longer if people need medication for ADHD. I have raised that in this place with Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care, but can the Minister reassure me that as part of the approach to SEND, she and her Department are looking at the interface between education and health? I understand what she says about the absence of a diagnosis not meaning that a child should not be supported—we could have another debate about that—but for many children a diagnosis is very important, and it needs to be timely and treatment needs to be quick and effective.
Finally, before I test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I invite the Minister to come to Meath school, a special educational needs school in Ottershaw in my constituency? It is an amazing place and every time I go there I learn so much, so it would be great if she could come along and meet the fantastic kids and teachers there.
Georgia Gould
I confess that I think I have committed to go to every constituency in the country, but I will do my best. [Laughter.] I cannot promise that every single ask will be responded to quickly, but I want to get to every community, and we will also be doing a number of online events as part of the consultation to ensure that everyone has the chance to feed in.
To respond to the hon. Member’s questions, first, it is important to make clear that we are not saying that children do not need a diagnosis. Diagnosis plays an important part in the system for children and young people, but it cannot and should not be a barrier to accessing support in the education system. Schools must have the tools to identify and respond to need, and the resource and well-evidenced interventions to wrap support around children without a diagnosis. However, we are committed to working with Health colleagues on improving the whole system, and the SEND consultation document is clear about that further work on accountability —not just for local authorities, but for integrated care boards. The hon. Member will know about the review of some of the inequalities in access to diagnosis.
The point about care co-ordinators and parental support is well made—that is something I have heard a lot from families. Within the consultation, we have asked a question about how that can be better delivered, and we are committed to doing more in that space. Lots of different ideas have come forward from different disabled children’s organisations and from parents, but I want to use the consultation to hear directly from parents about what is most helpful for them. In some models, parents who have been through the system are paid to support other parents, and the special educational needs and disabilities information advice and support service already exists. We want to look at all the different models, and I would welcome insights from across the House.
I want to provide some important reassurance to those parents who the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) talked about who are concerned about the changes. First, any child at a special school will remain there for as long as they want. We have deliberately taken a careful and staged approach and are putting investment up front, so we are building a new system before we look to transition into it. We are also asking the Children’s Commissioner to take an independent view of system readiness. Secondly, we are clear that any child transitioning from an education, health and care plan must move on to an individual support plan, with the wraparound support I have mentioned.
Chris Coghlan
The Minister is being very generous with her time, and I am being slightly cheeky.
I have a horrendous case involving a child in Dorking who is 12 years old. I saw the mother in September, a week after the child’s second suicide attempt. The child and adolescent mental health services wrote to the GP one week later, saying that their risk of suicide was low, but there have been more self-harm incidents since then. This child has autism, and last week the county council rejected them from getting an EHCP, so I am literally at my wits’ end about what to do on this case. First, if I were to write to the Minister about this particular case, I would be hugely grateful if she could intervene. Secondly, how would she envisage this child’s situation improving after the reforms?
Georgia Gould
That is a truly tragic case. Of course, I cannot comment without knowing the full circumstances, but I encourage the hon. Member to write to me. There are two ways that the reforms could improve the situation. First, rather than having to wait for years, that support will go in a lot earlier. As well as the particular support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, we are working to bring more mental health support into schools to support children and young people. I mentioned the specialist provision packages and the drafts there, because I often hear from parents whose children do not get as much attention in the system because they internalise their social and emotional needs. Children who externalise those needs are sometimes not well supported either, but where they are internalised, those children get missed. We focused on those children and their need for specialist provision. For those children who can be supported in the mainstream, we want to put that support in earlier, but we want to have pathways into specialist support for those who need them.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I declare my usual interest, as my wife is a special needs co-ordinator and one of our children has an EHCP. I thank the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for bringing forward this debate. My constituents have seen our London borough of Bexley council have a safety valve agreement and an Ofsted inspection of systemic failings, which we are hopefully about to come out of. I have seen those things as a councillor and as a parent. I am the parent of twins, and I can tell the House that despite having an EHCP, the transfer for my daughter with an EHCP was so much more stressful than it was for my other daughter. I welcome the changes, as the Minister knows. There are still a few things we need to iron out in these conversations about transition, support for schools and the role of ICBs. Can the Minister commit that, through the consultation and legislative process, we will continue to hear those voices to get the package right? I know at first hand that the system is broken, and we have to get it right for these families.
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for his long-term advocacy on this critical issue and for how much he has inputted into our work to improve the system. I am glad that he asked that question, because I wanted to finish with the voices of children, young people and families. We are committed to the accountability that has been asked for, and we will shortly be writing to all local authorities asking them to develop SEND improvement plans. We will be monitoring that carefully and will ensure that the voices of families are part of the intelligence that we receive about performance.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I apologise for being late for the debate; business was going more rapidly than I expected.
Many of us strongly believe that it is important that children are educated as close to home as possible. Unfortunately, I have a piece of casework in my constituency where one child is doing a three-hour round trip every single day just to get to school, which is unacceptable. With the new changes, will there be an option to change that? It would be helpful if the Minister could expand on that.
Georgia Gould
That is such a critical point, and we have heard too many stories about long travel times, and how having to be in transport provokes stress for children, which holds them back. We are determined that every community has access to that support, whether that is inclusive schools or a range of specialist places. That is why we have put £3.7 billion into creating those specialist places around the country, and it is also why we are working on specialist provision packages to ensure that each area has that range of provision. We are determined to build up local provision so that children can grow up close to their friends. I have spoken to young people who have been in the position that my hon. Friend describes. They come back to their communities at 18, and they do not have support networks or friends, and it is so hard to build a life. That has to change, and we are determined to do so.
We have set out our plans after more than a year of engagement, but we want to hear from the constituents of all the Members here and beyond. I am personally committed to travelling and speaking to different voices around the country. We have heard from all the different contexts how things work in rural communities and different parts of the country. It is critical that we get it right. This is a generational opportunity to make change for families who have been let down. I am determined that this will be a full and an open consultation. I ask everyone who is here today, and everyone who is listening, to help us to spread the word so that we hear the families’ voices. Having heard these stories, I feel very deeply—as, I am sure, does the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley—the responsibility to change things for those families, and I am committed to working with Members on both sides of the House to get this right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
It be remiss of me not to extend an invitation to the Minister to visit St Edward’s school in my constituency of Romsey and Southampton North.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.
In response to the covid-19 pandemic, multiple temporary amendments were made to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 in autumn 2020 to enable the roll-out of the covid-19 and influenza vaccination programmes. Those amendments were extended in 2022 and 2024 following public consultation, and are due to lapse on 1 April 2026.
This instrument will retain several provisions within those regulations as permanent legislation and expand them to other vaccines. It is designed to build on the benefits that the amendments have provided to date, as well as the wider lessons learned during the pandemic and in recent polio and measles, mumps and rubella vaccine catch-up programmes. It will support the safe supply, distribution and administration of a wider group of vaccines, helping the ongoing development of a vaccination system that is fit for the future.
I will briefly set out what each of the regulations does. Paragraphs (1) and (2) of regulation 3A enable trained healthcare professionals, or staff under the supervision of trained healthcare professionals, to conduct the final stage of assembly and preparation of covid-19 vaccines, without additional marketing authorisations or a manufacturer’s licence being required. That enabled the bulk assembly of covid-19 vaccines during the pandemic. Given the more targeted approach of recent covid-19 vaccination campaigns, this instrument allows the provisions in paragraphs (1) and (2) of regulation 3A to lapse from 1 April this year.
Paragraphs (3) and (4) of regulation 3A permit holders of a wholesale dealer’s licence who do not hold a manufacturer’s licence to re-label covid-19 vaccines to reflect changes in shelf life resulting from product thawing. This instrument retains those provisions as permanent legislation, and expands them to include any vaccine against any infectious disease. That will enable a more efficient use of the capable vaccinator workforce, and will support further flexibilities in our supply chain.
Regulation 19 allows covid-19 and influenza vaccines to be moved between different NHS service providers at the end of the supply chain, without the need for a wholesale dealer’s licence. This instrument retains those provisions as permanent legislation, and expands them to include any vaccine against any infectious disease, with relevant safeguards to regulate its use. That will ensure that vaccines can be rapidly deployed in exceptional circumstances in response to public health needs.
Regulation 247A enables the use of an extended workforce who are legally and safely able to administer covid-19 or influenza vaccines without the input of a prescriber, using an approved protocol. This instrument allows regulation 247A to lapse from 1 April 2026, and introduces a new, permanent provision—regulation 235A —to continue the use of an extended vaccinator workforce through the introduction of a vaccine group direction. That will support the use of an extended workforce to administer any vaccine against any infectious disease where directed by a national body, and will ensure that the UK has the necessary agility and flexibility in its workforce to deliver those vaccinations.
Regulation 233 enables persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business to deliver covid-19 and influenza vaccination services off their registered premises, under a patient group direction. This instrument expands that provision to include any vaccine against an infectious disease. Additionally, to enable those services to continue after paragraphs (1) and (2) of regulation 3 lapse from 1 April this year, this instrument amends regulation 3 to enable pharmacists to prepare or assemble medicines for a patient in the course of their treatment without a manufacturer’s licence. That will ensure that community pharmacies can deliver vaccination services off their registered premises, enabling them to deliver targeted outreach programmes.
Schedule 17 introduced a category of occupational health vaccinators, who are permitted under the written directions of a doctor to administer covid-19 and influenza vaccines as part of an NHS or local authority occupational health scheme. This instrument amends the list of professionals able to deliver OHS vaccinations, aligning it with the professionals able to supply medicines under a patient group direction. In addition, it expands the scope of schedule 17 to cover any vaccination or immunisation offered as part of an OHS. Those changes will improve access to vaccines for staff within and beyond the health and social care sector, protecting them in the vital roles that they do.
In developing this statutory instrument, from 5 September to 28 November 2025, the Government conducted a public consultation on our proposals, hosted by the Department of Health and Social Care for England, Wales and Scotland, and jointly with the Department of Health for Northern Ireland, as medicines regulation is a transferred matter in Northern Ireland, and a reserved matter in Scotland and Wales. The consultation received 218 responses, from organisations and individuals sharing professional and personal views, the majority of which were supportive of the proposals.
We received many positive comments about how the flexibilities within the regulations have helped to increase access and efficiency across the system, while effectively utilising the workforce that came into place to deliver covid-19 and influenza vaccinations following the covid-19 pandemic. The consultation posed 15 questions on the technical aspects of the regulations, and we saw broad agreement on each of those proposals. Given the technical nature of the questions and the limited time the Committee has to discuss this instrument, I will not provide an immediate analysis of each response here; however, the published Government response can be accessed on the gov.uk website.
This instrument builds on the successes of the large-scale vaccination programmes during the covid-19 pandemic to support patient safety, improve access to and availability of vaccines, and ensure that the vaccine system continues to innovate. The changes will implement improvements that will help to facilitate the shift from “sickness to prevention”, as described in the Government’s 10-year health plan, helping to restore trust in vaccinations and ultimately increasing vaccine uptake.
Regulations 3 and 8 will enable community pharmacies to play a bigger role in prevention by expanding their role in vaccine delivery and enabling targeted outreach in areas where health inequalities remain pervasive, and where evidence indicates that doing so is clinically appropriate and value for money. The changes will support the delivery of commitments on vaccination and immunisation frameworks in Scotland and Wales, and an instrument will be laid in the Northern Ireland Assembly in parallel to these regulations, to deliver changes to the vaccination system across the United Kingdom.
To conclude, the instrument makes changes that will permanently support the safe supply, distribution and administration of a wider range of vaccines, and the proposals were supported by the majority of respondents to our consultation. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee, and hope that hon. Members will support them.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. The Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee on these regulations, as anything that improves trust in medicines and vaccines is important. We need to increase the uptake of vaccines; it has fallen gradually and continues to fall, and we need to reverse that.
I have a couple of technical questions. As the Minister said, the principle behind the amendment to regulation 3 of the 2012 regulations is to make prescribing pharmacists equivalent to doctors and dentists. However, regulation 3(8) currently refers to,
“another doctor or dentist…of the same…practice.”
Given that pharmacists will now also be included, should that be amended to “another doctor, dentist or pharmacist”, or “a doctor or dentist”?
Regulation 5 redefines an “occupational health vaccinator” and refers to a list in part 4 of schedule 16 to the 2012 regulations. That significantly broadens the list to include individuals such as speech and language therapists who are not accustomed to dealing with injectable medications, but appears to exclude operating department practitioners, who, as the Minister will be aware of from his practice, are used to dealing with injectable medications. Could the Minister explain the reason for removing those practitioners from the list?
Regulations 8 and 9 talk about the vaccine group direction. The patient group direction is essentially a group prescription, where a clinician signs off the circumstances in which medication—say, paracetamol —may be given by a non-prescriber. We had such a direction for the covid-19 vaccine during the pandemic. This vaccine group direction would be different, so why does the Minister feel that we need a different process to the patient group direction that is already available for vaccines, which are prescription medicines? Instead, those directions can be signed by someone who is not a clinician—such as a manager in the Department of Health or, in fact, a private company—and they do not need to have any clinical skills or qualifications at all. A clinician, or one of the people listed, must decide whether the conditions have been met, and they can then give the patient the medicine without having prescribed it.
I want to ask a couple of questions on this issue. How does that improve trust, when we have a vaccine-sceptic population and lots of material on social media, some of which is not entirely accurate? How does allowing a prescription to be written by someone with no clinical experience help with trust and those rates? Is there a plan to contract out vaccine provision to the private sector, because that is what this provision allows for? Who is ultimately responsible? Is it the non-clinician who signs the vaccine group direction? Who is the clinician ultimately responsible for the decision to give the vaccine in the event that someone has an allergic reaction or an adverse reaction of some other type?
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her support; she is a learned Member of this House, and I know she takes these matters extremely seriously both here and in her own clinical practice.
She raised a technical point on whether the sub-paragraph should include the word “pharmacist”, given the updating of the regulations—I am very happy to explore that further to ensure that the wording is optimal. I also want to reassure her on the point she made about the workforce; training and a governance framework will be set up by the UK Health Security Agency, which will oversee all of this. Whether it is an operating department practitioner or anyone else, there will be a basal level of training that can reassure all Members of this House, whether we are the clinician prescribing the vaccination or the citizen receiving it. This will be overseen very tightly by the UKHSA.
Dr Johnson
Before the Minister moves on, can I just ask him why ODPs appear to have been removed from the list?
Dr Ahmed
I am not clear on why they have been removed from the list. However, I certainly expect that anyone who is reasonably trained will be able to deliver vaccines in the settings that we have proposed, which include community hospitals and everywhere in between, when we need to think about hard-to-reach communities.
The shadow Minister also asked a question on vaccine group direction versus patient group direction. The primary difference is that the VGD allows for the separation of the decisions to treat and provide consent by a registered healthcare professional, which still need to exist, from the administration of the vaccine, which is then done by a separate individual. That is not possible under a PGD, so it is about separating the roles. However, I reassure her that the consent process in prescriptions is paramount, and she is right that it must continue to be if we want to invite people’s confidence in the vaccination process.
Dr Johnson
Can the Minister confirm that the vaccine group direction—unlike a patient group direction, which ultimately needs to be signed by a clinician—would not need to be signed by a clinician, and can instead be signed by a senior manager either within a company or department?
Dr Ahmed
I will clarify that for the shadow Minister, but we are both cognisant of the wider point that clinicians ultimately take responsibility for prescriptions and informed consent of the vaccination process, and that will still continue. Healthcare professionals will still be seeking consent for treatment; the VGD simply means that they can be separate to the person who is then administering the vaccine in practice. There is no suggestion that there will not be clinical oversight or governance of this process—it is quite the opposite. This provision is designed to tighten governance frameworks and make them more transparent.
As I set out at the start of the debate, the proposed amendments aim to support the ongoing development of a vaccination system that is fit for the future. They are designed to build upon the benefits that HMRs have provided to date, as well as wider lessons learned during the pandemic, including recent polio and MMR catch-up programmes. In amending these regulations, the Government are seeking to maintain important safety measures while also increasing the effectiveness of the system’s supply chains and workforce in vaccination programmes.
The science unequivocally tells us that, after clean water, vaccination is the most effective public health intervention for saving lives and promoting good health. It is therefore a solemn duty of this Government to do all we can in this space to support the health system’s ability to deliver vaccines for all those eligible and, in turn, help support vaccine uptake. Given the overall support of the proposals in the consultation, and the ongoing need to support the continued safe and effective supply, distribution and administration of vaccines both now and in future, it is our intention to make permanent the provisions discussed during the debate. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to be in this Committee this afternoon, Sir Alec. The statutory instrument, which was laid before the House on 2 February 2026, amends regulations concerning the levies used to fund the operational costs of the Low Carbon Contracts Company and the Electricity Settlements Company. The LCCC administers the contracts for difference scheme on behalf of the Government under the Energy Act 2013. Under the same Act, the LCCC also administers schemes modelled on the CfD scheme, including the dispatchable power agreement and the low-carbon dispatchable contracts for difference.
The LCCC acts as the revenue collection counterparty for the regulated asset base for new nuclear under the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022. It is anticipated that, subject to future policy decisions and the will of Parliament, the LCCC will conduct additional work to support Government under the Energy Act 2013. That includes work on a new scheme supporting the deployment of large-scale bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, as well as work related to proposals by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to support nuclear generation and around potentially supporting landfill gas generation. The ESC administers the capacity market scheme. Those schemes will incentivise the significant investment that is required in our electricity infrastructure, keep costs affordable for consumers and help to deliver our clean power mission while delivering on energy security.
In terms of the existing schemes, CfDs provide long-term price stabilisation to low-carbon generators, allowing investment to come forward at a lower cost of capital and therefore at a lower cost to consumers. The most recent CfD auction—the seventh that we have had—secured a record 14.7 GW of new clean energy capacity across Great Britain, making it the most successful renewables auction in the country’s history. It brought forward a diverse range of renewable technologies while delivering a good deal for bill payers. The LCCC is currently signing the 197 CfDs with projects that were successful in that auction.
Under the Energy Act, DPAs are agreements modelled on CfDs. They have been designed to instil confidence among investors for power carbon capture and storage projects and to incentivise the availability of low-carbon, non-weather-dependent dispatchable generation capacity. The LCCC signed its first DPA on 19 November 2024, which related to the Net Zero Teesside power project. That pioneering project in the north-east aims to build the world’s first commercial-scale gas-fired power station with carbon capture and storage. Over the next three years, the LCCC is expected to sign additional DPAs, which will drive the private sector investment required to bring forward further power carbon capture and storage projects by the mid-2030s. The LCCC will be the counterparty for those, and funds have been included within the budgets before us to support that role.
The LCCC signed its first low-carbon dispatchable CfD with Drax on 4 November 2025. That agreement, which came before this House, will ensure that Drax generates electricity when needed between 2027 and 2031, thus bolstering our energy security. That was a good agreement for consumers, saving £6 a year on household bills compared with the arrangements in place under the previous Government.
The Government subsequently agreed heads of terms for an additional LCD CfD with EP Lynemouth Power Ltd on 6 February 2026. If a full contract is concluded in the coming months, it will further bolster our energy security by ensuring that Lynemouth can continue to generate between 2027 and 2031. The revenue collection contract with Sizewell C Ltd, the first project to use the regulated asset base model for new nuclear, became effective on 4 November 2025. Funds have been included in this budget to cover the LCCC’s operational costs for that RAB.
Turning to the ESC, the capacity market is the tried, tested and most cost-effective way of ensuring that we have electricity capacity when we need it. It provides all forms of capacity with the right incentives to be on the system and generate electricity when we need it by increasing generation or turning down electricity demand in return for guaranteed payments. The capacity auctions to date have secured the capacity that we need to meet the peak demand out to 2028-29. A T-1 auction is ongoing, and a T-4 auction will take place next week, securing most of the capacity that we need toward 2029-30.
In both the CfD and capacity market schemes, participants bid for support via a competitive auction, which ensures that costs for consumers are kept as low as possible. DPAs are allocated through a process involving competitive assessment, followed by shortlisting, then a final stage of bilateral negotiations between the developers and DESNZ. LCD CfD contracts are agreed following a structured negotiation process between DESNZ and the generator.
Revenue collection contracts under the RAB are agreed through a structured process involving Ofgem, the LCCC and DESNZ, which provides a stable, regulated revenue stream to projects during construction and operation. In turn, we expect the RAB to lower the cost of financing for nuclear—one of the biggest drivers of new project costs—resulting in better value for money for consumers.
The LCCC and the ESC’s effective administration of all those schemes has demonstrated their ability to deliver the schemes at a low cost to consumers. That is part of the reason why the LCCC has been working with DESNZ and other parts of Government to develop new schemes for incentivising the deployment of even more low-carbon technologies. For example, the LCCC is working with my Department to develop incentives that will be useful in bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Although they have not been confirmed yet, contracts for such projects could potentially be entered into, following the process outlined in the 2013 Act.
It is important that the LCCC and the ESC are sufficiently funded to perform their roles effectively, given their critical role in administering those schemes, which I have just outlined. However, the Government are clear that both companies must deliver value for money. With that in mind, we have closely scrutinised their operational cost budgets to ensure that they reflect operational requirements and objectives for the companies. The LCCC and the ESC are very mindful of the need to deliver value for money as one of their guiding principles.
Operational costs per contract are expected to fall by 27% per CfD across the budget period, despite the growing CfD portfolio, because of a number of actions to bring down costs. The narrative is similar for the ESC, which expects the number of capacity market electricity meters to exceed 1.2 million over the budget period—a 450% increase on current meter numbers. The ESC intends to invest in a system architecture redesign to manage the growth and minimise costs, and it estimates that costs per meter will fall by 23%. The operational cost budgets for both companies were subject to consultation, which gave stakeholders and others the opportunity to scrutinise and test the key assumptions in the budgets and, importantly, ensure that they represent value for money.
These regulations revise the levies currently in place to enable the companies to collect enough revenue to fund their budgets. Any levy collected that is not spent will be returned to suppliers at the end of the relevant financial year, in accordance with the regulations. Subject to the will of Parliament, the settlement cost levy for the ESC is due to come into force on the day after these regulations are made. The operational cost levies for the LCCC will come into force by 1 April in each of the relevant financial years.
I assure Members that the Government are mindful of uncertainties in setting a budget for the next three years, such as world events impacting on energy demand and policy decisions on new schemes that have not yet been taken. Consequently, we will keep the companies’ budgets under careful review throughout the budget period to ensure that the cost to consumers is minimised. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. It has been too long since I have had the pleasure of responding to the Minister in a Committee Room.
As the Minister outlined, the regulations update the mandatory levies that electricity suppliers must pay to support the operation of the CfD scheme, the capacity market and the nuclear RAB model. These are technical changes, and the Conservatives will not oppose them.
However, while I have the Minister’s attention, I have some questions to put to him. The Government came into office pledging to cut energy bills by £300, but, some 18 months later, we have seen no evidence of that promise being fulfilled. The sleight of hand in pushing costs on to tax bills has not had the desired effect. Does the Minister think that the Government will actually deliver a £300 energy bill cut?
The Government’s press release said that the Department’s “internal analysis” proved that CfD allocation round 7 would cut bills, but the Department refused to let us see that analysis when we submitted a written question asking to see it. Why is the Minister’s Department refusing to publish that analysis? What is it trying to hide? Will it finally commit to publishing a full systems-cost analysis of the new energy system, which was commissioned by the previous Secretary of State, so that we can have an open and honest debate about the cost of the new system?
Finally, will the Minister commit to implementing the recommendations of the Fingleton review in full to make nuclear power much cheaper, quicker and easier to build in this country?
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec.
The regulations update the electricity supplier payments for the contracts for difference, electrical capacity and nuclear regulated asset base model schemes, and they will allow for funding that covers the operational costs of those schemes. It was the Liberal Democrats who originally created the contracts for difference scheme while in government, which provided support for low carbon sources with fixed prices for the power that they produce. We must continue to support these clean energy schemes, which will bolster the UK’s energy security and price stabilisation.
As we are seeing this week, geopolitical instability and the closure of the strait of Hormuz will have an extensive impact on the price of wholesale gas. Qatar’s decision to close the world’s largest gas terminal could have a direct impact on customers here in the UK. We are seeing some of the fastest spikes in wholesale gas prices, which are surging by more than 40%. Just this morning, we have seen prices spike by 30% for day ahead UK delivery. For month ahead contracts, the price was at 148p per therm this morning, which is a three year high.
That is why we need urgently to turn to renewable energy sources, continue to develop the infrastructure and technology that will actually support an energy secure future, and move away from over dependence on volatile fossil fuel imports. Given that, it is important that electricity suppliers can recover sufficient funds to cover their expected operational costs. I fully recognise the need to support clean energy schemes that will actively boost our energy security and resilience for decades to come.
Michael Shanks
I am grateful for all those technical questions on the statutory instrument before us. Let me turn to the more general questions that were asked. I welcome the support from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine; it is always a great pleasure when he supports things that this Government are doing. Unfortunately, he does not do it often enough.
On costs, the Chancellor made a decision in the Budget to take £150 off bills. That has come through in the price cap period, taking into account the need for investment in the network in order to pick up the slack from the time that the shadow Minister was in government—I think he was the Minister for networks for a period. The work to build the grid that the country needs was not done then, so we need to invest in the grid now, but that is a significant investment in bringing down bills, and we stand by the promise to take £300 off bills by the next election.
There are two fronts here. The cost of living is the most important thing facing people across the country, and it is the thing that every bit of Government is seized of taking action on. That is why the £150 was important. Equally, there is no shortcut to bring down bills in the long run, so it is important to say that this work is over the lifetime of the Parliament, to ensure that we put in place the measures that get us off more expensive gas.
The shadow Minister referenced AR7. The outcome from that in terms of cost was that the prices came in at 40% cheaper than the cost of building and running new gas power stations. That is fundamentally the difference here. His party has taken the decision to reference the wholesale cost of gas—given the events of recent days, I wonder whether it might revisit that—while completely ignoring the cost of building and operating the new gas power stations that would be necessary. That power does not just come out of nowhere.
On refusing to publish the analysis, I have the benefit of taking my written questions incredibly seriously, so I signed off the answer to that written question myself, and that was not in fact the answer. I do not know whether it was the shadow Minister who asked the question, but the answer that was sought was in the footnote to the AR7 publication, so we did not have to publish more. It was there in the footnote, if his colleagues had bothered to read it.
We have made it very clear that we will publish a response to the Fingleton review very soon. We had hoped to do that in the past few days, but, given all the things that are going on, we will publish it as soon as we possibly can. We are determined to move forward on the recommendations, because the shadow Minister is absolutely right; we need to build more nuclear much faster in this country.
Let me turn to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. I am delighted that the Lib Dems still take credit for some things that they did in government—although not so much austerity and tuition fees. We will move past that, because I know she does not like to talk about those days.
The hon. Lady is right to raise the uncertainty in the middle east. That underscores how important it is that we focus on our energy sovereignty here in the UK. This is clearly a turbulent time, but, in truth, we have been living through an uncertain world for a very long time. The only way we can get off the volatile series of ups and downs that we have seen in fossil fuels over decades is to build clean power here in the UK and control the nuclear, the renewables and the storage that goes along with it, which is absolutely critical.
These schemes are really important, and we have seen CfDs and other things being exported to other countries, because they are seen as the way to reduce the cost of capital. That feeds through into all consumer bills, which we are determined to reduce. I welcome the cross-party consensus on the Government’s energy policy—it is a delight to see.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. The statutory purpose of the Construction Industry Training Board—I shall refer to it as the CITB from now on—is to make better provision for training across the construction industry. The 2023 independent review of industry training boards by Mark Farmer confirmed the ITBs’ continued value in addressing persistent and structural workforce challenges within their industry. The review also found that a statutory levy remains the most effective model for industry-wide investment in training. This draft statutory instrument gives effect to the CITB levy proposals for 2026, 2027 and 2028. The levy remains the CITB’s primary source of funding, and the order is required for the board to raise mandatory assessments on in-scope employers.
The funding raised through the levy will enable the CITB to continue its essential work to tackle skills shortages and market failure in training in the construction sector across England, Scotland and Wales. Recognising the differing views within the sector, the CITB continues to receive strong support from employers. The draft order is built on industry consultation, consensus and stability. During the formal consensus process about the proposals in spring 2025, the CITB consulted all 14 prescribed organisations in its industry, alongside a structured survey of non-represented employers. More than 67% of levy-paying employers supported the proposals, representing almost 72% of total levy value—comfortably above the statutory thresholds required for consensus to be achieved.
Before we consider the levy proposals in further detail, I take this opportunity to return to the findings of the Farmer review. I am pleased to confirm that the Government intend to consult industry on a proposal to bring together the CITB and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, or ECITB, to create a single unified body to support the combined skills needs of the construction and engineering construction sectors. That proposal delivers on the recommendation of the Farmer review, which the Government accepted subject to further scoping. It builds on the ITBs’ existing collaborative approach to working together, as demonstrated through initiatives such as the Sizewell C skills charter: a set of commitments between the ITBs, the local councils and Sizewell C to help ensure the skilled and inclusive workforce needed to deliver that vital nuclear power station.
The consultation is expected to launch shortly, and the views expressed by industry will inform a decision on how to proceed. We cannot prejudice the outcome of the process and, in any case, the earliest the change would be likely to take place is April 2027. Should the Government choose to proceed with the proposed reform, any new levy order will come to the House through the proper parliamentary process. In the meantime, it is vital to the continuity of CITB support for employers that the draft levy order that we are debating today continues as planned.
I return to the proposals for the draft levy order. I give my thanks to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its detailed review. This order retains the levy assessment rates that have remained unchanged for four years. Despite employer demand for CITB services having risen by 36% since 2021, levy rates have been deliberately held steady to support businesses still navigating difficult trading conditions at home and globally.
The draft order also raises the exemption and reduction thresholds to protect small and micro businesses from unintended levy burdens caused by wage inflation. Employers with wage bills of up to £149,999 will be exempt, and those with wage bills between £150,000 and £499,999 will receive a 50% reduction. Those thresholds will ensure that about 69% of eligible employers pay no levy at all, while a further 15% benefit from reduced rates. All those employers remain eligible for CITB grants and support. The CITB estimates that the proposals will raise about £243 million per year, to be invested in supporting the skills needs of the construction industry. That investment will fund vital programmes to widen participation, raise skills levels, tackle disadvantage and set occupational standards for the industry.
In 2024-25, the CITB supported over 30,000 apprentices and 20,000 vocational qualification achievements; provided almost £130 million in grant funding—including £60 million for small businesses and microbusinesses; and committed up to £40 million to support fast-track training and apprenticeships in areas of high demand for home-building skills. That funding directly underpins our broader economic priorities.
The construction sector contributes over £211 billion in total output each year and employs more than 2 million people, but the fragmented nature of the industry, which has a high rate of self-employment and complex supply chains, makes voluntary investment in training less likely to occur. Without a statutory levy, the skills that the industry urgently needs will simply not materialise at the scale required. If the draft order is not approved, the CITB will be unable to collect levies in 2026, with potential impacts on apprenticeships, vital industry qualifications, employer support programmes, training standards and the future capability of one of the UK’s most economically significant sectors.
The UK requires an estimated 240,000 additional construction workers by 2029, with the largest pressures felt in home building, infrastructure, and repair and maintenance. Approving this draft order therefore plays a critical role in delivering the Government’s commitment to deliver 1.5 million safe and decent homes during this Parliament, as set out in our plan for change, and in supporting major infrastructure and clean energy projects across Great Britain that are vital to economic growth and increased opportunity.
In addition to industry support, the proposals before the Committee today have received the support of the devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales. They recognise, as do we, that maintaining the CITB’s ability to raise and invest levy income is vital to ensure that employers across all three nations can access the construction skills they need. For those reasons, I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I rise to speak on behalf of the official Opposition.
The draft order that we are debating will allow the Construction Industry Training Board to raise one more year of levy on the construction sector for the specific purpose of funding training. The purpose of the levy is to support the construction industry to have a skilled, competent and inclusive workforce for the future. The levy equates to 0.35% for pay-as-you-earn employees and to 1.25% for those with net payment status under the construction industry scheme, and it is reinvested in the industry by the board.
In 2024-25, the CITB provided nearly £130 million in grant support to construction employers and learners. That has helped to confront the training challenges that persist due to the high number of self-employed workers in the sector. The CITB estimates that 48,000 extra construction workers will be needed each year until 2029 to meet demand—a gap that could grow to 160,000 to fulfil the Government’s housing and retrofit ambitions. The industrial training levy will be vital to bridge that gap, and I welcome this opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s plans.
Nearly 60,000 potential new entrants leave the industry each year. What specific steps is the Minister taking to improve workforce retention alongside efforts to increase recruitment into the construction industry? Employer demand for CITB support has increased by 36% since 2021 while levy rates have remained unchanged, with demand now exceeding levy income. Given the financial pressures and the projected workforce requirements, can the Minister clarify the extent to which the reforms will not only meet the demand, but support the Government’s housing and infrastructure ambitions? We welcome the support provided to apprenticeship starts through the National Employment Savings Trust, but can the Minister say what proportion of those apprentices remain in sustained employment after 12 months?
I should have declared an interest at the beginning: I have family members who have worked for a local construction industry training group. On the restructuring of how training is funded, I highlighted in an Adjournment debate on 4 January that local training groups, which have played an enormous role in training in the construction industry over many decades, are being sidestepped under the new plans, and their local knowledge of the sector could be lost as delivery changes.
In that debate, I asked how funding will be allocated to areas that do not have a strategic local authority, such as my constituency of South West Devon. That is a key part of how this draft order will be delivered, and I would welcome further clarification from the Minister on this issue, together with assurances that areas without a strategic local authority will not be disadvantaged in any way as the transition takes place. We will not oppose the regulations, but we would appreciate it if the Minister addressed the concerns that I have raised.
Matt Western
I am grateful to the hon. Member for South West Devon for her contribution and for the thoughtful scrutiny applied to the draft levy order. The evidence is consistent: market forces alone will not deliver the pipeline of skilled workers that the industry urgently needs, which I suspect is what is driving her questions about how the Government will tackle that. Whether it is meeting the demand for new homes, retrofitting and repairing existing properties, or delivering the critical infrastructure needed for economic growth, there is work to do.
The levy is the mechanism that enables the collective benefits of a focused skills strategy for the construction industry and ensures that employers of all sizes can access support for training and share the benefits of a skilled, competent and resilient workforce. It also creates opportunities to help apprentices and other new entrants complete high-quality training, and enables existing workers to reskill or upskill to progress their careers. If it is okay with the hon. Lady, I will write to her with the specifics on the percentage of apprentices still in meaningful employment, as well as on her question about workforce retention.
On the question of recruitment, particularly through the mechanism of apprenticeships, the hon. Lady will have noted the changes the Government are bringing forward to apprenticeship funding to introduce new foundation apprenticeships, of which construction apprenticeships form a key component. We think that will be essential to driving more young people towards construction apprenticeships and meeting the skills demand that we face if we are to deliver on the 1.5 million homes target.
Clearly, it is our intention to ensure that areas without a strategic authority are not disadvantaged in any way. The number of areas for which that is the case is changing all the time. I represent an area within a combined authority, but it is certainly not our intention for anybody to miss out on opportunities as a consequence of their local governance arrangements.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for South West Devon for her questions and for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I will come back to her, as I said, on the specifics. For the reasons set out in my opening speech, with which the Opposition spokesperson largely agrees, I commend this levy order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Community Cohesion
(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
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of strengthening community cohesion.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important and timely debate. We are living in an increasingly divided world. Strong forces are pulling us apart; strong currents are dragging us out to sea. Powerful intoxicants of the snake-oil variety in commerce and politics, and with the social media companies and beyond, are undermining the sense of community cohesion that we innately know is so valuable.
Community cohesion offers a bulwark against those worrying trends. While our sense of community is under threat from online toxicity and barely concealed racism, it is the everyday patriots—the volunteers, the grafters and the hard-working people who run food banks and other organisations—who show us what community truly means. They show us what it means to be British. I will highlight shining examples from my constituency of Rugby, and argue that human interaction is essential if we are to stave off the threats facing our community cohesion.
Why is this happening? I believe that community hinges on human interaction. We are sociable beings, pack animals at heart—just ask the Whips. We require bonds with those around us, yet in an era of rapid urbanisation, fulfilling that innate need is becoming harder. As cities grow larger, people feel further apart, with 83% of the population now living in urban conurbations. For many, the sense of belonging is evaporating, supercharged by social media, where anything that anyone could wish to know sits at their fingertips, and people can be “friends” with someone they have never met.
Technology and social media detach us from one another. Friendly interactions have become electrical impulses down fibre-optic cables; abuse has been amplified by algorithms designed to promote conflict and by those emboldened by the shield of their keyboards. Never have we felt so far apart while being so close electronically—together, alone.
The deteriorating sense of community has started to manifest itself in ugly ways. People, organisations and vested interests are exploiting our fear, anger and alienation. Nowhere has that been more visible than in the demonstration of flags last summer, which in my eyes did not truly represent community.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate. One of our vital tasks in creating stronger communities is to counter how patriotism and national symbols are abused by racists and the far right. I am grateful for the work that British Future and Hope not Hate are doing with me on this, alongside excellent local partners such as the Leyton Orient Trust. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the first steps in community cohesion is learning how to be strong and proud in diversity, and saying clearly that our flags belong to all of us, as do our streets and country?
John Slinger
My hon. and gallant Friend will not be surprised to hear that I will come on to make similar points. I often say in my constituency—as I did at the Chinese new year celebrations only a week or so ago—that our diversity is a strength, not the weakness that, sadly, so many people increasingly feel it to be. It is a strength, and I am proud to say that again.
The misuse of flags represents division, or even a thinly veiled warning. The infamous Overton window has shifted; values that we thought were sacrosanct—battles that were won—now need to be relitigated. Hoisting flags on lampposts, only to allow them to become torn and dirty, denigrates them. They should be flown high from civic buildings and other places with pride, not weaponised to intimidate.
I will never surrender the flag. It represents the diverse, plural, generous nature of our United Kingdom, but recent displays have left people feeling frightened, fragmented and as though they do not belong here. The problem is not patriotism. I support any true patriot, but no one group, party, skin colour, race or ethnicity owns patriotism. Anyone who wants to build this country up rather than kick it down—anyone who cheers on our national teams, works in our health service, educates our young people, volunteers at a food bank or drives the bus with a smile—is a patriot, and I commend them.
Those who stoke fear and division are not patriots. We saw fever-pitch, dangerous rhetoric last summer when Elon Musk and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon addressed the crowds. It is exactly that kind of language that now manifests itself, leaving my constituents, in Rugby of all places, feeling increasingly frightened.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important subject to the House. Liverpool Riverside has the longest established diverse communities in the country, and I am proud that we are a city of sanctuary. When I saw Tommy Robinson galvanising 100,000 people on the streets of London last year, it was very frightening and polarising. However, we have organisations working together. Together Alliance is holding a celebration of the diversity of this country on 28 March, and I recommend that everybody make every attempt to get there. I hope my hon. Friend will attempt to attend.
John Slinger
I concur with my hon. Friend. I commend her and all involved in that event, and I certainly will check my diary—no doubt my head of office is looking at my calendar to see whether there is any space. That is a very important activity, and I hope it is replicated across the country.
In Rugby, the main town in my constituency, I am sad to say that people came up to me after the Unite the Kingdom march to say that they felt not only uneasy, but scared. For the first time, they felt that they were being tutted at, and that people were saying things under their breath as they walked past in the street. They felt glared at. One woman, born and bred in Rugby, who has brown skin, told me as I campaigned that she did not want to go into town on a Saturday. That is absolutely disgraceful.
As an MP, I see my role in part as being a convener. We have the power to bring people together. I campaigned on the theme of “Together we can”. I continue to believe in that and want to espouse it. Last year, I convened an interfaith forum, bringing together leaders of different religions and denominations to discuss how we can strengthen community bonds. I regularly visit churches, temples and other places of worship, as other hon. and right hon. Members do. They play a vital role in promoting tolerance and nurturing belonging.
As an MP, I also have the honour of witnessing the dedication of others. Rugby is a shining example of a town forging community bonds—other constituencies are of course available, as a BBC presenter might say. There are too many initiatives to name, but the Benn Partnership stands out as a shining example of what could and should be replicated across the country. Its community centre in the heart of the Benn ward in Rugby offers meet and eat schemes and community lunches, alongside art and language sessions and very much more—I know that there are similar organisations run by members of staff and volunteers across the country. I hold Joyce Wooding and her team who run the centre in the highest regard.
The peace walk in Rugby, which I had the privilege of attending, is another example of different faiths and non-believers coming together and uniting the community. I have visited the Hill Street, Bradby and Binley Woods youth clubs, and seen their amazing work to bring young people together. I have been on patrols with Rugby’s street pastors, and with the community wardens, who are organised brilliantly by Rugby borough council. They, too, work to strengthen our community. The common denominator in those schemes is the human element and the concept of community: being part of a group larger than ourselves, and having obligations to it as well as receiving benefits from it.
When we meet people who look, speak and worship differently, we discover common ground—“It turns out that you watch rugby too. You enjoy a drink in the pub. You worship the same God, just in a different building on a different road”.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. Will he join me in recognising the work that brilliant charities such as the Derby County Community Trust do to bring communities together, whether through the Harrison’s Hub, where it provides meals for those across communities, or its provision of mental health support to men who need it? The work it does in integrating our communities is vital.
John Slinger
I certainly pay tribute to that important organisation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It knits together different elements of our community, providing support as well as joyous, fun things that people can do together, which strengthens the community.
Through encounters with people who are different from us, horizons broaden and bonds strengthen. We realise that we share the same worries, the same dreams and the same desire for peaceful, happy lives for ourselves, our families and our friends. Exposure to difference does not divide us, it draws us closer—or at least it should. It does not matter what someone’s colour, creed or religion is, or whether they have a religion. If they live in my community, they are my people. Building this cohesion is an active process: it never stops and requires constant nurturing. It is our job to educate children on how to act, to accept difference, to show kindness— a much underrated word—to tolerate and to love.
Different parties will, of course, take different approaches —from David Cameron’s big society to other models of civic renewal—but the principle is the same. If the mainstream fails to strengthen community bonds, others will seek to fracture them. It is not just an exercise in interfaith dialogue, although that is important. It is the other bonds that bring us together: clubs, sports teams, civic society, and public institutions such as libraries, museums and galleries—we have a brilliant one in the heart of Rugby—and faith groups, charities, jobcentres and schools that open themselves up to the community. Of course, as a Labour politician, I believe that the state, both locally and nationally, can, should and must help these groups and organisations, working in partnership with them and with business as well.
I also commend the Jo Cox Foundation, which I met recently, for its tireless work to build bridges where others build barriers. We all have a responsibility for community cohesion, and I am playing my part. The key challenge is to give more opportunities for people to answer the call: to ask not what the community can do for them, but what they can do for the community.
I will hold a strengthening community cohesion roundtable in March. Racism, xenophobia, myths and lies must be called out wherever they lurk. I know the Government are working hard and have been proactive in the face of an increasingly toxic and divisive force operating in our country. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has created various taskforces to deal with some of those issues, particularly around community cohesion, and I commend it for that. Can the Minister update us on the important work that her Department is doing?
In closing, those who strengthen the community are the true patriots: the volunteers, the neighbours, the quiet grafters. They strengthen the bonds between citizens and give us, especially young people—although I am not a young person, just for the record—opportunities to flourish. They ask not what they can receive, but what they can contribute to the community. They are the best of us, and I will champion them for as long as I have the privilege of serving as a Member of Parliament.
I will also do all I can to support the good work that the Government are doing across the piece, because it is not just in my hon. Friend the Minister’s Department that this work needs to be done, but in education, in culture, on the economy, for access to the creative arts and sports, and on housing, law and order, health and more. It is all part of building an ecosystem that creates community cohesion. I very much look forward to hearing the contributions of hon. and right hon. Members.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and to have the opportunity to be here. I thank the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for allowing us to discuss the important issue of community. I may be giving the hon. Gentleman a big head, but may I say what a joy he brings in his contributions in this House, both in Westminster Hall and the Chamber? He is always soft-spoken, and his voice is filled with compassion. That is important, especially with this subject matter.
In Northern Ireland, we have moved beyond where we were in the past. I am a very proud representative of Strangford, and I am privileged and honoured that my constituents have chosen me to be their MP on a number of occasions—Members will be aware of that already. However, most of that pride does not come from me, but from the people I represent, and I want to speak about them. Although we have a tainted history of anger and violence, that does not adequately represent who we really are.
I represent a community that proudly upholds the Northern Ireland tradition of being the most generous charity givers per capita. We do that without coercion or nudging, because we are generous people. I represent people who have the highest amount of kinship fostering in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—that is another example of what we do. We care about people and we want to help them. The programmes run by churches and community groups are examples that should be highlighted in this place— I am going to do that, because that is about the people we represent, who make the community and the place we live just that bit better.
Northern Ireland is a place of immense strength, resilience and character. That is found in every community, from the beautiful Portaferry at the tip of the Ards peninsula where I live, to the heart of the constituency in Newtownards and down the other side of the lough to Ballynahinch and Spa. Ours is a community shaped by faith—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—and I say that very sincerely. It is also shaped by family, hard work and deep-rooted traditions. Where once there would have been division over faith, I do not see that ever happening today like it happened in the past.
I am a Democratic Unionist party MP, and we firmly believe in the Union—in Northern Ireland’s proud place within the United Kingdom. We want to be part of it, and we maintain that as part of who we are. We believe in strengthening the bonds between the people who share this land—the Scots, the Welsh, the English and ourselves.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) raised the issue of balancing different opinions. Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether in Northern Ireland or across the UK, we always need to keep at the heart of what we say and do the balance that has to be struck between people, however stringent and difficult the circumstances might be? We need to understand those who may have opposing opinions, and try to ensure that life goes on and that we make progress for everybody, whatever their differences.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend and colleague has summed that up incredibly well. That is exactly how I feel about where we are, and the community that we are trying to build for our children and grandchildren. I have six grandchildren, and I want to build a future for them—I want to build a future for every grandchild, by the way, not just mine, because everybody has a share in where we are, and that is where we are coming from.
Community cohesion is not about erasing identity, diluting culture or pretending that our history does not matter. Northern Ireland works best where identity is respected: British identity, Ulster identity, and indeed the Irish identity of those who cherish it. Mutual respect must be the foundation on which we build our future. The Belfast agreement created a framework where differences could be managed peacefully and democratically. That framework must always operate on the principles of consent, fairness and parity of esteem, not on the erosion of one tradition to appease another. That is not about cohesion, resilience or moving forward. I believe with all my heart that we must respect each other.
Cohesion cannot grow where there is imbalance; it requires confidence that Northern Ireland’s constitutional position is secure, which I believe it is. The Prime Minister and the Labour Government have said that very clearly, which we should respect and understand—as did the Conservative party, in fairness. It requires confidence that the position is secure and that decisions are made with cross-community support, and it requires that no section of society feels sidelined. Bringing everybody forward is not always easy; it is incredibly hard at times, but if we focus on the goal we can achieve that together.
Strengthening community cohesion also means strengthening opportunity. Too many working-class communities—Unionist and nationalist alike—feel left behind. Economic regeneration, job creation, investment in apprenticeships and support for local businesses are not just economic policies; they are cohesion policies, and part of what we need to move forward. When people have dignity in work and hope for their children, division loses its grip. People are more relaxed, more positive and more confident about the future.
We must also deal honestly with the past. That does not mean endless relitigation of history, nor does it mean selective memory. It means fairness, proportionality and recognition of the suffering experienced by all victims of terrorism, including the thousands murdered by the IRA and other paramilitary organisations. True reconciliation requires truth, but it also requires balance. Community cohesion is not achieved through slogans; it is built day by day in churches, community halls, sports clubs and businesses and in the home itself, where the family is centre of the home. It is built when neighbours look out for one another, and when cultural expression is carried out with respect.
I sincerely believe that our community is something to be proud of. We are stronger together and can be an example to many other communities in United Kingdom, showing how funding and programmes can build foundations that change mindsets. That has been a long process. I lived through the troubles, having been born a long time ago, being older than anyone in this room without a doubt.
Jim Shannon
With one exception—my colleague sitting to my left, who is two years ahead of me. None the less, we understand that for many other communities in the UK, funding and programmes can build the foundations and change mindsets in a long process. That cannot be done without leadership from our communities. I am thankful for all those across Northern Ireland who have turned from the old ways and are leading generations on to a new path.
I am very fortunate in my constituency. The Minister and others will probably know this story about a leader in the community whose name I may not previously have mentioned but will today. There are those who had a coloured past but walked away from the history that formed them to be the new generational leaders. They have walked the path of aggression, controversy and sometimes violence. Davy Mac—Davy McAlonan—is chair of the Scrabo residents association. When any Minister or shadow Minister comes to Northern Ireland, I take them to meet Davy Mac. Why? Because he epitomises the new Northern Ireland and the way we move forward. The Davy Macs of this world believe in respect through differences, and their legacy is of understanding. A community can celebrate its own culture while accepting and working with anyone else as long as there is respect.
I shall finish as I am conscious of time. There is a hard lesson which is still being taught, but one we must continue to sow into with funding and support from Government and hope for a brighter future. I believe in that brighter future, and others in the room do as well. Let us do that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) on securing this timely and important debate.
Back in 2009, Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson wrote a book called “The Spirit Level”, in which they argued that material inequality harms a country’s social relationships and sense of community. They argued that it is generally people’s similarity in status that makes social trust possible, since people with similar incomes are more likely to relate positively to each other than those who are divided by vastly different experiences of class or wealth. People in egalitarian societies are more likely to share neighbourhoods and public space, which fosters a sense of community among them. In contrast, people in more hierarchical places are literally divided by their unequal incomes, which separate them geographically into starkly different neighbourhoods, and no-go areas for some.
As income inequality becomes entrenched in populations, high earners can find themselves concentrated in wealthier neighbourhoods far away from lower-income individuals. It is therefore no surprise that the more unequal a society, the higher the risk it will become dysfunctional. As income differences widen people are less likely to trust one another, and when we have a breakdown in social trust within a community we see some clear outcomes. Inequality weakens social bonds and civic engagement; people become less involved in community activities, volunteering or helping their neighbours. As a result, social support networks deteriorate and a sense of shared identity and common purpose diminishes.
That low trust and weak social cohesion can lead to increased social isolation, particularly among poorer groups; higher crime rates, which impact all sections of society; reduced social mobility, which holds back our economy; and less effective democratic institutions, as people turn away from the democratic process and either disengage completely or look for an easy solution to complicated problems. That is why reducing inequality will help not only society’s poorest, but people across all social classes. Inequality creates social problems that are not limited to the poor. For example, research shows that across a whole society with greater income equality, death rates are lower and life expectancy is longer.
We urgently need a war on poverty and inequality. We need the Government to enact the socio-economic duty contained in the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that public sector decisions do not create more poverty when they are introduced. We need to address some of the fundamental barriers preventing our society from being more equal. Poverty is not just unfair; it is economically reckless. Reducing income inequality to the level of more equal OECD countries would save the UK up to £128 billion annually by reducing costs in areas such as crime and imprisonment rates, tackling poor mental health, improving healthy life expectancy, and welfare.
To conclude, voters by and large, including some of those wealthy individuals, support the idea of greater fairness in our economy and society. What lie ahead if we do not tackle the gap between the haves and the have-nots are the conditions that will nurture the far right. Public services at breaking point, visible inequality on our streets and a general stagnation or decline in living standards will begin to erode public confidence and trust in the political system. That is why it is in all our interests to foster and create a more equal society that has community cohesion at its heart.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for bringing forward this important debate on a subject that is dear to my heart.
Community cohesion is not just a nice to have; it is the foundation of our democratic infrastructure. When people feel connected, valued and heard, democracy is strong, but when they feel ignored, divided or left behind, that creates an opening for something far darker to take root. Over the last few decades across the country, we have seen rising mistrust, loneliness and anger. When community cohesion weakens, it creates fertile ground for extremism, scapegoating and racism. That is not just abstract; history shows us, time and again, that it leads to the downfall of countries and civilisations.
Cohesion is prevention, resilience and the national security that starts at street level. We are now seeing the limitations of an individualistic and fragmented society, and I think that, over the coming years, we will see a swing back towards community as the real unit of organisation. I am already seeing that in my constituency, as I will come back to later.
Cohesion grows when people know their neighbours. We got a brief glimpse of what is possible during the covid lockdowns: people who were working from home or on furlough noticed that they had neighbours, and that maybe those neighbours needed something from them. Then the pandemic ended and that sense of cohesion dissipated again, but it was a promising glimpse of what is still there, waiting to be fanned back into flame. We saw people working together on shared challenges.
People need to feel that local decisions are made with them, not to them. They need shared spaces where they can gather together, such as pubs, village halls and churches. That is one reason why I am concerned about the current challenges facing the hospitality trade. In many small villages in my constituency, once the pub goes, there really is nowhere else for people to meet in an informal setting.
Cohesion is eroded when infrastructure fails and development accelerates. I have seen a number of housing developments bolted on to existing towns and villages, which creates real division and sometimes, in the worst-case scenario, even resentment—especially when existing infrastructure is already struggling to cope with the population.
Cohesion is also eroded when public services such as rural bus routes disappear and when environmental injustice goes unaddressed. It is eroded when people feel powerless, as came up last night in the debate on the Representation of the People Bill. Our current first-past-the-post voting system makes too many people feel powerless, and proportional representation would go a long way towards giving people their voice back in our democracy.
In rural constituencies such as the South Cotswolds, the closure of bus routes, pressure on GP surgeries, pollution in our rivers and unmanaged growth all chip away at trust in Government and the systems that underpin the life of our country. When trust is eroded, narratives of blame rush in to fill the vacuum. Too often, people are tempted to blame a demographic that they can clearly identify rather than the invisible systems that they cannot.
In my constituency, we are attempting an experiment. I am not aware of anything exactly like it that is going on anywhere else. We are calling it Stronger South Cotswolds, and it is based on my belief that over the coming years we are going to see more disruption, whether it is political, economic, technological or climate-related. When things go awry, we fall back on our neighbours and our sense of place. Stronger South Cotswolds is built around four pillars: food and farming, health and wellbeing, flood resilience and water issues, and community energy and nature conservation. At its heart, it is really about connection.
We keep being told by the Government that there is so little money, and so increasingly local government has no money, but I have seen at first hand how a little money can go a very long way when put in the hands of people at the pointy end who know how it can be used. It delivers a fantastic return on investment.
I am going to get into real trouble if I start listing some of the local legends, as we call them, who we are incorporating into Stronger South Cotswolds—perhaps I will save that for this afternoon’s Westminster Hall debate on small charities—but I will share the general concept that there is already so much good stuff going on in my constituency. On our website, we are recognising those people and groups already doing incredible work and highlighting them in the hope that other people can adopt and adapt those brilliant ideas elsewhere. My constituency straddles two counties, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, so that presents real opportunities for cross-county border transference of inspiration.
These fantastic local initiatives do more than deliver services to people who are struggling with physical, mental or economic poor health, with dementia or with Parkinson’s. I have seen many people really flourishing through these organisations as they create relationships across age, class and socioeconomic background. That really is cohesion in practice.
What I am seeing is that when communities feel strong, difference can be not alienating but enriching, but when communities feel fragile, difference is weaponised. If people believe that the system works only for the powerful, they are more susceptible to voices offering simplistic answers and easy targets. We need to be honest about that and recognise that cohesion is the antidote to division, but it does not happen automatically; it must be cultivated. That is where we as MPs, as the hon. Member for Rugby mentioned, have a real role to play.
We may not have a budget, and we may only have small teams, but we do have that magical power to convene. When we bring people together, the magic can happen. That is what we are trying to do with Stronger South Cotswolds—bring people together with the aspiration that the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. That cannot be manufactured by Government in Westminster. Belonging, by definition, happens at that nexus of place, nature and neighbourhood.
I call on the Government to properly fund local groups and make those pots of money available, knowing that they will deliver a fantastic ROI. I ask the Government to please support community ownership of energy, land and community assets; invest in youth services and intergenerational spaces; ensure that planning decisions genuinely involve community voices; and restore trust in environmental regulation. Above all, I ask them to please choose to devolve power rather than concentrate it here in London.
If things are going to get rocky over the next few years, we need to be building community cohesion now. Something I learned from expedition planning is that you have to do your preparation when it is calm, because when the storms hit, you just do not have time. Community cohesion is the same: if we invest now in connection, fairness and shared purpose, we can weather those storms together. If we neglect it, we should not be surprised when division grows. The question for the House is whether national policy will strengthen the work of initiatives like Stronger South Cotswolds or make it harder. I ask the Government to please put the power and resources into the hands of local communities, where they really can make a difference.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Order. We have three colleagues wishing to speak. I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.28 am, so that means short speeches, please.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing such an important debate at a particularly important moment. I want to talk about something that, sadly, we seem to talk about only during really challenging periods, but without which everything else becomes much harder—community cohesion.
My accent gives me away; I grew up in a town called Burnley, in the north-west of England. For most of my childhood, the only thing that I knew was culturally different about the place where I grew up was that our school summer holidays started two weeks before they did everywhere else. In the summer of 2001, however—which is 25 years ago this summer, shockingly—around the time of my GCSE exams, race riots ripped through my home town. I remember the fear and anger that they caused. For years afterwards, I remember that when telling people that I was from Burnley, all they knew about the place was defined by the race riots—that there had been that awful summer.
That period left a deep mark on me and contributed to who I am today, because it taught me that community cohesion is not a slogan, or a line in a strategy document; it is the difference between a town that can pull together when things get tough and one that fractures when it feels pressure. Those experiences shaped my politics. They shaped my belief that fairness and honesty matter, and that we must confront injustice directly and not pretend that it will fix itself. The riots also shaped my determination that the communities that I represent today should never feel that sense of division.
In Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, we are proud of who we are: a county town with deep roots, growing diversity, and incredibly strong traditions of volunteering and neighbourliness. We are home to people of different faiths, backgrounds and experiences. That diversity is a strength, but it only remains a strength if it is underpinned by public trust.
Community cohesion is built in small, everyday ways. It is built when a school brings parents together from different backgrounds around a shared commitment to their children’s future. It is built when local volunteers organise a food bank, youth club or community clean-up—which the people in my constituency excel at. It is built when faith leaders choose dialogue over distance, and partnership over parallel lives.
A few weeks ago, I brought together local faith leaders in Stafford for a multi-faith roundtable. Leaders from our churches, mosque, gurdwara and other faith communities sat around the same table. We talked openly about the challenges that face our communities— from misinformation online to the rising global tensions that are rippling into our local lives. It struck me that everyone in the room wanted the same thing: safe streets, opportunities for young people, respect and stability. There was a sense that whatever differences we had, we all belonged to the same place. That is what cohesion is. It is not about erasing difference; it is about recognising our shared commonality and humanity.
We cannot be complacent, however. We live in an age in which misinformation spreads faster than facts, social media algorithms reward outrage over understanding, global conflicts inflame local tensions in a matter of hours, and economic pressures can make it easier to burn bridges than build them. In that context, cohesion requires leadership. That is not an abstract thing; it is about standards.
When those elected to represent our communities use racist language, promote prejudice or undermine the dignity of others, it does not just harm individuals; it corrodes trust in everything and the institutions that hold us together. When councillors are forced to resign or are removed because of racist conduct, that should concern us all; I do not care what party they are from. That is not because of the headlines but what it signals about the tone of our public life. I think that leadership means refusing to normalise that kind of politics; we cannot strengthen cohesion locally if we tolerate that in our politics. As Members of this House, we must choose our words carefully to avoid stoking division for short-term political gain, and we must call out racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and all forms of hate, consistently and clearly.
It also requires investment in the places that bring us all together. Staffordshire had the third-worst cuts to youth services in the country, and I deal weekly with the impacts of those cuts. Community centres, libraries, sports clubs, and arts and cultural groups—they are not nice to have extras; they are the infrastructure of belonging somewhere. They are the places that 14 years of Conservative austerity have decimated.
Strengthening community cohesion also requires us all to listen. In my constituency, I hold regular coffee mornings and community meetings. In fact, at the one I had just this weekend, people talked about feeling left behind economically. I hear from families worried about the future. I hear from people who feel misunderstood, and when people feel ignored and unheard, resentment breeds.
Cohesion is also about fairness in action. It is about making sure that every opportunity reaches every estate, village and high street. It is also about good jobs, decent housing, strong public services and visible delivery. When people feel secure, they are more open. When they feel abandoned, they are more vulnerable to division.
Growing up in Burnley, I saw what happens when economic decline and racial tension collide. It starts, not with violence, but with really small fractures—with rumours, with a sense that someone else is getting more than you. If we want cohesive communities, we have to tackle the root causes. So I ask the Minister: what steps are the Government taking to ensure that towns, such as Stafford, that have experienced economic pressure over the years, are being supported with real investment and opportunity, rather than becoming targets for those who seek to inflame resentment and prejudice for political gain?
In Stafford, I see huge hope. I see schools where children of different faiths and backgrounds learn side by side and form friendships that defy stereotypes. I see local businesses that bring together apprentices and staff from across our community. I see volunteers who show up week after week for people they have never met before, and I see faith leaders willing to work together rather than retreat into silos. Community cohesion is not about pretending that we do not disagree; it is about how we disagree. It is about holding space for different views without dehumanising one another. It is about ensuring that our identity as a shared community is stronger than any single dividing line.
My message today is simple. Community cohesion does not maintain itself; it must be nurtured, as has been said, and it must be defended and resourced. It must also be modelled by us. In Stafford, we are choosing to build, not to blame; to listen, not to shout; and to stand up for fairness and not allow prejudice to go unchallenged. I know what the alternative looks like—I lived it. Division does not explode overnight; it is cultivated. I am determined that the communities that I represent will always be stronger together than they are apart.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing this debate on this important issue. Community cohesion in Birmingham has never been an abstract concept. It is a lived reality: it is the church that hosts a food bank for families of every background, the neighbour who checks in during Ramadan, and the gurdwara serving langar to anyone who walks through its doors. Our city works because, despite our differences, we choose to stand together.
In recent years, we have seen how damaging political language can be. When politicians make statements that create suspicion or feed division, the consequences are felt far beyond Westminster. Words matter and narratives matter. When race or religion is weaponised for short-term political gain, it erodes trust between communities who have lived side by side for generations. We have also seen the constant drip-feed of misinformation from some politicians and commentators—misinformation that paints entire communities as problems to be solved, rather than partners in building our future. That kind of politics does not strengthen Britain; it weakens it. It does not make us safer; it makes us more fractured.
No one knows that fact more than the people of Birmingham, who have seen their city trounced by people who take no effort to understand it. During the bin strikes, a narrative from outside was not about the council refusing to negotiate or the impact of years of austerity, but about blaming residents for the mess and asking silly questions like, “Why don’t they simply clean up the streets and take their rubbish to the tip?” We even saw the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) roam the streets for an hour, blaming residents for the supposed lack of integration in an area that not only hosts a vibrant community, but has been decimated by 14 years of austerity under his previous Government. We saw that again during the Maccabi Tel Aviv saga, when those raising legitimate concerns about safety and cohesion were smeared as extremists.
We see the same story every time. The people of Birmingham have been subject to ridicule from outsiders who have made no effort to understand them—from politicians to media outlets who have stirred hate and division against a community they have never tried to understand. That is why measures such as the Hillsborough law matter so much. The principle behind the Hillsborough law, a duty of candour on public authorities and officials, is about more than one historical injustice. It is about changing the culture of public life and ensuring that those in authority act with honesty, transparency and responsibility.
The tone set at the top shapes the reality on our streets, and that does not apply just to Birmingham. The same goes for all the towns and cities up and down the country that have been neglected and stripped of their identities. Those places have been left behind by successive Governments and are now being kicked while they are down. It is in these places, where people have lost all sense of community, that resentment and hate take hold. Many will channel that anger into taking to the streets to raise flags or mount protests at asylum hotels and, before someone knows it, they are not a true patriot unless they look on non-white neighbours from abroad, even fellow British nationals, with contempt. Of course, the exception is those they know on a personal level.
That is why it is so crucial that we get this right, not just by holding politicians and media outlets to a higher standard, but by investing in the very places that have been deprived of the means to understand and interact with one another. Community centres, youth clubs and grassroots sports are all things that we need to create cohesion, yet they are dwindling in supply. Birmingham Perry Barr lost out on £20 million over 10 years in Pride in Place funding. We have the highest unemployment, the highest inequality and high rates of homelessness and crime, but we still received none of the Pride in Place funding. There are 10 Birmingham constituencies, eight of which are represented by Labour parliamentarians. My constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr was left out.
Birmingham has always shown that people of different races, religions and backgrounds can live, work and thrive together, but we must protect that legacy. We must challenge misinformation wherever we see it. We must refuse to let division define us, and we must demand better from those who represent us. Will the Minister address my point about funding for Birmingham Perry Barr? Pride in Place funding should be for communities that have the highest levels of deprivation in all indices. Birmingham Perry Barr has, but it has not received that funding.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing this important and timely debate.
Social cohesion can feel like quite an abstract, nebulous term, but we all know, and have heard today, that the practice of social cohesion and how it is lived are vital for healthy, dynamic and thriving communities where people feel that they want to stay, live, socialise, invest and start and grow businesses. When we have the opposite of social cohesion, we have discord and division. Unfortunately, we are increasingly seeing that in many of our communities. We have heard countless examples of how that is lived out.
We very much see the opposite of social cohesion present in my community in Hillingdon. We see instances of hate crime. I have councillors who are British being told to go back home. I have residents telling me how they are abused in the street. Police are attacked at apparently peaceful protests. Just last week, the doctors surgery in Otterfield emailed me to say that doctors at the surgery face countless instances of racial abuse every week. Even now, the GP surgery has been vandalised and attacked. That is clearly unacceptable and needs addressing.
So how do we address the problem of social cohesion? I will briefly touch on three key areas of action. The first is leadership. We have heard that, nationally, we all have a responsibility in this place and across our institutions to show leadership. We have a duty to call out these abhorrent instances of hatred; to act; to choose our words carefully and wisely; to seek to work with others in our community and across different divides in this place; to promote cohesion and unity; and to appeal to the common threads that we often see throughout those in public life and those in our community groups.
Locally, we also have a duty and a responsibility to promote cohesion. Local councils, which are key institutions in this country, should have a responsibility to promote community cohesion and to produce plans locally to do that. Unfortunately, in my community, our local authority is falling short of meeting that responsibility. We have seen little action, if any, from it to address some of the issues on our streets. To be frank, in some instances, there is denial about these problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby rightly talked about our flag, which is for all of us—it is my flag, your flag and the flag of everyone in our community. Unfortunately, however, the flag has been increasingly weaponised by certain segments of our community, who do not share the view that it is everyone’s flag. They believe that it is only a particular sort of person’s flag and do not appeal to unity, but to division and hatred.
I have been contacted recently by many local residents who are concerned about the continued presence of flags on our streets. I was particularly struck by a piece of correspondence from a gentleman who contacted me to say, “I am a combat veteran with 20 years’ experience, including in Afghanistan, and I know the value of pride in one’s nation and our flag, having served under it. The flags in West Drayton show none of these values, and that Hillingdon Council has not taken these torn and dirty flags down that line our streets signals to me that the council is either endorsing the racist intent of some of those who put these flags up, or is too afraid to remove them. Either way, it’s a poor show, and I feel for the families and young children who have to look at these flags every day and are reminded that some people think that they are not welcome.”
That perfectly describes the situation we face. We must not hide behind our flag, but address this issue head on. That is difficult. I know that there is abuse and even hatred of council officers who try to remove flags, and we need to stand with them if they make that decision. Inaction is not enough when we see these issues on our streets. We also have to ensure that institutions locally and nationally promote true and accurate information, particularly about sensitive topics and when they are using state-funded sources of information, such as local council publications.
Secondly, we have to tackle online misinformation, as we have heard. On countless occasions, we have seen how online platforms are used to sow division. We know that there are actors, locally and internationally, who actively inflame hate. It is hard to tackle online misinformation issues; I am not going to pretend otherwise. However, we are seeing a positive start to the Government’s consultation on the use of social media by young people. I support that and hope we can do more in this space.
Thirdly, we also need to support the organisations that are the glue of our communities. We have heard about the excellent work of schools, charities, voluntary groups and faith groups. I have had the pleasure of hosting the multi-faith Hillingdon group here in Parliament and of launching Hillingdon Together alongside many of these organisations, in order to try and bring people together. There are 200 individuals and organisations signed up.
It is true that these organisations have often faced cuts in recent years. In particular, it is paradoxical that the communities where cohesion is needed most often have less infrastructure, and are often unable to access the funding pots that become available, because it is difficult to move quickly and to put in bids to national and local funds. I hope that the Minister can address that issue in the future cohesion strategy.
Finally—I appreciate your patience, Dr Murrison— I am very proud to have been born in Hillingdon, to have grown up there and to represent that community today. I represent every single person in Hillingdon, whether they have lived there for 20 years or 20 days. Every single one of them makes Hillingdon the fantastic place that it is. They work in our NHS, run businesses and keep our community working, and I am proud of each and every one of them.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing this very important debate. His speech was incredibly powerful, and I congratulate him on the work he is doing to support and empower his constituents to build positive relationships and communities. It has also been good to hear from other Members of the positive stories about their communities coming together and of the clear vision, not only in this Chamber but elsewhere among colleagues, that we can together create more cohesive communities.
We meet at a moment when communities across the UK are experiencing uncertainty and rising tensions. Alongside those challenges, however, we continue to see wonderful examples of solidarity, co-operation and everyday kindness. Our job as politicians is to empower more of the second through thoughtful policy so that it can continue to flourish. Community cohesion is not built by rhetoric or grand gestures; it lives in the ordinary moments of daily life, in shared spaces and shared conversations, and in the quiet confidence that difference does not threaten one’s sense of belonging. It is also built by the everyday choices that people make to treat one another with dignity and respect, not by the divisive narratives that some, sadly even in this place, choose to deploy.
At the same time, many feel that the social contract—the belief that we all contribute to and benefit from a shared civic life—is under strain. Over the past decade, local authorities and community organisations have faced significant funding reductions; youth services have closed, community centres have disappeared and the everyday spaces where people once met across different backgrounds have diminished. Those were not mere local government services; they were the backbone of community life, allowing people to mix, understand one another and build solidarity. When those shared spaces disappear, so too do the opportunities for understanding.
Alongside all that, many now face real pressures, with difficulties accessing services, finding affordable housing and making ends meet. When support feels distant, frustration grows, and the risk is that people turn inward rather than reaching outward. Those tensions reflect pressure and uncertainty, not a lack of good will. Rebuilding community cohesion requires more than responding to those who stoke division; it requires reinvestment in the local institutions and services that allow our communities to meet and thrive.
Across the country, people are experiencing increasing hostility because of their race, faith, sexuality or gender identity. Even incidents that fall below the legal threshold of hate crime, when repeated or unaddressed, erode trust and weaken community cohesion. Police forces record thousands of non-crime hate incidents each year. Those are early warnings of tensions that can grow if they are ignored.
I hear from some in my constituency how, every single day, they face unpleasant, abusive—even aggressive —and unsolicited interactions with others because of their race, gender or sexuality. The figures for Surrey show that hate crime remains significantly under-reported, which underscores the importance of early intervention to build trust so that people feel confident to come forward.
In times of uncertainty, we really must resist narratives that divide people or single out newcomers or minorities. Those might offer simple answers, but they weaken the fabric of civil society. Strong communities are built not by excluding people, but by ensuring that everyone feels that they belong.
Across the country are countless examples of cohesion in action, led by charities and faith groups. One example in my constituency and across Surrey is Big Leaf, which brings together displaced young people alongside other young people to create music, play sport and do so much more, fostering community and optimism. If we went around this Chamber and across the House of Commons, I am sure that we would have so many more examples, but I will stop there.
I will focus on faith communities, not only because of their remarkable contributions, but because many of them face rising levels of abuse. Faith communities are deeply embedded in our society; they run food banks and warm hubs, support the vulnerable and isolated, and provide safe spaces for dialogue, care and belonging. During Ramadan, for example, many mosques open their doors for shared meals and community outreach, which are powerful expressions of the values that underpin cohesion.
I am honoured to chair the all-party parliamentary group on faith and society. One of the things that we have led on has been local faith covenants, and I have seen how those create practical frameworks for partnership between councils and faith groups. They help to build trust, improve consultation and strengthen support for residents. Early feedback from academic evaluation of the faith covenant framework shows that it is improving relationships and co-operation across the country.
As local government reorganisation continues, I hope that people will grasp the opportunity to instigate more faith covenants across the country, so that faith groups are treated not simply as stakeholders, but as trusted partners in the work that we all want to see in our communities to build community cohesion. Will the Minister support faith covenants and other structured engagement at the local level as part of any community cohesion strategy?
On the subject of community cohesion strategies, ahead of the general election, the Prime Minister wrote to faith leaders recognising the vital role that faith communities play and the importance of partnership. That recognition was welcome, yet the progress on the actions that he outlined has been slow. Last month, I wrote to the Prime Minister asking about those promises and, in particular, when we will see the community cohesion strategy. Sadly, I have not yet received a response. I know that there are communities right across the country who want to contribute and are ready to contribute, and they want to see clear national leadership on this.
As Liberal Democrats, we stand ready to work constructively with the Government, local authorities, police, civil society and faith communities to help to shape a strategy that reflects the realities of our communities. A clear strategy would align national ambition with local actions. When can we expect to see the publication of the community cohesion strategy? Which Department is leading the work? How will cross-government co-ordination be ensured?
Community cohesion cannot be built in Westminster alone. It is built in conversations between neighbours, in partnerships between councils and faith communities, in the extraordinary work of charities and in the daily choices that people make to choose understanding over division. But goodwill is not enough; cohesion also requires national leadership, clear policy direction and adequate funding for local government to sustain the spaces and services that bring people together. It requires partnership frameworks, like the faith covenant, that build trust at a local level, and it requires a message of hope that unites people rather than dividing them.
In every single conversation that I have with charities and with faith and community leaders, the same themes emerge: people want fairness, clarity, protection from hatred and the freedom to live their lives without fear. They want to be heard, to be included and to be part of the renewal of our society’s welcoming and inclusive heart. If we listen, work in partnership and invest in the relationships and institutions that bind communities together, we can strengthen the trust on which cohesion depends.
Cohesion is not an abstract ideal. As many in this Chamber have already said today, it is something that we nurture together.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure as always, Dr Murrison.
As well as congratulating the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger), I would like to say in opening how much value I place on the contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). In that part of the United Kingdom, we have had the opportunity over many years to learn a great deal about how cohesion can be done right and what happens when it goes wrong. It is particularly important to hear their voices in a debate on this subject. It is also important to hear from a range of Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), who set out some quite particular insights on how the city of Birmingham has had to deal with many challenges.
It is my privilege to represent an extremely diverse but thankfully very cohesive constituency. It is served by two local authorities, both of which are extremely proactive; they have interfaith networks and hold a huge variety of community events. In response to the situation when flags were being raised across high streets, which was clearly intended by many as an act of intimidation, they used those lamp posts and other public street furniture to display flags that celebrated the borough’s heritage and the heritage of the local community, in order to crowd out that space from those who sought to use it to divide the community. That shows a degree of local leadership that we all appreciate.
The fact that we are having this debate in the context of housing, communities and local government demonstrates the breadth of council services. I reflect on my own time as a councillor, when the 9/11 incidents happened. Suddenly, the airspace of the United States was closed. Hillingdon council worked to provide accommodation for thousands of stranded travellers from across the world and to enable them to communicate with their family members to tell them that they were okay and that they had somewhere to stay for the night when all the hotels were full. It also worked very closely with the military, for example, to ensure that the logistics were laid on so that people were supported.
As a number of Members have referred to, that kind of leadership came to the fore again during the covid era, when organisations such as H4All in Hillingdon and Harrow came out and ensured that people had food and medication delivered. We saw the work that was done by synagogues, mosques, churches and non-faith organisations to support each other not just in my community, but across the whole country.
We know that cohesion is something that we can do well, and we know that its leadership often sits with local government. Indeed, when the last Labour Government promoted the roll-out of food banks, it was a recognition—as was the case in my community—that there was a level of need that statutory services were not always able to meet, which that particular community initiative was able to serve. That is why we saw the spread of those across the country to meet that specific need.
We are having this debate at a time when there is a growing level of interest in issues around cohesion. Many will have heard the news coverage of the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, if not the speech itself, in which she set out a number of workstreams seeking to address many of the concerns that Members have described today. It seems to me that this is an area where there is a high degree of cross-party consensus; we know that we need to address these issues in order to strengthen our society.
Let me briefly set out some of the Opposition’s principles around cohesion, some of which are quite focused on local government and some of which are much broader. It is striking that all Members who have contributed to this debate have spoken of the importance of our society and values and the principles of freedom and the rule of law. I was particularly struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr; this must not become a debate about attacking Islam. We are a country that is a plural and liberal democracy. In a community like mine, that means that women and girls have the freedom to wear a headscarf if they choose to, and the protection of the law from those who would seek to force that on them if they choose not to. Both those things are equally important.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
On Sunday, I celebrated iftar at the local Epsom Islamic Centre. We enjoyed lots of wonderful food and a real community spirit. Unfortunately, last October the centre was the target of vandalism and abuse, which included words and devils spray-painted on the building. That hatred does not represent the majority of people in Epsom and Ewell, but we cannot ignore the fact that there are those in our country who seek to divide us. Does the hon. Member agree that we must support our communities in standing firm against hatred and violence in all its forms?
David Simmonds
I do not think there is any argument against the points that the hon. Member raises, and they reflect things that I am sure we have all heard as constituency MPs. When I visited one of my local synagogues on Friday, the people there talked about the difficulties that some of the children in that community had faced at school with the rising tide of antisemitism that they had experienced. That is part of the bigger picture.
We need to ensure that, as far as we can, we build a level of common understanding. When we talk about shared values, sometimes people are prone to say, “We have sharia law in some parts of the country,” or, “We have the Beth Din, which sits outside of the law.” Indeed, the canon law of the Catholic Church, which has been part of our Christian community for centuries, permitted marriage at the age of 14 up until that law was changed in 2019. Sometimes these misunderstandings are not simply about a view of Islam; they are about different communities and cultures. We need to ensure that everybody recognises that the rule of law and the freedoms that it brings apply to everybody in our country.
All of our citizens are free to decide that in the event of a dispute about a business, they would like a sharia court to be involved in settling it. If two Jewish business people wish to use the Beth Din to settle the matter, they can do that as well. That does not remove, under any circumstances, the freedoms and the protections that the law of the land gives to everybody in our country. That must always be there as a clear recourse.
I will touch on an issue that we covered a little yesterday in the debate about the Representation of the People Act 1983. The issue of electoral interference is one that sits with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but is of concern to Members across the House. I reflect on a session of the Home Affairs Committee that was chaired by the now Foreign Secretary, who asked our intelligence services what evidence there was of Russian interference in the Brexit debate, which was the issue at the time. The response was illuminating. The point our security services made was not that Russia, China or Iran is seeking a particular outcome in a political debate happening in the United Kingdom. What those sponsors of terror are seeking to achieve is division in the United Kingdom and a lack of coherence in our society. We must make sure that we are always vigilant and that our laws are updated regularly to take account of how we can resist that.
Moving to more local matters, a lot of the debate has revolved around what makes a community. I know you represent a constituency with a diverse range of local settlements that are different to those in London, Dr Murrison. When we think of community, we think of thriving high streets and places that people can feel proud of. We think of a strong economy and of places where people can get and keep a job that supports their standard of living and their opportunity. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reflections, because those things have been hotly debated in Parliament. We see the impact of rising taxes in the hollowing-out of our high streets. We know that 89,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality and 74,000 in retail since October 2024. The relentless rise in unemployment under this Government is putting enormous strain on the cohesion of our communities.
Leigh Ingham
Does the hon. Member agree that we saw a hollowing-out of state institutions that really matter to our communities during the 14 years of Conservative Government between 2010 and 2024? I refer to the point I made in my speech: under the Conservative-led Staffordshire county council, we saw the third worst cuts to youth services in the country. In fact, I spent last Thursday afternoon talking about youth justice with young people in my constituency who told me that they had never seen things so bad. Although I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s points are valid, would he accept that there is a heritage to where we are now and what this Government are dealing with?
David Simmonds
I would not accept that point, I am afraid. We can recognise, not least by simply looking at the statistics, that resident satisfaction with local government services rose continuously throughout the period that Labour have described as “austerity”. Any incoming Government dealing with a colossal legacy of debt will have to find ways to live within its means. Unfortunately, we seem to be set on the path of another colossal legacy of debt.
It would be helpful if the Minister addressed some points, and perhaps acknowledged the impact that her Government’s policies are having on the ability of businesses and our residents to find good, remunerative work. The first point, which the Labour leader of Sheffield has been particularly exercised about recently, and which the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) will know is of local as well as national interest, is the asylum funding situation for local government, which remains a major source of concern and grievance.
The Government are providing some funding to local authorities to help them to meet the very significant costs. Hillingdon is a good example. As a gateway authority to Heathrow airport, it has accommodated many thousands of unaccompanied children over the years, and, currently, very large numbers of Chagossians are fleeing to the United Kingdom from the consequences of the Government’s Chagos deal and huge numbers of people are being placed in temporary accommodation by the Home Office. Those numbers have been rising very sharply, very fast, and their processing means that the numbers turning up at the town hall have increased dramatically. That means that the pressure on local authority temporary accommodation budgets is rising relentlessly.
The Government refuse to say how much funding they are providing to local authorities to meet that cost, which is understandably fuelling campaigns by some in our society to say that those costs are not fully met. Does the Minister agree with her colleague Councillor Tom Hunt that the Government need to address this consequence of their actions?
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Order. On that point, I call the Minister, because we are short of time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing this debate and for his powerful and eloquent contribution, and all the hon. Members who have spoken for their contributions and insight. There is clear passion and commitment across the House to tackle this issue, which I agree is cross-party.
Throughout our history, the United Kingdom’s ability to withstand external challenges has been underpinned by a shared sense of pride, tolerance and courage. We are accepting of our neighbours, proud of our varied experiences, traditions, national identities and customs, and confident that those differences enrich our communities and our country. Those core foundations that have kept us united in the face of adversity on so many occasions are now under threat.
One of the privileges of my role is that I have been able to talk to communities across the country. Time and again, I have heard clearly about the rising tide of hate and division seen in communities. I talk to our Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu communities, and hear that people, who have made this country their own and have been here for generations, feel scared in this country, in their communities and in their homes. We have got to turn the tide on that.
People are under pressure, and in that context—it is a tale as old as time—bad faith actors will try to exploit our communities in order to tear them apart. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) is absolutely right; at the heart of this is a story about economic neglect and of the failure of the Conservatives to properly fund our amazing councils and invest in our communities. We see the impacts of that in terms of closed shops on our high streets, shut up libraries, closed youth clubs and the abandonment of so many of our vital community assets that bring people together. That sense of decline on too many of our doorsteps has bred a real, justified sense of frustration, anger and a lack of control.
I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that it is not just a question of local growth; it is a question about cohesion. We cannot and we will not pretend that the legacies of any of those issues can be reversed overnight, but as both a Labour Government and as a Parliament, we can be confident that the way in which we restore cohesion and pride in our communities does not lie in this building or the corridors of Whitehall. The answer is in the communities and people that we represent. We all know that the bonds that hold society together are anchored locally, so often it is the voluntary community and charity groups and the grassroot bodies at the heart of our communities—we all have them in our constituencies—that bring people together every day.
To build stronger communities, we must bring people together to make positive, meaningful change in their own neighbourhoods. That ethos is at the heart of our groundbreaking Pride in Place programme, which, importantly, will mean local people will decide how money is invested. They will work together to unite their communities and bring everyone around the table to find common ground and invest in their priorities. That point has been made time and again by hon. Members, who have provided amazing examples of how that is happening.
As a Government, we see our role as supporting and enabling that, whether it is through places that have received Pride in Place funding or, more broadly, the approach that we want to increasingly see where we create the ability for communities to get a grip on the funding the Government are already spending. That will enable them to shape it, drive it and, fundamentally, invest in their priorities. To achieve all that, we are working closely with pioneering councils and communities. A great example is in Rugby, where the local authority and other partners are stepping forward as one of the first to deliver the work that we want to see on our high streets through, for example, high street renewal auctions. That will unlock vital spaces on our high streets for local businesses and community groups so that everyone can be part of building thriving high streets. That is renewal in action, led by people who know their patch better than we ever will in this place. They are backed by the Government who are choosing unity over division.
Let me pick up the point on flags that was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby, for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). I absolutely agree that we must reclaim our flags and national symbols, and push back on those who want to use them to divide and intimidate our communities. We know this is a difficult area for councils to navigate, and that is why we are providing guidance, best practice and training to support them in navigating this terrain and to ensure they can hold our national symbols so that they represent all our communities, and to push back on those who want to use them in a divisive way.
We are absolutely clear that we need to work on social cohesion. We are working across Government to develop a response, led by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we will say more very shortly. To update hon. Members, this includes three key strands. First, building confident communities that bring people together so that we can build common ground. Pride in Place is one example, but this is about creating spaces and places where people can cohere around issues they care about in their area. There is a critical role for voluntary, community and faith organisations in doing this hard work. Many have been doing so during difficult periods under the Conservative Government, but without support from Government.
Ayoub Khan
I gently ask the Minister, in relation to Pride in Place funding: why is Birmingham Perry Barr, which is at the centre of Birmingham and has the highest level of deprivation, not being given any money? Why should those residents feel left out?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have a very clear methodology based on a combination of deprivation, connection and access to assets in local places. That is published for every hon. Member to see. We have provided Pride in Place funding in particular parts of Birmingham. I would love to have Pride in Place in every deprived community, and I will continue to make that case and champion it. We are rolling out a further 40 areas, considering both deprivation and cohesion, and will say more about that shortly.
Critically, we want this to be an approach that applies to all parts of the country. Irrespective of whether an area is part of the programme, we want it to have access to funding and the ability for local community groups to come together to drive priorities and regenerate their place. We will say more through our high streets strategy and the ongoing work we are doing.
On cohesion, the first strand is building confident communities. The second is strengthening integration. That means supporting people who come to this country, both existing and new migrants, so that they are integrated into society, speak the language and contribute to the community, while ensuring there is zero tolerance for those who want to sow hate and division. Whether that is the rise in religious hate or racism, there must be proper enforcement, with a clear line we say people cannot cross, and if they do, action is taken against it.
The final strand is tackling extremism, which we know is on the rise, with robust action to disrupt it in our communities and, critically, online, where we know we are seeing increasing division, hate and radicalisation. We know we must respond. We recognise that this is a first step. The hard work of trying to build cohesion in our communities is ongoing, and we as a Government are absolutely committed to playing our part.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) made the important point that whatever we do on cohesion must be rooted in a wider strategy to tackle inequality and poverty, because that is the breeding ground for division. It is essential that the work my Department is doing sits alongside wider Government action to increase living standards and tackle poverty, whether through the child poverty action plan, removing the two-child benefit cap, lifting the national living wage, tackling homelessness, building the next generation of social housing or reviving public services so they provide a foundation for everyone to live well and do well.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), raised the important point of asylum accommodation. We inherited a legacy of asylum hotels from the last Government that was an absolute shambles and paid no regard to community cohesion, tension or consent. We will do the hard work of closing those hotels, but we must work hand in glove with local authorities to provide accommodation in a way that brings communities with us and has their consent.
We know this is a critical task, and the Prime Minister has told me it is one of the most important things that we will do as a Government. He is right. The Government will play their part, but we all have a responsibility as Members of this House and as politicians, because the words and language we use have an impact on what happens on the ground. We all have a collective responsibility to step up, working with local government and with grassroots organisations to do the vital work of holding and cohering our communities.
John Slinger
I thank you, Dr Murrison, and the Minister, the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem spokesperson. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions; it was an interesting debate. We must be catalysts for community cohesion and create an unstoppable, positive chain reaction that will strengthen our communities. From what I have heard today, I am sure that we will do so.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
North Middlesex Hospital Accident and Emergency Services: Cancer Patients
(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 Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
I will call Kate Osamor to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may speak 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.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the experience of cancer patients with accident and emergency services at North Middlesex Hospital.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank you and the House for granting me the opportunity to speak about the urgent care pathway for cancer patients at North Middlesex university hospital, and to discuss the potential for dedicated funding for an oncology assessment unit.
In Edmonton and Winchmore Hill, as in many constituencies across the country, too many people with cancer are being let down. In the UK, cancer mortality rates are significantly higher than in comparable countries, and the survival rate is lower. I am glad that the Government have recognised the issue and are taking steps to address it, most significantly through the national cancer plan. I welcome the plan’s ambition to diagnose more cancers early, to ensure that treatment starts more quickly and to improve survival.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She is right to illustrate this important issue at her local hospital, which is replicated wherever we might be the United Kingdom. Indeed, people back home are waiting 12 hours for admission or discharge. Those who attend A&E should be treated within four hours, but that is not happening. Does the hon. Lady agree that strengthening community-based cancer services is essential to protect patients, ease pressure on emergency departments and ensure that people with cancer get the right care in the right place at the right time?
Kate Osamor
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; later in my speech I will discuss the work the community is doing.
Faster diagnosis and quicker treatment are vital to improving outcomes for cancer patients. However, I am concerned that the Government are placing less emphasis on other critical aspects of the care that cancer patients receive. The case of North Middlesex hospital in my Edmonton and Winchmore Hill constituency, which I am very proud to represent, is evidence of that. On the one hand, since 2023, North Middlesex hospital has received two new radiotherapy machines, which should help to ensure that cancer patients receive treatment more quickly and limit the number of hospital visits they need to make. But on the other hand, the hospital is under-resourced in other important areas, which is having a negative impact on patients’ experiences.
I have particular concerns about the experience of cancer patients in the accident and emergency department. From talking to my constituents and their families, I know that oncology patients who are admitted to the hospital are often assessed in the emergency department, but it does not have the physical space or isolation capacity required to safely manage immunocompromised individuals. Despite an acute oncology service that works extremely hard to prioritise those patients, the North Middlesex hospital emergency department often struggles to provide appropriate private triage areas or guarantee a rapid review for vulnerable cancer patients, because of high patient volumes and infection-control pressures. Over recent years, this has caused a number of my constituents to be put in an environment that is unsuitable for their condition, and caused a great deal of upset and discomfort.
I have been in correspondence with one of my constituents, Mrs Mary Thorn, regarding the experience of her late husband, Mr Jack Thorn, at North Middlesex hospital, and Mrs Thorn has given me permission to discuss the experience of her late husband at the hospital. Mr Thorn was diagnosed with cancer in July 2022, and in January 2023 he began chemotherapy treatment. Following the conclusion of the first type of chemotherapy treatment, Mr Thorn was told multiple times that he needed to be admitted back into hospital. However, upon arriving at hospital, rather than being admitted straight into the cancer ward, he was made to sit in the A&E waiting room to be triaged. On one occasion, he was made to wait for 15 hours. Because of the immunosuppressive treatment that many cancer patients undergo, they are at a heightened risk of infection, meaning that staying in A&E wards for extended periods risks worsening their condition.
Since my correspondence with Mrs Thorn, I have heard from several other constituents who have suffered similar ordeals. One of my constituents, who has now sadly passed away, went to the North Middlesex emergency department following a concerning reaction to the immunotherapy treatment she was receiving for her cancer. She arrived at the hospital on a Saturday and was not moved into a side room until the Monday, meaning that she was forced to sleep in a chair for two days while very unwell. During this time she could not shower, had no privacy and was unable to return home to collect any belongings or change clothing.
Since hearing of Mr Thorn’s experience, I have engaged closely with the North Middlesex hospital and the Royal Free London NHS foundation trust, which now manages the hospital. The trust has been taking steps to improve the experience of oncology patients at North Middlesex hospital through efforts to reduce waiting times and speed up the pathway for them. Those steps include the creation of the same-day emergency care hub and the emergency ambulatory care unit, which provide a safer and more appropriate environment for patients, away from the emergency department.
Despite those measures, North Middlesex hospital has not been provided with the necessary resources for the triage of patients who require isolation. The trust proposes an initiative to establish an oncology assessment unit for patients who require minimal intervention, to bypass the emergency department, but this has been prevented from progressing further, after some promising initial steps. This was due to there being no available funds in existing budgets and the lack of external funding to hire the additional specialist staff required to establish the oncology assessment unit.
The situation highlights the urgent need for targeted investment. Without dedicated support, the trust will not be able to guarantee the safer, specialist-led pathway for cancer patients that clinicians have repeatedly recommended. The experiences of Mr Thorn and my other constituents demonstrate the human impact of the gap in provision, and the response of the trust makes it clear that local efforts alone cannot solve the issue. If the Government are serious about putting cancer patients “front and centre”, as the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has previously stated, they must do more to support stretched and under-resourced hospitals such as the North Middlesex, as well as its dedicated and hard-working staff—not only to protect the dignity and wellbeing of cancer patients, but to improve outcomes and survival rates.
I have three requests that I would like the Minister to consider. First, will the Department consider taking steps to ensure that North Middlesex hospital is granted the funding it needs to establish an oncology assessment unit, so that patients who experience treatment-related complications can be assessed properly in an appropriate environment, avoiding the risks associated with overcrowded emergency departments? Secondly, will the Minister consider carrying out a wider assessment of the safety and suitability of the settings in which immunocompromised oncology patients are placed when they are admitted to hospitals across the country, and how that may affect outcomes for cancer patients? Lastly, how will the proposals in the 10-year health plan for England on shifting from hospital to community care affect the experience of those suffering from cancer, to prevent them from having to attend A&E in the first place?
I pay tribute to Mrs Thorn for her tireless advocacy on this matter, with me and my office, with the North Middlesex hospital and with the wider Royal Free London foundation trust, to push for improvements in oncology care following the death of her husband Mr Jack Thorn. Her constant advocacy in the face of such devastating loss is truly commendable.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton and Winchmore Hill (Kate Osamor) for securing the debate. I echo her comments about Mrs Thorn in the light of her husband Jack’s experience. My hon. Friend has worked diligently on behalf of her constituent. We know that constituents should not have to take on such advocacy when they are suffering such trauma, but their experience is always valuable. Constituency MPs are always grateful to people who share their experiences, and my hon. Friend has done an excellent job on behalf of her constituent this morning.
We are clear that every patient should be treated with dignity and respect. For far too long, NHS performance and practices have not met the high standards that patients should expect, which is why we are taking action to improve cancer pathways and urgent emergency care, to build an NHS that is fit for the future. On the treatment of cancer patients in A&E in particular, far too many cancer patients and their families have been failed by the NHS, with care lacking empathy and dignity. It is not right that patients, and particularly those with a cancer diagnosis, face distressing situations waiting for care in A&E.
Through our recently published national cancer plan, which my hon. Friend alluded to, we commit to addressing poor experiences, driving earlier diagnosis and supporting general practitioners to spot cancer earlier through, for example, Jess’s rule and reducing inappropriate diagnosis in A&E. Jess’s rule is a patient-safety principle that requires GPs to reflect, review and rethink a patient’s diagnosis after three unresolved presentations, to reduce missed and delayed cancer diagnosis.
My hon. Friend and I entered Parliament at the same time; she had experience in primary care and I had experience as a commissioner. She will be as shocked as I am, because in 2026 cancer patients should not be going through A&E when they are known to have a condition. We have been working on that for a very long time. Our plan will reduce the need for people who are undergoing cancer treatment to attend A&E—for example, through rapid access to a booked appointment in same-day emergency care. As my hon. Friend alluded to, we already see that in other trusts, such as the Whittington in her area. That should be standard, and is in many places.
We recognise that some cancer patients will have more extensive needs. For those patients, we need to deliver an enhanced level of care during and after treatment, known as supportive oncology. This will include support for severe and sometimes sudden symptoms, when people need rapid access to the right care in their home or community. That will be key to getting those patients the support they need, and thereby reducing the need for them ever to attend A&E.
It is vital to deliver compassionate care in the best setting for each patient. Our national cancer plan will redesign cancer services around people’s lives, not just around hospitals, recognising that more people are living longer with and beyond cancer and need ongoing co-ordinated support. That support will increasingly be delivered through neighbourhood services and be accessible digitally through the NHS app. We will ensure that patients have a named neighbourhood lead to help to co-ordinate their care locally, working alongside hospital specialists to provide continuity, reduce fragmentation and make it easier for people to navigate services, in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country.
We will deliver greater use of virtual monitoring and growing opportunities for treatment and follow-up in community settings, where that is safe and appropriate. This will help to ensure that patients get high-quality support early, thereby reducing the crisis situations that my hon. Friend alluded to that currently drive unacceptable and unnecessary A&E visits.
Where patients do need to attend A&E, we are committed to improving standards and returning to the waiting times set out in the NHS constitution. We have expert improvement teams providing tailored support to challenge trusts like the North Middlesex, and they have shown progress, as my hon. Friend has highlighted. I pay tribute to the work of leaders locally in improving the situation—they have made progress since last year.
In addition, the NHS team in London recently agreed to a pilot for the oncology assessment unit, to proactively support cancer patients away from the emergency department, as my hon. Friend discussed. If she needs more detail on the final confirmation of that pilot, I will make sure she gets it in writing after the debate, because we do think that is an appropriate way to proceed.
Nationally, we recently published guidance on the model emergency department, setting out the core principles and pathways for high-performing emergency departments. Our urgent and emergency care plan for 2025-26 sets out a clear path to strengthen urgent care outside hospital. We are using data from shared patient care records and digital tools to support better triage, join up services and anticipate pressures before they arise. That is backed by £2 billion of investment in NHS digital infrastructure.
We are also investing £250 million to strengthen same-day emergency care and urgent treatment centre provision, helping systems to avoid unnecessary admissions for patients and supporting the same-day diagnosis, treatment and discharge of patients. The plan is working: A&E performance is improving and people are receiving their cancer diagnosis within a month. We do not underestimate how much more there is to do and how difficult it is for many patients at the North Middlesex hospital, as my hon. Friend has spoken about, and other places. We want to take the best to the rest. We know there is more to do, but the investment and modernisation along clear pathways are starting to make a difference, and the NHS is showing clear signs of recovery.
The NHS is under pressure. The Government are taking decisive action through our urgent care emergency plan, the national cancer plan and our longer-term reforms. We are putting the service back on its feet and ensuring that patients receive the high-quality, timely care they deserve. I welcome my hon. Friend raising this issue on behalf of her constituents, and many other Members discussing the issues with me. I am happy to continue working with my hon. Friend and local NHS leaders on how we can further strengthen urgent emergency care services and the delivery of the cancer plan, to reduce the disparities and support patients to receive the right care in the right place.
Question put and agreed to.
Small Charity Sector
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the small charity sector.
It is a great privilege to serve under your stewardship, Sir Roger. I am astonished and happy to see that so many Members take the small charity sector seriously, because it is a serious issue. As you will specifically know, Sir Roger, the sector is critical to everything that we do. The Government can do only a certain amount; the two other groups that aid the people and support the natural fabric of society are families and small community groups and charities. Small charities do much more than even the large charities that we hear all the headlines about. The charities that do the most are the ones about which we probably know the least. The purpose of this debate is to find out about them and discuss what we can do to help them.
I want to start with a few facts and figures that may astound colleagues from all parties. First, the “UK Charity Insights Report” found that 30%—fewer than a third—of charity leaders think that the sector is in a healthy position. Some 44% of charity leaders cite cost rises as one of their main challenges, up from 14% four years ago. We know that that is the case for many charities. Demand for charities’ services is growing, with 83% of charities recording an increase in demand over the last 12 months. Only one in 10 charity leaders said that they have been able to smoothly meet the rise in demand.
The “UK Giving Report 2025” said that although donations from the public to charity increased to £15.4 billion in 2024, which is quite remarkable, really, only half of people say that they donated to charity in the previous 12 months. That, obviously, is to do with levels of income. I am not making a party political point; this is just a statement about the situation for these small community groups.
The downward trend is evident across all age groups, but it is especially pronounced among young people. A little more than a third of 16 to 24-year-olds say they donated or sponsored in the past 12 months, compared with 52% in 2019. The small charity sector has been doing fantastic work, but it has been healthier. I hope that it can become a focus for us and the Government. It is a delicate flower and we need to nurture it in everything that we do.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. It is obvious that a large number of Members wish to participate in the debate; time is going to be very short. Before we embark on the inevitable round of interventions, which are perfectly permitted, I remind hon. Members who intervene that they are expected to remain for the whole debate.
Alex Easton
Does the right hon. Member agree that the small charity sector, including community and faith-based groups, plays a vital role in reaching the hardest-to-reach communities—not only in my constituency of North Down, but across our United Kingdom? Does he agree that the sector should be commended on its local leadership, which so often fills the gaps in statutory provision?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I do indeed. I am going to be careful about taking an intervention unless the Member nods their head to suggest that they are prepared to stay for the rest of the debate. I am like a spider at the centre of the web, but I promise I will not trap anyone if I do not have to; I have great confidence in Sir Roger’s stewardship.
Some 20 years ago, I visited the Easterhouse estate in Glasgow, which was one of the most deprived communities in the United Kingdom. At that time, the people there no longer looked to Government as their safety net from poverty; instead, it was local charities that stepped forward. People at the grassroots were present every day, patiently helping people into work and out of debt and addiction. The lifespan of individuals there was incredibly low, much lower than the UK average. That visit stayed with me throughout the latter part of my time as party leader. I saw deprivation and problems, but I also saw innovation at a local level to solve key problems. Innovation is critical, and that is what the small charity sector is about.
For that reason, I founded the Centre for Social Justice in 2004 to create a bridge between local poverty fighters and policymakers here in Westminster; we described it as connecting the back streets of Britain to the corridors of power. The work that the organisation does now is informed by an alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots charities. Today it is led by former charity leader and CSJ award-winner Andy Cook. This is all about real people doing things away from Westminster and achieving things that are never exalted enough; nor is experience of them ever transferred to central Government.
The CSJ harnessed the experiences of those charities to identify five distinct pathways to poverty, which it could then change; that idea still holds as true today as it did when I set the organisation up. Those pathways are worklessness and welfare dependency; addiction; educational failure; debt; and of course family dysfunction and breakdown. What I learned about the impact of worklessness and the other pathways helped to shape some of my thinking later on.
Every year since 2004, we have had an awards programme that recognises outstanding small community groups and charities that work quietly but effectively across the country. To see what they have achieved is one of the most moving things. They will not be known to many people, but what they do is remarkable and the lessons from their work ring out to policymakers. Instead of inventing new ways of doing things, we should look at what these groups do, see whether we can bring it to Westminster and, if necessary, make legislation that shapes lives along the same lines.
I want to refer to some community groups and charities that I know about—I hope other Members will do the same, to give a cross-party sense of what is going on in our communities. The first I want to talk about is Ripple, a suicide prevention charity based in Portsmouth. After the tragic suicide of her brother Josh, Alice Hendy dedicated herself to preventing harmful online internet searches from leading others to the same fate. We face a growing nightmare out there, with many people committing suicide as a result of what they see online. It is a real problem.
From her bedroom in Portsmouth, Alice created a browser extension that intercepts crisis searches, offering a calming breathing exercise before signposting people to accessible local services. I have seen it myself, and it is quite brilliant—the members of the Government who saw it were also taken aback by how remarkable it is. What began as a response to personal tragedy has become a lifesaving tool that has now been downloaded—believe it or not—more than 2 million times. This is a small idea, from a small set-up in a bedroom, that is now being used more and more widely.
That is why we need to learn from what these groups are doing, pick it up and see what we can do centrally. Many individuals will not have committed suicide as a direct result of that particular initiative, but there are many other examples. With the right Government engagement, tools like Ripple’s could be made available in schools, hospitals and jobcentres across the country, for example, yet Alice and her team still have to approach institutions one by one.
I say again to the Minister: these are the kind of huge, life-changing things we can take from this debate—I am sure colleagues will give similar examples—and we do not have to invent them from scratch, because they already exist.
Another shining beacon in our charity network is the BAC—the BAC O’Connor centre in Staffordshire; I first encountered it some years ago during my visits to grassroots charities. For 30 years, BAC O’Connor has been helping people to recover from addiction. We have long argued that, for obvious reasons, addiction is a reinforcer of poverty. BAC’s founder, Noreen Oliver, who sadly is no longer with us, was a much-loved member of this family. I was lucky enough to visit the centre again last year with the hon. Members for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier).
Some still new to political leadership in various other parties think that simply legalising drugs is a single-stroke way of ending the drugs problem and saving lives. BAC O’Connor believes in changing and transforming lives; its rehabilitation programmes remind us that recovery, not normalisation, remains the desired outcome. BAC O’Connor does groundbreaking work, as I am sure the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) will want to explain further. It created its own restaurant for those coming out of addiction and is a very good example of what I am talking about.
In my constituency of Chingford and Woodford Green there are some remarkable small charities, from which the Government could learn important lessons. They include the Dream Factory, founded in 2008 by Avril Mills BEM. It supports children with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions or with severe disabilities by making their dreams—the things that they hoped or wished to do but have not been able to—a reality. It is a simple device: no matter what their situation is, Avril wants to hold them and say that they are worthy of achieving some of their dreams, although they may not be around long enough to see all of them.
Wanstead and Woodford Migrant Support, a Christian charity based in Woodford Green, offers free immigration advice, housing support, advocacy and social spaces for refugees, asylum seekers and vulnerable migrants. By providing community-based advice early, it helps prevent homelessness. Immigration and housing policy should recognise and learn from its preventive work and the savings created by local and interactive support.
There are others. Read Easy Waltham Forest offers free, confidential one-to-one coaching for adults who want to learn to read. One of the main reasons why people—mostly young men—end up in prison is that they simply cannot read and write. We discovered that they are too embarrassed to go into jobcentres, where they will be confronted by things that they need to read and write. They will probably be sitting in front of an efficient woman who is trying to help them, and they are embarrassed about admitting that they simply cannot read what she is putting in front of them. They will leave the jobcentre and fall into a life of crime because, without reading and writing, there is nothing out there that people can do for regular work. Many people who cannot read and write struggle; that is an often overlooked barrier to employment and to a straightforward, well-lived life.
The central issue that I hope this debate will address is this: the Government take grassroots charity too much for granted—they did before and still do now, to a greater or lesser degree; this is not party political, as I said. The Government fail to listen when charities are delivering what works, and I urge the Minister to raise that point with her colleagues. They ought to be looking with MPs at what is going on in their constituencies and seeing what we can bring forward. The Government should rise up to serious, lifesaving policy work that does not need degrees or involve people writing new policies on the backs of envelopes and everybody getting excited about them. The programmes of these charities have been tried and tested, and they work—in life, it is always a good start to look at what works and copy it. That is what most of us would want to do.
We need to foster a stronger culture of philanthropy in the UK that is closer to the American model. In its “Supercharging Philanthropy” report, the CSJ proposed practical steps to get us there. It suggested unlocking matched funding schemes to drive philanthropy and creating an evidence fund, so that smaller organisations can prove their impact and compete on a higher-level playing field. I want this debate to focus on how the Government can better learn from charities. There is a clear policy pipeline through which Ministers and Departments can systematically learn from grassroots charities working on the ground.
The problem is that larger charities have public affairs teams and a lot of money, so they can fill up the inboxes of the Government on a daily basis, which they do—I have experience of that. I am not attacking them; I am simply saying that the real innovation is in smaller charities. It is the same in the economy—job creation in the business sector is all about small businesses. They are the ones that take the risks, are dynamic and produce the most employment in the United Kingdom.
Small charities and community groups are exactly the same: they are innovators that see a problem, want to solve it and innovate to do that. When it works they really grow, but it is difficult because there is a glass ceiling that they must get through to reach the Government. That is what the Centre for Social Justice is trying to enable, but the issue needs to be recognised on a wider scale. That innovation must be harnessed to produce solutions.
I remain proud of what the CSJ has done to bring these voices to the national debate. The CSJ Foundation has now given more than £25 million to grassroots charities and hopefully will raise more. I hope that, as this debate continues, the Government will listen and recognise that, through discussions with groups such as the Centre for Social Justice and others, we can harness and recognise the issues. There are a significant number of colleagues here for a debate such as this on a normal day, and they all work with local community groups and charities. Let us find a way to show what is really good about what those do and get the Government to act, once and for all, on things that we know work, rather than doing experiments in public policy.
I rest on the basis that those charities are the lifeblood of what keeps society going, and we do not recognise them fully enough. I know that colleagues do, but the Government never do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Could colleagues who wish to speak please remain standing while the Clerk ticks off the names? I do not normally do this from the Chair, but 10 Members have put forward their names in advance; I propose to call them first. In order, on the Opposition Benches they are Peter Bedford, Danny Kruger, John Cooper, Wera Hobhouse, John Glen and Jim Shannon. On the Government Benches they are Brian Leishman, Patrick Hurley and Terry Jermy.
I am going to put a time limit of three minutes on each speech; that should take us—allowing for interventions—to just past quarter past 3. We have to call the Front Benchers at 3.30 pm, so there should be a little wriggle room at the end for anybody who was not on that list and wishes to speak. Otherwise, your card is marked, so intervene. I will also not allow interventions from anybody who arrived after the start of the debate.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important debate.
When times are hard, the charity sector is always asked to do more. The unholy trinity of austerity, which made millions poorer, a global pandemic, which widened the inequalities created by that austerity, and the ongoing cost of living crisis has placed incredible demands on the charity sector across various communities in my constituency—I will speak about some of the fantastic charities that do so much.
It was an honour to be invited by Andy Roxburgh and Johanna Wilkinson to celebrate the Wee County Veterans 10th birthday just a few weeks ago. That group provides camaraderie and companionship for veterans who find themselves back on civvy street. There is no doubt that the support that the group has given has saved the lives of brave ex-servicemen and women.
The Sauchie Community Group has done so much for nearly 35 years. Laura’s Tiny Tots group gives children the best start in life; Anne always guarantees a warm welcome at Chatty Latte; and Keith’s recently formed history group preserve and promote Sauchie legends. There are also lots of other positive mental health activities in various musical groups, all of which are fantastic. The Sauchie resource centre is always busy.
Love in a Box was founded by two ladies from Alloa: Sharon McCafferty and Margaret Douglas. They want every kid in Clackmannanshire to experience the festive season. They make sure that every child wakes up on Christmas morning with presents to open.
Heading across the Forth to Grangemouth, it was a pleasure to meet Kirsty from Talbot House, who runs a lunch club for pensioners. Coming together to spend an afternoon in company over a meal and playing bingo is a social highlight for so many.
In Larbert and Stenhousemuir, Keeping Larbert and Stenhousemuir Beautiful was originally set up to tidy green spaces and plant and maintain flowers in the community. Now, it also runs a food pantry for vulnerable people in low-income households. It is a vital community drop-in centre for local people to come and spend some time.
Then there is the Carronshore heritage forum, a volunteer-led organisation dedicated to strengthening local community spirit in the village through projects, initiatives and events. For example, it is always great to see so many people come to the Christmas lights switch-on and for kids to meet Santa Claus. I thank the trustees, Craig, Colin, Stewart, Gordon, Robert and Davy, for inviting me along to serve up tasty dinners at the senior citizens Christmas lunch. It was commented that seeing an MP do an honest day’s work was somewhat refreshing.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for introducing this immensely important debate. The UK’s charity sector is facing mounting challenges. Just like many small businesses, charities across the country have seen a sharp increase in their running costs, driven by persistent inflation and, unfortunately, unhelpful economic policies from the Treasury.
The increase in the national living wage, the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions and changes to business rates have placed considerable pressures on organisations that do so much for our constituents in need. For a sector that contributes £20 billion in economic value to the country each year, that should concern us all. As we have heard, these organisations are more innovative and grassroots-led, and ultimately they are generally supported by the public. If small and medium-sized charities continue to close at the current rate, it will impact our communities and place further strain on already stretched public services.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Small charities with excepted charity status, including many individual scout and guide groups, do not have a registered charity number. 1st Ram Hill Scouts in my constituency tell me that they reckon they are excluded from about 80% of grants because they lack a charity number. Does the hon. Member agree that that is a serious sustainability priority for small groups?
Mr Bedford
The hon. Member has made her point clearly, and I am very sympathetic to the argument she puts across. In my constituency, I have seen the impact of these economic policies and the tough environment for small and medium-sized charities such as Wyggestons and Trinity Almshouses, which provides sheltered accommodation and residential care. It believes that the Charity Commission could also be doing more to support these groups.
Meanwhile, other charity-funded local care providers, such as Rainbows hospice for children and young people and LOROS, have made it clear that the economic climate is making their future more uncertain. These organisations are incredibly important to my constituents, and it would be an absolute travesty to see them reduce their services or close altogether. The Government need to think about creating a carve-out for the charity sector, so that it does not have to pay astronomical employment costs—something that Conservative Members argued for during the national insurance debate. That would be a sensible move to protect jobs and sustain local services, and it would command broad public support.
To conclude, charities are at the heart of our communities. They reduce pressure on public services and command widespread public support, yet we in this place are not doing enough to support and protect them. I urge the Government to listen carefully to the arguments that the CSJ and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green have eloquently presented. My plea to the Government is to create a carve-out for the wider sector to ensure that running costs do not drive many charities, including those in my constituency, to close.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. In the interests of time, and given your advice, I have cut a huge chunk from my speech, in the hope that we can get more colleagues in. I wish to commend two charities in my constituency, and then make two requests of the Minister.
First, I commend Greta and the team at the Light for Life charity. I want to place on record my thanks to them—they are in Parliament today, and when the debate is over, I will go to see them. Light for Life provides support to people experiencing homelessness, at the most vulnerable point in their lives. It provides food and essential supplies and, perhaps more importantly, respect and connection to those in real difficulty.
I also want to recognise Richard and the team at Compassion Acts, with its food bank provision and financial and monetary advice to families; in the past, it has provided school uniform support to children who need it the most. These are the sorts of small charities that are, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned, the backbone of our communities. We would be much worse off without them.
There are some practical ideas that would, I hope, make a positive difference to the charities sector. One is to unlock unclaimed gift aid and match-funding mechanisms, which could incentivise and increase philanthropic giving, especially if targeted and supported directly for the smaller charities sector. Another proposal is to establish an evidence fund, maybe also financed from unclaimed gift aid, which would help small charities to demonstrate impact and compete more fairly for grants and contracts against the big boys—the larger charities that we all know and that overwhelm our inboxes.
I would be grateful if the Minister could address two questions. Does the Department view match funding as a practical tool to increase giving to small and medium-sized charities? Secondly, what steps can be taken to ensure that small charities can engage meaningfully in tendering grant applications and consultations?
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I have two quick declarations of interest. I am the founder and still chairman of a charity working in prisons. It is 21 years old this year. My second declaration of interest is the fealty I owe to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—my original, and still my feudal lord. He is the leader that I first worked for. I pay tribute to all the work he has done over many years. I remember very well the Easterhouse visit and setting up the Centre for Social Justice, and all the work that he has done over the last two decades to advance the cause of social justice, particularly through the work of small charities.
We all love our small charities, and I, too, could run through a list of brilliant ones that work in East Wiltshire—I do want to quickly mention the LINK service, which drives people around the county, particularly to medical appointments. That is such an important service, provided totally free and voluntarily to the community.
However, I want to use the time I have to make a more strategic point. The role of small charities is not just for us as MPs to champion in a sort of neutral sense—“Oh, aren’t they good?” There is something profoundly important about this network for public policy. I was involved, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was, in those early years of thinking about social responsibility in the era of David Cameron. I think the big society was the best thing that David Cameron did—except perhaps for calling a referendum on the European Union—yet it did not quite work.
It did not quite work for two main reasons. One is that the Treasury did not really believe in it— George Osborne never got the point of the charity sector and its role in public life and in policy. Secondly, the difficulty is that if the state starts to support charities, it ends up basically enabling big charities to occupy the space that state agencies did previously. They effectively game the provisions that are made with the purpose of supporting the small charity sector, to exclude the small charities and create barriers to entry for those small organisations that it is so difficult for national Government to see and to work with.
Fundamentally, we need a big, new settlement with the charity sector; in fact, with society itself. This is not just about registered charities. It is about social organisations in all their forms. We need to trust communities much more fully, with all the mess, the disparity and what is called the postcode lottery that that can sometimes induce. We need to support philanthropy and direct public support—I think the United Kingdom could become the absolute global centre of philanthropy. The City of London should regard that as one of its key investment markets.
But this is not actually just about money, private or public. It is about the state enabling and authorising its agency throughout the public sector to rely meaningfully on the charity sector, so that it can do that in all the areas we have been discussing, including addiction, re-offending, homelessness, children in care—these knotty, wicked problems that cause so much distress and pain in our society and which the state is so inadequate at dealing with.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this debate.
During my life, I have been involved with a number of different charities across my constituency, either in an employed capacity or voluntarily. That has included the Keystone Development Trust, the Benjamin Foundation, the Charles Burrell Centre and the G.W. Staniforth Charity. It is through that involvement that I have come to appreciate how small charities are so often crucial to local communities. They provide essential services and respond quickly to new risks or increases in demand. Sometimes they are formed out of personal tragedy, as was the case with the Benjamin Foundation set up by Richard and Vanessa Draper to remember their son Benjamin, who tragically passed away.
The services that small charities provide are crucial. It is important that organisations are supported by the Government. That support could materialise in many ways, but I want to highlight one in particular: access to cash and banking. Many groups and charities tell me that they increasingly struggle to process funds that they receive in cash. Although many things can be purchased digitally, if you are anything like me, Sir Roger, the odds are that you still buy raffle and tombola tickets with cash. The lack of availability of banks, particularly in rural areas such as mine, is now a real barrier to fundraising for smaller charities. The added costs of processing cash and the associated risks of staff and volunteers handling cash are important to consider. I ask the Government to give some thought to what can be done to assist local charities with this practical challenge.
I want to take a moment to thank the dozens and dozens of small local charities across my constituency and the volunteers that sustain them, including two groups that I have been able to meet with recently, the Downham Art Circle and Swaffham environment group. In the interests of time, I shall finish there.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. We Scots are often portrayed as parsimonious—or, to put it another way, as tight as two coats of paint. It is a myth largely down to comedian and singer Sir Harry Lauder, who, to raise money for wounded great war veterans after the death of his son in 1917, portrayed on stage a canny Scot who regarded every penny as a prisoner. Lauder raised £1 million for charity—an astronomical sum. How ironic that such generosity birthed the legend of the tightwad Scot. Today, in straitened times, our generosity continues, with an estimated £1.2 billion donated in 2023 and 76% of Scots reporting some sort of charity donation.
Another myth that persists is that deprivation and poverty are issues only in urban areas—not so. My constituency is rural and gorgeous, but people cannot eat the scenery. Rural isolation, loneliness and poverty are sadly all too real amidst the splendour of the Galloway hills. Loneliness and social isolation are profound challenges across Dumfries and Galloway. Our scattered communities, limited public transport and persistent digital exclusion—we have many notspots—leave many individuals cut off from social contact.
However, the people of Dumfries and Galloway are resilient self-starters and we have a plethora of charities fighting to make lives better. Take our telephone and in-person befriending service, A Listening Ear, which is having a real impact, delivering community-led preventive solutions to mental ill health. Its modest budget provides a big bang for a small buck. Prostate Buddies is reaching out to men, urging them to get checked for what is too often a silent killer, and offering advice and support so that more men can get treatment sooner.
There are dozens of similar such initiatives, often volunteer-led, that could benefit from greater support from Government. Take The Usual Place café, which is right next to my constituency office—I am a frequent flyer there. That charity takes young people with a range of mental and physical issues and teaches them catering skills, which massively boosts their chances of finding paid employment. Even with a thriving café and external catering business, The Usual Place has struggled financially, not least since the Government increased employer national insurance contributions.
Small charities do mighty work, especially in rural areas such as Dumfries and Galloway. May I make a plea for them to have a seat as the Government draw up the policy table? Sir Harry Lauder sang “Stop Yer Tickling, Jock.” Perhaps we should update that to “Start Yer Listening, Minister.”
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this debate and on his kind words about Noreen Oliver. I had the pleasure of meeting Noreen when I was first elected. The legacy she leaves in north Staffordshire is phenomenal. Noreen’s Recovery Lounge, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, is in Fenton Manor in my constituency. It is a wonderful place, which provides the opportunity for people in alcohol and drug addiction recovery to spend meaningful time with other people and acquire work experience and skills. That is something that we should all aspire to.
I commend to the debate the recent report from Voluntary Action Stoke on Trent, the infrastructure organisation expertly led by Lisa Healings and her team, that brings together multiple parts of the charitable sector, offering the support and guidance they need. The report points out that there are 396 registered charities operating in Stoke-on-Trent, spending a collective amount of £144.7 million. That is a phenomenal amount of investment into my city, and its value is huge. That money is being spent to prevent much greater demands on other services. It closes the gaps in some communities, to give people the life chances and opportunities they would not otherwise have.
That money cannot come from the public sector alone. Nicky Twemlow, the newly appointed chief executive of the YMCA, founded the Made in Stoke network, which brings together people who have a physical or social connection to Stoke-on-Trent, trying to ensure that they can use their philanthropic aims to fund small charities in Stoke. It is a matchmaking service that is having a real benefit.
Although there are many wonderful things in Stoke that I could talk about, I just want to touch briefly on three changes that would help. One issue is the short-term cycle of funding; charities often tell me that they get funding for one or two years. By the time they have stood up a project, it is time to start shutting it down again. By the time they have recruited staff, they are worried about redundancy costs. Another concerns large contracts for commissioned services by the third sector from public sector bodies, but the value of the contract is so large that small charities are shut out. Unless they can offer huge swathes of different services, they are unable to get a look in. The big charities mentioned by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green get all the spoils, when a coalition of smaller charities could deliver a service more effectively and with more focus on a community but they cannot compete on the price point.
My final point, which I want to raise briefly, is around the complex nature of the needs that too many of these charities are meeting. In Stoke we have lots of good charities, such as Chit Chat 4U, Birches Head Get Growing or Step-Up Stoke CIC. They are often trying to meet one need, but that is spread across multiple phases. If there were a way the Government could help with multiple needs assessments that allow charities to work collectively, it would be a massive boon for my city.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important debate.
I hear time and again from local Bath charities that they are disadvantaged due to their size. They are incredible, committed and dedicated niche charities, doing excellent work in our communities. Because they are small and locally focused they can deliver swift, sensitive and tailored personal services to the people who need them, but they are disadvantaged because they are small. They are disadvantaged because they cannot afford a team of experienced bid writers who know the tips and hacks to unlock the larger funding schemes, and because they are all going for the same pots of funding at the same time, for largely the same aims. They are also disadvantaged because they lack the economies of scale that benefit the nationals, and the central infrastructure to navigate onerous administration, monitoring and governance rules.
I recently convened a roundtable of smaller charities all working in the domestic abuse space in Bath, to hear about their challenges. Outstanding local charities such as Southside, the Nelson Trust, Developing Health & Independence, Voices, Society Without Abuse and Julian House attended, along with our local authority partners, officers and councillors, who are vital elements for policy setting, commissioning and delivery. Bringing them together created a space to work towards a more joined-up response for domestic abuse victims and survivors in Bath, working together rather than competing with each other.
Overwhelmingly, I heard from them how the fragmentation of local delivery impeded their effectiveness, and how partnerships and collaborations were key to reducing that. As a result, regular roundtables are now taking place, at which they share best practice, limit duplication of support to some clients, and locate the gaps in provision to others. It is an opportunity to map out a clearer, more collaborative and less fragmented domestic abuse pathway for local organisations. We are creating a space where charities can build rapport with one another while discussing some of the issues that the sector faces.
I hope that will begin to eliminate the barriers that smaller charities face due to the administration, monitoring and governance issues that the large national charities navigate with relative ease. I hope that in this way we can ensure that the size of a charity never determines the difference that it can make. While I echo the concerns that have been raised today, I very much hope that my example from Bath can help other hon. Members and the charities in their local areas.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this debate.
The stories, as has been said many times, of small and medium-sized charities and the impact that they have can be seen across our cities, towns and communities. They are the ones directly impacting lives and making a day-to-day difference on the ground in our communities. We have much to thank them for, but also much to learn from them. One such charity from my constituency that I often mention in Parliament is WeMindTheGap. Every year it works with hundreds of young people for whom traditional education may not have worked, and who may have fallen through the gaps. Through its holistic programmes, including long-term mentoring, paid work placements, skills development and pastoral support, it often gives the young people that it works with a new lease of life, and 70% of “Gappies”—as they are known—move on to work, training or future education.
WeMindTheGap works in and supports schools and similar organisations, providing specialist and targeted measures that they do not always have the capacity to provide themselves. Those partnerships make a tangible difference to both pupils and schools, with bespoke solutions in partnership with schools, colleges, businesses and others. This is the power of smaller charities.
Programmes such as these are particularly timely given the recent release of CSJ’s “Lost Boys” report, which painted an increasingly bleak picture for young men from disadvantaged and working-class backgrounds, highlighting rising educational disengagement and economic inactivity. I ask the Minister to describe how the Government can help support charities such as these and the vital work that they are doing in that sphere.
In the interests of time, I will conclude my remarks by thanking all the smaller charities in Wrexham and beyond for the vital work they do, year in and year out, in so many different but equally impactful ways.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who for 34 years has made such an enormous contribution in this place. When he set up the Centre for Social Justice, he was determined to look at the deeper causes of social problems in our country. It has been instrumental in doing so. I agree with him that the annual attempt to champion and reward all those charities doing so much throughout the country is really important.
I also draw attention to the previously mentioned “Supercharging Philanthropy” report. It looked across six hubs around the country, undertook serious engagement and came forward with 39 recommendations across 90-odd pages. It is a serious attempt to look at how we can underpin more support for small local charities that exist across our constituencies, and how we can bring back some of the things that have happened before around community-matched funding challenges. There is an enormous pool of surplus wealth that many are seeking to invest in activities and actions in communities that make a real difference. The Government could do well to look at the options that exist and those 39 recommendations and see what can be brought forward.
I want to make a specific point about several charities in my constituency, many of whom I have engaged with—and one or two of which I am a patron of. In particular Rise:61—of which I am not a patron—is embedded in a distinct community of Bemerton: Bemerton Heath. It is run by Robin Imeson, who has basically devoted his life so far to youth work in that community. He lives there and runs bike clubs, drop-ins and creative clubs with his team. He also runs football and drama workshops. They have been absolutely foundational to the lives of hundreds of young people on that estate.
I ask the Minister to reflect that, in the context of the Pride in Place work that is going to happen in Bemerton, she could ensure that the role of small charities is put front and centre of the options that neighbourhood plans and boards have. It is important that those people who really understand what is going on in a community are allowed to be meaningful beneficiaries, over 10 years, of the investment the Government are making, and that everything is done to hear their voices. Often they are taken out of the main conversation, so I welcome the opportunity today to talk of Rise:61 and of the enormous contribution they make to my constituency in many ways and forms.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for leading the debate. We should do more to ensure the long-term sustainability of the charity sector.
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. Our secretariat is run by a small charity called the FoRB Foundation, the task of which is to raise awareness, recover rights and rebuild the lives of those affected by FORB violations. The foundation has many volunteers who make the time to do many things.
The charity sector in Northern Ireland is a major employer, with some 53,620 employees, representing some 7% of the total workforce. Some 4.3 million people across the UK have sought the support of charities in recent years, highlighting the need for charity support nationwide.
Let me name a few of the charities in my constituency. The Ards suicide awareness group started a few years ago, and it reaches out to try to help those of a male disposition, and in respect of those who have unfortunately lost their lives. There are also food banks, the Home-Start team, the Beyond the Battlefield veterans team, and the Link, where a number of churches come together to give help.
Beyond the Battlefield provides pivotal and comprehensive support for veterans, service members and their families. It offers free, specialised services, including counselling for post-traumatic stress disorder; housing assistance for the homeless; help with war pensions, benefit entitlements and medical claims; and support through tailored long-term care.
The Newtownards food bank, which is run by the House church—Richard, Natalie, Lisa and their team—reminds us all of the scale of how food poverty is affecting Northern Ireland, and how critical the small charity sector is in terms of food poverty. Those are just a few of the charities in my constituency.
Between 2014 and 2023—excluding the pandemic years 2020 to 2022—the average number of registered charities that was removed annually was about 63. That tells us that there is a decrease in the number of charities being sustained annually. Many small charities, especially those with limited reserves, are under significant pressure, and that has been exacerbated by cuts to core Government grants.
Sustained Government support is critical for the survival and effectiveness of Northern Ireland’s small charity sector. Without adequate funding, many organisations will face closure or the scaling back of essential services, putting vulnerable communities at risk. We must never underestimate the impact of charities on the community and how they have saved so many from personal and financial devastation. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response; not to throw any pressure on her, but the charities need help.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing the debate.
I want to speak briefly about mental health charities. Fundamentally, we have an enormous problem in the UK: the public sector no longer funds the mental health sector properly, and the charities cannot fill the gap. Almost 800,000 kids in the 16 to 24-year-old group are not in education or employment, and covid has meant that the situation is effectively becoming a national emergency for the young. We all see in our casework an enormous number of parents getting in touch about their children. We have a big issue.
There is one thing that the Minister could do to help. My wife’s father committed suicide. He was a farmer in Northern Ireland. Without the charities that I know of, I think a lot more people who are contemplating suicide would take their own lives. I would like to mention the charities Ewen’s Room, Lochaber Hope, and Mikeysline in Inverness. They have one particular request. Unlike VAT-registered businesses, charities cannot reclaim the VAT they pay on essential costs, from maintaining their premises to repairing vehicles. Does the Minister agree that reviewing the VAT rules for small charities could be a practical and immediate step to relieve some of the intense financial pressures facing the sector?
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the debate.
From my short time as the Member of Parliament for Birmingham Perry Barr, and having spent over a decade as a local councillor, I know how small charities form the very lifeblood of our area. Although larger organisations no doubt do incredible amounts of good, I have found that it is the smaller groups that can only be found at the grassroots level that can reach out to the people who are most in need.
I have had the privilege of meeting and working with many small-scale local charities in my time, and I am always encouraged by the hard work and decency of those looking to make our community a better place. Let me give three quick examples. The George Coller Memorial Fund is a local charity that has punched well above its weight over the years, campaigning successfully to enable schools to store and administer emergency inhalers—vital treatments—and recently campaigning to make a dose counter mandatory in emergency inhalers, which we are working on.
I want to recognise and pay tribute to the work of Faizan Global Relief Foundation UK, which mobilised at the peak of the bin strikes, when there were piles and piles of rubbish across the city of Birmingham, to help the local community. The foundation also does enormous work with our youth, trying to address knife crime, substance abuse and so much more.
I also want to raise the plight of Kevin, a retiree who volunteers day and night to run the Bethany food bank in my constituency. The charity feeds over 1,000 people a month, but receives its donations largely in the form of food rather than cash. With Birmingham city council applying only limited relief on business rates, Bethany food bank is at risk of shutting down permanently amid a cost of living crisis.
Those sorts of small organisations do enormous work in constituencies up and down the country. When they are being squeezed at the same time as the cost of living is spiralling out of control and families are so desperate, we must support organisations that do not require an enormous amount of financial support but actually deliver so much. Will the Minister indicate what additional grants the Government can make available to smaller charities, because they are the charities that have the greatest impact?
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for leading this important debate.
The small charity sector plays a crucial role in supporting communities in my constituency and across the whole country. Some 86% of the small charities working in the south-west have an income of under £100,000. One of the greatest privileges of my role as an MP is meeting the amazing people behind these organisations: the volunteers, organisers and community leaders who give so generously of their time and energy to help others.
That commitment to local action speaks directly to Liberal Democrat values: localism, community power, and the belief that solutions are strongest when they are shaped by the people closest to the challenge. Our small charities live out that principle every single day. Their impact might not be fully measurable, but I know it is massive. They demonstrate that when people look out for one another and create opportunities for others to flourish, society becomes more resilient, more compassionate and more connected.
I would like to recognise just a few of the exceptional organisations in my constituency, many of which are now included in my Stronger South Cotswolds initiative. I am proud to be patron of the Churn community hub in Cirencester, which works to reduce isolation and improve wellbeing; HEALS of Malmesbury supports individuals and families who are vulnerable or experiencing hardship, offering help ranging from debt advice to emergency food provision; and the Tetbury Goods Shed brings people together for creative opportunities that span the generations.
I would love to namecheck a few other incredible organisations—I hope they will forgive me for not being able to do full justice to their value: Fruitful Malmesbury, Greening Tetbury, Cirencester Pantry, Sustainable Sherston, Food for Thought Cotswolds, Working 4 Wellbeing, the Cotswold friends, People For You, Pips Community café, Tetbury Area Youth and Community Trust, and the many groups that support people suffering from cancer, dementia, Parkinson’s and other ailments.
Those charities, as valuable as they are, are in crisis. Rising employer national insurance contributions place a direct financial strain on them, and the ongoing cost of living crisis compounds the challenge. As households struggle, donations fall and fundraising becomes harder, while at the same time more and more people turn to charities for support. We have rising demand, falling income and increasing costs. If we truly value the small charity sector—and we should—let us look at how we can make more funding available to it.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate. It has been a pleasure to hear about so many wonderful charities and volunteers.
Small local charities have played an increasing role in the community life of this country and have stepped in to fill critical gaps in public services. They support young people, the elderly and the isolated. They counsel the bereaved, look after abandoned animals and reach people in crisis when statutory services cannot. A thriving voluntary sector is essential.
Small charities in my constituency—including Pavilion on the Park, the Eastleigh Basics Bank, Fledge, the Asian Welfare and Cultural Association, St Francis Animal Welfare and 1Community—all do fantastic work, and I am incredibly proud of the contribution they make every day, the commitment of all their volunteers and staff, and the work they do to strengthen the bonds in our community. However, as we have heard, small charities are facing huge challenges.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. I am terribly sorry; I appreciate that there are conflicting demands on Members, but the hon. Lady must be aware that if a Member comes in late, it is quite straightforward: no intervention.
Liz Jarvis
Decades of real-terms funding cuts, a cost of living squeeze on donations, rising operating costs, and the Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions without exempting the charitable sector have piled pressure on organisations that are already struggling.
Small charities account for the overwhelming majority of the sector by number. Micro and small charities are defined as those with incomes under £10,000 and between £10,000 and £100,000 respectively, and they make up over 80% of all registered charities. Charities with incomes under £1 million represent 96% of the entire sector. By contrast, the UK’s largest charities—those with incomes over £10 million—make up less than 1% of the sector by number, yet account for the majority of total income.
Given the vital community work that small charities carry out, it is concerning that the majority of donations are given to bigger rather than smaller charities, which do not have the resources and superior brand recognition of bigger organisations. Small local charities do not have the financial runway and resilience built into their operations to weather storms.
The demand for charitable services is rising sharply, with the proportion of people receiving food, medical or financial support from charities having tripled in five years. However, around 42% of charities spent more than they received, and well over half are now running deficits. More charities are closing, and most of those closures are among organisations with incomes below £1 million. Nearly a third of voluntary organisations now describe themselves as vulnerable or struggling. Many expect to freeze recruitment and make redundancies as a direct consequence of financial pressure.
I urge the Minister to reduce the financial burden faced by small charities. What more can be done to supercharge philanthropy across the UK? How can we unlock billions in unclaimed gift aid and dormant funds and explore match-funding mechanisms, which can significantly increase donations? We should ensure that small and medium-sized charities can engage meaningfully in tenders, grant applications and policy consultations, rather than being crowded out by larger organisations.
Small veterans charities, including Veterans Dementia Support UK in my constituency, are not immune to the challenges facing the sector. The CEO of Veterans Aid has warned that if these specialist organisations disappear, the Government will lose the very partners they depend on to keep veterans from falling into crisis. I hope the Minister will reflect carefully on that.
The fact is that more charities are closing at a time when increasing numbers of people depend on their services. If we continue on this course, we risk losing an essential pillar of the social fabric that holds our communities together. It is absolutely crucial to ensure that small charities are supported in the UK. They are embedded in their local communities and are often their beneficiaries’ only lifeline. The Government must take all necessary steps to ensure they can maximise their impact for the people and communities who depend on them.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate. Few others—indeed, perhaps no one else in this place—have done more over the last 20 years to champion the causes of social justice, a field in which many of our small charities operate.
Over the last five years, the charity sector has faced unprecedented pressure, with donations falling and volunteer numbers still not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. Rising costs driven by the autumn Budget, increased national insurance contributions and post-pandemic expenditure outstripping income have placed a strain on small charities, limiting their ability to support local communities. These organisations remain consistently underfunded and frequently overlooked, and the current funding model is proving unsustainable for too many. Small and medium-sized charities with incomes under £1 million account for 97% of all charity closures in the past decade.
Financially, the current system works against small charities, favouring large, well-established organisations with the capacity to navigate complex processes and absorb financial shocks. Too many smaller charities are excluded from the core unrestricted and multi-year funding that would give them the stability and ability to plan ahead. Instead, they are often trapped in cycles of short-term grants, burdensome applications and reporting requirements that, for them, are often disproportionate to some of the modest sums available. Meanwhile, 88% of charitable income in England and Wales goes to just 5% of registered charities, leaving the remaining 95%—the small charities that form the backbone of the sector—far more vulnerable to declines in public giving. Without a shift in Government focus towards these organisations and the vital role they play in their communities, that gap will only continue to widen.
Small and medium-sized charities are often better placed than large national charities to know their communities and to deliver lasting change in people’s lives. A number of charities on the Isle of Wight do just that. For example, Aspire is a community hub that runs food pantries, suicide prevention programmes and the award-winning “Living Well and Early Help” service. More recently, it has opened accommodation in Ryde for women who would otherwise face being homeless. We also have the award-winning Tidal Family Support centre and PATCH—the People’s Approach to Cancer Help—which helps people with the costs of accessing health appointments across the Solent on the mainland. Community Action Isle of Wight and the Bay Youth Project do important youth intervention work in Sandown, Lake and Shanklin.
Such smaller charities are often more agile in responding to the needs of their communities, typically spending a lower proportion of their income on fundraising and lobbying so it can go directly to delivering on their charitable objectives. Many funders value that closeness, preferring to support organisations that have deep, long-standing relationships with the people they serve. Charities often focus on meeting immediate needs, allowing them to respond quickly to people in their local communities, yet many corporate donors feel it is harder to justify supporting smaller charities, partly because they have fewer resources to showcase their work. Some national charity brands are, of course, used by local charities, such as Age UK Isle of Wight—and Age UK is in many constituencies and areas across the country. There is often a misunderstanding that they benefit from central donations, but very often they are in fact small, local charities, entirely reliant on local fundraising—notwithstanding the benefit of that brand association with an excellent national charity such as Age UK.
Smaller charities are often so absorbed in day-to-day delivery that they lack the capacity to analyse evidence and present impact in the way that funders increasingly expect, which leaves them at a disadvantage when bidding for support. Smaller charities can also lack meaningful avenues to feed their experience into national policy, with few mechanisms in place for Government to learn from their frontline insight. Their limited national influence, stemming from the absence of large public affairs teams, stands in stark contrast to the growing professionalisation of major charities—which in itself is of course a good thing.
I am pleased to have been appointed as a commissioner to the Centre for Social Justice’s midlife mission, looking at how to support people approaching midlife and beyond to thrive in the labour market. The CSJ aims to bring together more than 1,000 small charities to give voice to and inform the work that they are doing.
I now address the Minister directly. Last year, the Government announced the creation of the Office for the Impact Economy, intended to help Whitehall to identify, source and build partnerships to scale the social impact of public investment and expand opportunities across the country. Since that announcement, however, there has been no public update on how that initiative is being implemented, or how the associated funding is being used.
I ask the Minister this: first, to what extent does she recognise match funding as a core tool for leveraging public funds, and what steps are being taken to expand its use across Government? Secondly, what mechanisms does the Department have in place to ensure that small and medium-sized charities can engage meaningfully in tenders, grant applications and policy consultations, and that the administrative burden of doing so does not exclude them? Finally, will the Minister establish a £585 million evidence fund, as recommended by the CSJ, paid for through one year of unclaimed gift aid, enabling small charities to demonstrate impact and to compete more effectively for contracts and grants?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate. His commitment to small charitable organisations is evident not only in his speech, but through his work in that area, and indeed in this place, over many years.
I begin by paying tribute to small charities and the critical support that they provide to people across the country, which has been highlighted today. Small charities make up the vast majority of the voluntary community and social enterprise sector. Those responsive, locally engaged groups are often best placed to understand the strengths, capabilities and cultures that make up their local communities. In this debate, we heard a number of examples, and I want to mention a few of them.
The right hon. Member spoke about Ripple, based in Portsmouth, and about how, in response to personal tragedy, it set up a lifesaving tool. It is incredibly important that he shared that example with the House today, and I will reflect it to the relevant Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) spoke powerfully about a number of charities, as did Members from across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) said that Greta, a representative of one of his local charities, is here in Parliament. I join him in welcoming them.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) raised important issues, such as digital poverty, that affect rural communities. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who shared an example of her work bringing local domestic violence charities together; I am pleased to hear that that work is ongoing. The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) raised a specific question about Pride in Place. It is a policy led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and I have met with the relevant Minister. The policy is grounded in local leadership, but I will ensure that the right hon. Member’s points are put to that Minister and will write to him accordingly.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the importance of small charities in tackling food poverty, something that I have seen in my constituency. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan); I will write to him about his specific question, but I will touch on some of the points he made later in my speech. I congratulate the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), on his new role at the CSJ, and will address some of the points he put to me later.
Yesterday I met a range of charitable organisations at events hosted by the York Centre for Voluntary Services and the Kirklees Better Outcomes Partnership. Those charities play a vital role in their local communities, giving a voice to those living in poverty, supporting unpaid carers and empowering women, often victims of domestic violence, to improve their lives. In my area of Barnsley, whether it be BIADS—Barnsley Independent Alzheimer’s and Dementia Support—of which I am a patron, or the world-class Barnsley Youth Choir, small charities are at the forefront of innovation and social change.
In last month alone I have met two great small charities from across the country: the Family Volunteering Club, a small charity led by Maddy Mills, creating opportunities for young children and their families to volunteer, and Ruff & Ruby, a King’s award-winning youth charity carrying out important work in Stoke-on-Trent. Ruff & Ruby has the UTH CITY app, which connects young people with resources, education, employment, volunteering and suicide prevention. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) gave some excellent examples of its work, and I was pleased to visit his area last year to meet a number of charities and hear at first hand about the work they are doing.
I acknowledge the financial pressures faced by the sector. The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) and a number of others put to me points around national insurance, which we have debated a number of times, and a specific point about VAT. That is an issue for the Treasury, but I will reflect his request to the relevant Minister and write to him. We want to reduce administrative burdens on businesses, including charities, by a quarter by the end of this Parliament. Last October, I set out a series of changes to the financial thresholds for charities that will come into force this year. These will save charities an average of £47 million each year, while ensuring that the regulation of the sector remains proportionate.
The civil society covenant, which represents a fundamental shift in how Government works with the sector, is a recognition of the value that civil society brings, and a commitment to work in partnership to deliver better for citizens and communities. I was pleased to meet a number of civil society organisations at London City Hall towards the end of last year to discuss how the civil society covenant can help the Government to connect with the whole sector. In that context, I do not recognise the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green’s characterisation that the Government do not listen and engage, or that they simply take small charities for granted. I acknowledge that we can always do better, but the covenant is about having the ambition to do exactly that.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has launched an £11.6 million local covenant partnership fund. The fund will support local government, public service providers and civil society organisations to work collaboratively to tackle local policy priorities and better meet the needs of local communities. Outside this place, I know that there have been questions from charities regarding the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024; while that question has not been raised in this debate, I make it clear to Members and the sector that charities can continue to claim gift aid where eligible and compliant with consumer law, where it applies.
I met with the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), to discuss the topic last week, alongside colleagues from the Department for Business and Trade. I am aware of the sector’s concerns and I am committed to working with colleagues in DBT and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on the issue. I wrote to the Chair of the Committee today in response to her letter to me on Friday to provide an update and confirm that, in relation to gift aid, secondary legislation is not necessary at this time.
I will touch on some of the broader DCMS and Government support for charities, answering a question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger). Last summer, DCMS published the Government’s first ever dormant asset strategy, mapping out how the £440 million of funding will be distributed. That will include £132.5 million to benefit young people and £87.5 million for social investment. Funding will go towards providing small, affordable loans to grassroots organisations alongside tailored support to help small enterprises to grow and become more financially resilient. I recognise that there is a need to support more civil society organisations to grow their income from public sector contracts. At present, civil society organisations secure just 4% of the total value of those contracts, a figure that has remained unchanged for the past 10 years.
The national procurement policy statement published in February 2025 underlines the Government’s commitment to strengthening the UK economy by maximising opportunities for civil society organisations to access public contracts. That is a clear signal that the sector’s expertise and value will be recognised and supported throughout the public sector, highlighting our ambition to make it easier for civil society organisations of all sizes, and small and medium-sized enterprises, to deliver public contracts. I think that answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the Minister agree that small local charities cannot compete with national charities? We have made that point time and again, but she has not made any comment on how competition can be achieved or how local charities can get priority. I have many examples in Bath where a national charity gets a bid through the bidding process but does not deliver as well as a local charity. We find that out afterwards, but then it is too late.
Stephanie Peacock
That is a very fair point, and one that I have seen in my own constituency of Barnsley. In the interest of time, I will not share the details of my example, but I will take that point away and write to the hon. Lady directly on it. We want to address that specific point through the covenant.
Moving on to the second point of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport about tax reliefs for charities, charities and their donors received around £6.7 billion in tax relief in the 2024-25 tax year. The long-running gift aid scheme has raised over £1.7 billion alone during that period. I attended a roundtable hosted by Amazon and co-chaired by Gordon Brown on the new VAT relief for business donations on goods to charities. As the Chancellor announced at the Budget, that new relief will increase the supply of essential items available to charities and make it easier for businesses to support charitable work. The former Prime Minister deserves huge credit for his leadership on that issue throughout his establishment of Multibank.
As he outlined in his speech, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and the Centre for Social Justice have a keen interest in growing philanthropy in the UK, especially for small charities. A number of other Members raised that issue too. We recognise that many small charities rely on donations from the public to support their work, and while I am aware that there is more work to do, I acknowledge the £15 billion that was donated last year. We want to better connect, unlock and partner with philanthropists to mobilise private funds for public good, a point put to me by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis). I recently chaired a roundtable on that subject, bringing together philanthropists, business leaders and other Government Departments to discuss how we can build philanthropic giving into Government missions.
We are committed to a place-based philanthropy strategy. That will set out how the Government can create an environment that encourages philanthropists to support local communities and ensures that the benefits of philanthropy are felt nationwide. Indeed, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) raised the issue of philanthropy being a priority for the City of London. I was pleased to attend and speak at the Giving and Impact summit last year at the London Stock Exchange.
The shadow Minister mentioned the Office for the Impact Economy. Launched by the Prime Minister, it is the Government’s new central hub for investors, philanthropists and businesses looking to make social impact. The office will make sure that charities can access funding beyond traditional grants and give direction to individuals and organisations looking to make a difference. I am happy to set up a meeting for Members who are interested in that area with the new office, so please do contact me.
We cannot debate charities without mentioning volunteers. Volunteers keep charities running, with around 12 million volunteers giving their time and commitment each year. Yesterday in York, I met the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action, which shared with me the work it does to encourage people to get involved in a variety of ways. It was a particular pleasure to speak to the young volunteers, and I wish the York Centre for Voluntary Services the very best with its volunteering fair tomorrow, which will bring together many charities from across their city.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is right to recognise the importance of volunteers, and we all recognise that—we meet them every day of our lives—but charities also employ people and pay their wages, so there is an economic advantage to having them as well. Does she recognise that?
Stephanie Peacock
I absolutely recognise those volunteers and staff members, who often do huge amounts of work to deliver amazing outcomes. The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point, as always. I know that volunteers across the country dedicate their time—week in, week out.
If the House will indulge me, I want to share an example from my own area of Barnsley. Last Saturday, I took part in the Barnsley parkrun along with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis). It is a brilliant initiative, organised by volunteers every week. We ran the parkrun alongside Oliver Smith, who is just nine years old. He is running nine marathons in four months to raise money for the Brain Tumour Charity following his dad’s diagnosis. Oliver’s commitment to fundraising and raising awareness is incredibly inspiring, and I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all his amazing efforts. I was also pleased last week to visit a small charity in Barnsley, the Barnsley Hospital Charity, which has run a number of campaigns over the years and is currently raising funds particularly for breast cancer care.
My Department wants to do what it can to support volunteering. We have commissioned an open data initiative that will help break down barriers for more people to get involved in the causes that mean the most to them. It will make it easier for small charities to advertise volunteering opportunities and expand their reach, generating further support and interest for their work in their local areas.
Gareth Snell
One thing that might help is if there was a settled model for how small charities could quantify volunteer hours to use as a bank against matched funding. Some charities in my patch tell me that they have lots of social value but no cash, and when they go for matched funding, the funders want to see an income stream, not necessarily the other things they have. If there was a way that everyone recognised and supported of quantifying those other things, it could free up income from philanthropic organisations to be match funded against time, assets or skills.
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point; the young volunteers were also talking to me about that data point yesterday.
One example is that the DCMS launched the voluntary, community, and social enterprise business hub last year, alongside the VCSE Crown representative. The hub contains a host of resources intended to support civil society organisations in finding and bidding for public funding. That is especially important for smaller charities with fewer resources to dedicate to seeking out such funding, and it is a vital source of information in our mission to encourage more civil society organisations into public sector contracts. Obviously, however, data is helpful across the board.
Danny Kruger
This is such an important debate. I want to pick up on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Although it is obviously very helpful if small charities, which do not have financial resources or indeed necessarily the right data, can demonstrate their value to the public sector, let us not build systems that force charities into a model that really works only for public sector agencies or large charities. The whole value of these small projects is that they do not have those clear processes, outputs and data, with everything being reduced to unit costs. We have to have a system that actually honours the way that charities work, rather than trying to force them into some kind of proxy of that quantitative model for demonstrating value. Why do we not just localise public sector funding so that small charities can be properly trusted?
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Colleagues will have noticed that I have deliberately allowed the Minister to overrun her time because, given the time, it seemed important that she was able to respond fully to the debate. I now have to remind the Minister that I want the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the debate to have time to wind up properly.
Stephanie Peacock
I take that point, Sir Roger, and I heard what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) said.
I will end where the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green began. He spoke about how the Government, families and community groups can work together, and are best placed, alongside small charities, to support local areas and to tackle challenges. He said that the ones that do the most, we often hear the least about. I think this debate has gone some way to changing that by shining a light on so many brilliant examples of hard working charities across our country. I conclude by acknowledging the huge contribution that small charities make, and I thank them for all their work.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
This has been an excellent debate, not least because all parties have been represented in it, and all parties have spoken with one voice. We value the incredible efforts made by local community groups and charities, but all of us also recognise that much more can be done to release them and to recognise some of the incredible schemes that they have come up with—I named a number of them. There have been many suggestions about the best way to do that.
There have been comments about the need to modernise gift aid, and to uprate the thresholds of the gift aid small donations scheme, so that charities that receive small cash donations can get gift aid-style repayments of tax. That is a useful idea that has been put forward. There is also the whole idea of placed-based giving. Small charities are embedded in communities throughout the UK, and it is important that local and placed-based giving is encouraged so that smaller charities are supported and can continue delivering their vital services.
I also picked up a general concern, which is quite right, about the fall-off of corporate giving in the UK towards the small charities sector. The big problem is that—forgive me, I cannot remember who made this point—something in the order of 80% of charitable giving goes to about 20% of all charities. They are the big charities that are staffed up with lots of people to lobby us and to always come in and see us. The small community groups and charities, however, that do 80% or more of the work often do not get access to that. Rewarding companies for supporting charities and community groups in their local areas would be a very good way of increasing corporate giving.
Only 25% of British businesses donate to charities in the form of time, cash or goods. An estimated £4.26 billion was donated by British businesses in 2024, and that was flatlining. I say to the Minister that we need to do more to encourage a greater level of local support and giving, because philanthropic giving is vital. I mentioned in my opening remarks that we need to look at what the USA does in its tax structure for charitable giving. Particularly, we want to look at small community groups and charities benefiting from that, and raising more money given directly by those individuals, who are rewarded for that because it is a common good.
This debate has been an excellent opportunity. I recommend that anybody who wants to inform themselves more about the policy work speaks to the Centre for Social Justice. All parties are welcome to look at this. I hope to have a chance at some point to meet the Minister to discuss with her any possibilities that we can raise.
I have one abiding thought. Recently, we held another of our annual awards where we give out money to winning charities in six categories—money matters to small community groups and charities. I have to say that it was one of the most moving experiences that I have had. I listened to people who have grown their support groups out of tragedy in their own families and communities, and have risen to that and overcome it. Alone among all other reasons, it is not the structure or organisation, but the beating heart of small community groups and charities that helps us survive out there. It is time that we motored on in recognising them and making sure that they get a proper fair crack at what is out there to help them deliver their great services.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the small charity sector.
Funeral Premises: Environmental Health Inspections
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I will call Mark Sewards to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. That does not apply to interventions, which are in order. There will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention in 30-minute debates.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for environmental health inspections of funeral premises.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. At the outset, I will say that we must keep firmly in mind the needs of grieving families: people who, in their most vulnerable moments, deserve dignity, clarity and the reassurance that they can trust that their loved ones’ remains are being cared for.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
A grieving family in my constituency contacted me last year. They said that their deceased father, who had been left in the care of a local funeral home, had been stored in such a way that his body had decomposed to the extent that it was “covered in maggots” by the time it was sent to the coroner. That was reported to the family by the coroner. I understand that the funeral home was not regulated. Does my hon. Friend agree that the case in my constituency highlights the case for further regulation and a more rigorous inspection regime for those who work in this industry?
Mark Sewards
I absolutely agree. There have been too many cases in recent memory of people not being cared for with the dignity that they deserved.
This topic first came to my attention when my constituents Cody and Liam Townend contacted me, along with another mum, Zoe Ward. They lost babies in different circumstances and went to the same funeral director, an organisation called Florrie’s Army. To their horror, their babies’ bodies were taken to the private home of the person in charge of Florrie’s Army, and they were not treated with the care and respect that they deserved. I will not repeat the shocking details here, but the BBC report can be found online. Cody and Zoe asked what I could do to help, because although it was reported to the police, they found nothing actionable.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. I know that he is deeply passionate about our shared work in the all-party parliamentary group for funerals, coroners and bereavement, where we have learnt about the cases he described. Does he agree that the Minister would benefit from meeting our APPG to discuss the funeral sector and how it can develop the clear standards, robust oversight and proper enforcement it so desperately requires?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I always try to be helpful by talking about what we do in Northern Ireland. Issues around funeral service premises are sensitive and people must be treated with care when they are dealing with the death of loved ones. In Northern Ireland, funeral premises operate within general health and safety frameworks rather than a dedicated inspection programme. There is also no published fixed frequency for routine environmental health inspections. Does he agree that more must be done to create clearer regulation? I believe that the code of conduct in Scotland would be helpful to ensure industry standards and oversee premises and services more consistently.
Mark Sewards
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the example of Scotland, which I encourage the Minister to consider. I think the Government should consider everything the hon. Gentleman set out, which I will come on to.
This debate is about a fundamental issue that many of us find difficult to talk about—death. The treatment and dignity of our dead is not typically a subject for dinnertime conversation; those who have experienced bereavement, which is most of us, know how complicated and emotionally overwhelming it can be. At such a vulnerable time, one of the few sources of comfort should be the reassurance that a trusted funeral director is caring for a loved one with dignity, professionalism and respect. The vast majority of funeral directors live up to and often exceed such expectations. People’s trust has been betrayed by a very small number of rogue operators. Each stunning revelation about a rogue operator —in some cases, they have even desecrated remains—has a compounding effect on the public’s consciousness. People used to believe that the funeral sector was regulated, but they now know that it is not regulated, and they worry about the consequences of that for their families.
There are a variety of options open to the Government to solve this problem. Empowering local authorities to carry out environmental health inspections, which I will get to, is one of them; introducing a national standard is another; and empowering trade bodies should also be considered. Ultimately, however, we have to establish an independent statutory regulatory regime. I want to be clear that inaction is not an option that we should consider. I firmly believe that statutory regulation should be introduced for this sector. However, that will take time and primary legislation to achieve, so we need to consider our options for such regulation and what can happen in the interim.
Environmental health inspections could act as a stopgap before full regulation, or become the statutory regime itself, or both. However, there are differing opinions. I have spoken to representatives of the funeral service industry, including from the two largest trade bodies: the National Association of Funeral Directors, or the NAFD; and the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors, or SAIF. I have also had discussions with Co-op Funeralcare, having visited its premises in Leeds. I am also very pleased to serve as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on funerals, coroners and bereavement, which brings together many organisations from across the sector, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) said in his intervention.
Every person and every operator who I have spoken to about this situation is appalled by the cases they have seen. They know how vital public confidence is to the funeral profession. They want the reassurance that a statutory regime will come into place, although views on what it should look like definitely differ.
Environmental health inspections could help to build back trust, but only if there is a unified national standard that funeral premises must adhere to. But that is precisely what we do not have right now: there is no statutory inspection regime in relation to the services provided by funeral directors. My constituent Cody put it best when she said that it is harder to set up a burger van than it is to set up a funeral home. Shockingly, she is right about that.
There are no routine checks or minimum standards of funeral homes outside those established by the trade bodies. The Government are still considering the Fuller inquiry’s recommendations on funeral sector regulation and inspections. I am very grateful for the engagement that I have had on this issue, particularly with the Ministry of Justice, including with the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). She met me and some of my constituents towards the end of last year, and she was phenomenal in that meeting.
However, I will take this opportunity to ask the Minister who is here today: what assessment has her Department made of the Fuller inquiry’s recommendation to establish a statutory regulatory regime for funeral directors in England? I appreciate that that is really a question for the Department of Health and Social Care, but given that it also affects her Department, I hope she has a view on it.
That question matters because of the steps that the Government have taken in the past. In May 2024, the Ministry of Justice and the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities wrote to all councils in England to strongly encourage them to inspect funeral premises. The letter said that this was to reassure the public that the sector as a whole is safe. That was a welcome step at the time, both for the public and the sector, but those visits were never intended as technical deep-dive inspections. Instead, they were conducted to check whether everything was generally in order.
The NAFD supported those visits, and it encouraged its members to co-operate and demonstrate the high standards required of them. It advised the environmental health officers on good practice and hosted webinars to help members to prepare for their visits. However, most of those EHOs had limited experience of visiting funeral premises. It is also unclear the extent to which local authorities communicated their findings back to the Ministry of Justice and to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Has the Minister’s Department collated the information that was collected through those 2024 inspections? If it has, will it use that information to inform any position that it might take in relation to funeral sector regulation?
In my view, it is concerning that those inspections failed to identify the problems that came to light when my constituents needed help. Leeds city council participated in those inspections, but to my knowledge it did not inspect Florrie’s Army or identify it as a provider of concern at the time.
That also highlights a wider issue. There is scope for environmental health inspections to be carried out by local authorities and EHOs, but that approach would probably be best employed as a short-term or interim option. It must not act as a shield against wider regulation of the funeral industry. Environmental health officers may not have the relevant sector-specific experience, but they have the skills in overlapping elements, such as infection prevention, premises hygiene and safety. The benefit of utilising EHOs is that a move to expand their remit would not necessarily require primary legislation in the short term. It would be the quickest route to ensuring some sort of Government-backed regular inspections regime, but the issue of national standards would still be outstanding.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
We need regulation. One story of the mismanagement of a loved one is one too many. Does the hon. Member agree that in certain faith communities—and especially in the Jewish and Muslim communities—the expediency with which people wish to bury their loved ones must be taken into consideration within that regulation?
Mark Sewards
I could not agree more. Any regulatory regime introduced nationally needs to take into account how different faiths and cultures bury their dead.
In order for environmental health officers to conduct their work properly, they would need the backing of the Local Government Association, but it recently indicated in comments to the BBC that it would prefer the Ministry of Justice to take on the responsibility for a national scheme rather than leaving it at a local level. It would appear that the LGA has no desire to take on the responsibility for inspections on a permanent basis. Does the Minister agree with the LGA’s position?
There are other options available. Both the NAFD and SAIF require their members to undergo inspections, but they have no enforcement powers and there is no requirement for members to register with them as trade bodies—although about 80% of the sector’s players do. These bodies can expel a member, but they cannot stop them operating, and that is the gap that, in time, statutory regulation must fill. There is a strong argument for backing those trade bodies in relation to inspections. They have the respect of the industry, and with Government support and the possibility of placing their inspection regime on a statutory footing, they could play a central role within any future regulatory system. The Government may consider advising consumers to use only funeral directors who are members of the NAFD and SAIF to add an extra layer of protection.
Although this falls under a different Department—the Department of Health and Social Care—it would be remiss of me not to mention the Human Tissue Authority. Expanding its role so that it becomes the sector’s regulator is another option. The HTA has considerable experience and expertise, and expanding its remit may be more time efficient than establishing an entirely new independent regulator from scratch.
Where does this leave us today? In the medium to long term, the inspection of funeral premises undoubtedly needs to come through a statutory regulatory regime and a national standard. That is what the Fuller inquiry recommended, what the majority of the public would back and—importantly for me—what my constituents want. In the short term, the Government must move at pace and come to a decision that can reassure the public and maintain confidence in the funeral sector. That may mean utilising local authorities or the existing capacity of trade bodies to bridge the gap before regulation in the ways that I have described. I do not have all the answers, but any conversation must include the families and victims of these horrific crimes. I use the word “crimes” even though my constituents found nothing actionable when they contacted the police, because what happened to them was abhorrent. They have borne the greatest burdens, and any proposal must work for them.
I want to acknowledge the tireless work of Members from across the House, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has worked relentlessly on behalf of her constituents to ensure that the voices of the bereaved remain at the centre of every discussion of this topic. Action must be taken as soon as is reasonably possible, both to reassure the public and to recognise the good work of those who operate in the profession and the funeral industry. As everyone in the House knows, introducing primary legislation can take a long time. If we cannot act quickly, we need to consider every non-legislative solution outside of full statutory regulation.
What assessment has the Minister’s Department made of the need for environmental health inspections at funeral premises? What conversations, if any, have taken place between her Department and the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Business and Trade on statutory regulation of the funeral sector? Will MHCLG, through local authorities, be supporting environmental health inspections at any point, now or in the future, and will the Minister commit to wider engagement with the funeral sector ahead of proposed implementation of any kind of inspection?
Families deserve dignity, transparency and peace of mind; the sector deserves Government support in reassuring those families; and Cody, Zoe and Liam, and all the affected families, deserve the peace of mind that what happened to them will never happen to anyone ever again.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
As ever, Sir Roger, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on introducing the debate and thank all Members who have participated in it.
First and foremost, I thank my hon. Friend’s constituents. We cannot imagine what they have been through, and I find their bravery to seek support from their Member of Parliament, meet with Ministers and try to make a difference for other families inspiring. Through my hon. Friend, I thank them wholeheartedly, as I do all those around the country who have experienced some of the horrendous things that Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and others—have discussed this afternoon for doing likewise.
The loss of a loved one is one of the most difficult things to go through in life. We will all experience it at some point, and I know that, in our hearts, we would all want to make sure that our loved ones are kept safe and treated with dignity after death, wherever and however they are cared for.
Hon. Members will be aware that the independent Fuller inquiry published its phase 2 report in July. That report was unequivocal. It found serious weaknesses and inconsistencies across settings—not isolated failure, but systematic gaps in how we protect the dignity of our loved ones. The inquiry chair, Sir Jonathan Michael, said:
“My overall conclusion is that the current arrangements in England for the regulation and oversight of the care of people after death are partial, ineffective and, in significant areas, completely lacking.”
That is a challenging statement for us all to hear and read.
The report makes 75 recommendations, including the introduction of statutory regulation for all settings that care for the deceased. I want to be really clear on this point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is leading the Government’s response. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley mentioned several Departments that are involved. I reassure him and other Members that the Ministers who, collectively, are involved have discussed this issue, and we will continue to do so because it is extremely important. I also pay tribute to the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who has taken an interest in this matter. It sounds as though she has supported the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley, and I am glad about that.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care published an interim update on 16 December 2025. He has already accepted 11 recommendations in full and a further 43 in principle, subject to further work. That leaves 21 that the Government are still considering, including those on regulation of the sector. The Department of Health and Social Care will respond to the report in full by the summer.
On regulation, we need to strike the right balance between boosting public assurance, for all the reasons that Members have mentioned, and getting it right for the more than 6,500 funeral providers, many of which are small family firms. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley explained very clearly that many of them take great pride in their work and do it extremely carefully. The vast majority of funeral directors provide compassionate, professional care for our loved ones, and 85% of providers are already members of a trade body offering guidance, codes of practice and voluntary inspection.
The Government will think through the options very carefully. This is a sensitive and meaningful area of public life; when things go wrong, the harm is profound and long-lasting. At this point, I want to acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). He pointed out the importance of including all of our faith communities in this work, which is extremely important to all of us.
In December, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), informed the House that he is
“working closely with the NHS, local authorities, the Human Tissue Authority, the Care Quality Commission, and other partners”—[Official Report, 16 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 59WS.]
to examine how “robust and consistent standards” can be applied across all settings. I am sure that part of that work will consider the possible role that local authorities will play in the future.
As the Minister for Local Government, I am a huge supporter of local authorities. They deliver essential services up and down the country every day. Their hard-working staff do a brilliant job serving their communities, often in very difficult circumstances. They are independent of Government, directly elected by their communities, and they often take difficult decisions every single day. In relation to this issue, councils are only too aware that they do not have powers of inspection or the power to enter funeral premises. If the Government decide that that is the right approach, we will need to consider how to make that work. We are not automatically assuming that role for councils or environmental health officers, but we need to do the work to understand, if that is the route, how we would make it work. I do not want to pre-empt consideration of that; the work is ongoing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley asked me about the feedback from the work that was undertaken previously. The MHCLG had a roundtable with the LGA in January to discuss the issue that he mentioned, and the information from the work that he described was fed back into the MOJ. That just shows the importance of working across the ministerial team, which I can assure everybody we will do.
As I mentioned, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has promised a response to all to the inquiry’s recommendations by the summer. I will ask the Health Minister to meet the APPG, because he will know better the right moment to do that, given the forthcoming response. Between now and then, the Government will carefully consider the potential regulation. That work is under way and we will see the results this summer.
The issues raised by the Fuller inquiry demand a response that is serious and, most importantly, grounded in dignity. The Department of Health and Social Care is leading that response on behalf of the Government. I will work very closely with my colleagues in that Department, the Ministry of Justice, the DBT and any others with responsibility to make sure that we take those recommendations in the serious way that they deserve, given the subject matter. We want to make sure that the care of the deceased is treated with the seriousness, respect and humanity it deserves. I pay sincere tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley for the work that he has done to ensure that this issue is progressed.
Question put and agreed to.
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity
(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 Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered environmental protections and biodiversity trends.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. Unfortunately for everyone involved, this will be one of my longer speeches, so I had better not take too many interventions. Let me also say at the outset that this speech is intended first and foremost to support and encourage the Minister in the task ahead of her. She has one of the most important jobs for the whole Government and for the future of the country.
On that upbeat note, I turn to the litany of despair that constitutes a brief review of biodiversity trends in this country. Not a single one of England’s rivers is in good overall health. The same is true of our sea floor. Just 7% of our woodland is in good condition. Half of England’s hedgerows, which now should be bursting into bud and sprays of blossom, have been ripped up and grubbed out. Eighty-five per cent of our heathland is gone, as are 95% of our chalk downland meadows—the European equivalent of tropical rainforests. Our traditional orchards have declined by 81%, and 85% of England’s salt marshes have also been lost.
It is little wonder that one in six species in these islands is at risk of extinction. The scale of the wealth that we have squandered in pursuit of vapid notions of progress is staggering. It is more than just depressing; it is an existential threat to our way of life. The Government’s recent national security report on biodiversity loss confirmed that the collapse of nature is putting at risk the ecosystem services on which our society depends.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He is making it clear that biodiversity and our natural environment are in complete crisis. Given that, would he agree that the slogan “Back the builders, not the blockers” is one of the worst slogans that the Labour party has ever come up with? People do care about local democracy, biodiversity and nature, so that slogan should be put in the bin, where it belongs—the recycling bin, of course.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. In the time available for this debate, that almost constitutes a speech. I had intended to say this after the hon. Gentleman moved the motion, but I had better say it now: please understand that any person who intervenes in this debate will be expected to stay until the end. It is not a case of speak and go.
Chris Hinchliff
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As I was saying, the ecosystem services—including water, food, clean air and critical resources—are all at risk. Even our soils, the very substance of growth, have lost around half their organic carbon, threatening the sustainability of our agriculture and our ability to keep our citizens fed.
More than that, however, the collapse of England’s biodiversity is a threat to our culture, national identity and one of the essential components of happiness. As iconic species continue to disappear from these islands, I wonder how many of us in this room will see a swallow or mayfly to herald summer this year?
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend hope, as I do, that the Minister will work with expert organisations such as Northumberland national park to determine how we can best protect ground-nesting birds such as the curlew, which is mainly resident in my constituency of Hexham?
Chris Hinchliff
I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of protecting our curlews, and the curlew action plan is a hugely important step, which the Government should be looking at. I also wonder how long it will be before the screaming sky falls silent, as each year, fewer swifts return to grace the air above our towns and villages.
Even our English language is losing its power, as the colours of the countryside are allowed to run dry. How could Brontë have conjured Heathcliff to love Cathy without the wild of the Yorkshire moors? How could Tolkien have fathered an entire fantasy genre without a shire worth fighting for? What hope is there for a future Vaughan Williams with so few larks left to ascend? Worse still, what stories will we have left to enchant the next generation of children with when the Hundred Acre Wood has been declared a blocker, Ratty and Mole have been evicted from their river home by decades of effluent, and—this is probably only a matter of time—someone tries to redefine Watership Down as grey belt?
All in all, the scale of the nature crisis is difficult to overstate, and any move to lower standards risks turning that crisis into a catastrophe. Yet, despite all this, we still get senior politicians declaring war on what little remains of our wildlife, with repeated suggestions that even this dire baseline is somehow too high. We continue to hear the unevidenced claim that Britain is held back not by a broken economic model but by bats and newts, and that profiteering developers would build genuinely affordable homes for all if only the last remnants of the natural world were less burdensome.
Liz Truss may be gone, but the spirit and lazy rhetoric of deregulatory Trussonomics bulldozers inexorably onwards with a planning and infrastructure Bill that sought to allow developers to pay cash to trash nature, despite having no meaningful evidence to substantiate the claim that environmental protections slow down infrastructure. Then, after we managed to head off the worst of that, we have had the wholesale rejection of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee’s recommendations on species protections, as well as a nuclear regulatory review based on fundamentally flawed evidence that inflates the costs of environmental protections and downplays ecological risks. I would welcome the Minister taking this opportunity to distance the Government from that particular exercise in scapegoating nature for developer incompetence.
Each additional deregulation and attack on environmental protections is a blow to the very root of what it means to be English. It is a truly bleak vision for our country to suggest that the only way to secure investment, build infrastructure or deliver homes is to rip up our environmental protections. Such measures are not only bad policy but directly contradictory to the manifesto we were elected on and deeply unpopular. Only 14% of British people think politicians are aligned with their values on nature, and three quarters of young people actually want more of the UK countryside protected.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He may know that Sheffield is well known for being the outdoor city and is one of the few major cities in the UK that has a national park within its boundaries. I support him in his red lines for nature campaign. Does he agree that protecting nature is vital, not just to protect our green spaces, but to make sure that communities have access to the right types of space, so that they are happier and more fulfilled?
Chris Hinchliff
I thank my hon. Friend for her support for the red lines campaign. She is absolutely right about what makes life worth living. Investing in our country, strengthening standards and restoring our natural world will do far more to improve the lives of ordinary people than a short-sighted race to the bottom. That is the Labour tradition: action to correct market failure, not dogmatic deregulation.
There is a nature-loving majority in this country, including the millions of members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, wildlife trusts, national trusts and so many more. Our Labour Government should be working alongside those groups, not squaring up to them. At the end of the day, there is a lot more of them than there are developer lobbyists. Let us stop this endless cycle of skirmishes. It does not have to be like this. Enough is enough.
Chris Hinchliff
I am very sorry, but I had better make progress at this point.
Today, I am calling for clear red lines for nature: no further weakening of environmental protections, no funding cuts to environmental bodies and no more collapsing biodiversity but instead a fully funded nature recovery plan to meet our legally binding targets. There are no more branches left to prune without killing the tree. There can be no more backward steps. Hand wringing will not protect habitats. Lip service will not stop extinction. Let us have a little optimism and idealism instead.
We know from projects such as Knepp and trailblazers such as my constituents at Finches Farm in Benington that with decisive action our biodiversity can come booming back again. Across the country, we have a vast, untapped pool of potential crying out for employment and meaningful, healthy work. It is ready to contribute to leaving the world in a better state than we found it, and there is so much work to be done: restoring our meadows, orchards, coppices and temperate rainforests; relaying hedgerows; re-wetting the lost marshes; re-wriggling our rivers; bringing back the species that haunt our islands; saving the curlew and red squirrel; and monitoring, measuring and enforcing our essential environmental protections. There is enough skilled work to deliver a huge boost towards full employment across every region of the country. Like new Labour’s “New Deal for a Lost Generation”, we need a green job guarantee to deliver essential environmental restoration work now and brilliant careers for years to come.
Now is the time for the honesty to admit that, for generation after generation, we have spent down and frittered away the vast wealth that was the natural inheritance of these islands. The truth is that the reality of GDP growth has been little more than a heaping up of virtual wealth—a hoarding of digital zeros in the bank accounts of the wealthy, while the real world around all of us suffered. Any further weakening of environmental protections will only push us over the edge into total bankruptcy. We cannot retreat a single step further. We must defend these last red lines for nature for the sake of every generation to come. My plea to the Minister is simply this: defy the lobbyists, side with the public and the planet over profit, and give us our nature back.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. We are faced with a very difficult situation. I have to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm, which means, given the number of people on the speakers’ list, I am going to start with a time limit of two minutes. That may not get everybody in. I am not going to call anybody who has already intervened, for a start, and if anybody else feel like dropping out and intervening, I would welcome that. I do not normally do this, but it may help if I give Members the batting order as it stands at the moment: on the Opposition Benches, we have Danny Chambers, Olly Glover, Edward Morello, Tim Farron, John Milne, Roz Savage and Jim Shannon, and on the Government Benches, we have Barry Gardiner, Terry Jermy, Martin Rhodes, Michelle Welsh, Rachael Maskell, Tristan Osborne and Anna Gelderd. It is up to you how you play this, but I am going to stop calling Back-Bench Members at 5.10 pm.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I promise I will be as quick as possible. There is so much I would like to say about biodiversity net gain and the importance of the natural environment to people in Winchester, but I will speak only about a specific issue with one of our chalk streams that I believe the Minister could help us with. The beautiful River Meon runs through a little village called Droxford. For various historical reasons, it is classified as a public highway, and that means that people drive 4x4s along the river for a few hundred metres. It is not a shortcut to anywhere—it is not simply a river crossing—but it is damaging the riverbed. It also disrupts the spawning of the very rare Atlantic salmon that come from southern chalk streams.
For over two years now, I have been working to try to stop the traffic from damaging this very precious habitat. The South Downs national park wants it to stop. The local people want it to stop. Lib Dem-run Winchester city council wants it to stop. For various reasons, we cannot get the Conservative-run Hampshire county council either to change the designation of the river so that it is no longer a highway or even just to put in a traffic regulation order to prevent people from driving 4x4s along the stretch of river. I would really appreciate a meeting with the Minister, maybe with some of the various stakeholders, to work out how we can cut through this red tape, because it is ecological vandalism, it provides absolutely no benefit to the environment and there is overwhelming support to stop the damage.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) was one of the finest on the environment that I have heard in this House for a long time. One day, the Government will see sense and he will become Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
I will cut most of what I wanted to say. The national security assessment, mentioned by my hon. Friend, says:
“Cascading risks of ecosystem degradation are likely to include geopolitical instability, economic insecurity, conflict migration and increased inter-state competition for resources.”
Why is that not the subject of a great debate in Parliament? Yesterday, we had the Prime Minister’s vital statement on Iran. The whole House sat in a packed Chamber to discuss the US bombing of that evil regime and the security implications for the world. Yet we have our own national security assessment telling us that global ecosystem degradation and collapse is one of the most serious threats to UK national security, and we still have had no debate on it.
The collapse of biodiversity over my lifetime is not a matter of spreadsheets. It is felt in silent fields that were once singing meadows, in poisoned waters that were once shimmering streams, in children who have grown up in a depleted world without knowing how much has been lost, or how abnormal is the world they inhabit. The monitoring and enforcement system currently in place under environmental regulators lacks capacity and is chronically poor.
Take our water sector: of the 2,778 serious pollution incidents reported in 2024, officials downgraded 98% as “minor incidents”, yet only 496 were actually attended or inspected before being downgraded. There can be no doubt that the regulatory system is as rotten as the pipes the water companies have abandoned since 1989. I welcome the Red Lines for Nature campaign as far as it goes, but that is scarcely far enough when it talks of no further weakening of environmental protections and no funding cuts to environmental bodies.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I also praise the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for his passion for nature and the topics we are discussing.
My constituency has seen some of the fastest housing growth in the country: 8,000 new houses added between 2011 and 2021. I understand the need for housing, but a major concern for local residents is how to balance the objective of more housing with the objectives of protecting our green environment and ensuring that amenities are there to protect the housing. The constituency has many wonderful and rare habitats that require protection. If we fail to do that, there will be wide-reaching, catastrophic impacts to our environment.
The Letcombe Brook chalk stream is a precious habitat running from Letcombe Regis to East Hanney, providing water for local use. The Letcombe Brook project does great work protecting it. The River Thames, which also runs through my constituency, has often been subject to sewage dumping, due to the well documented issues with Thames Water.
I pay tribute to local organisations that do so much to protect nature and make it accessible. I recently met members of the Earth Trust in Little Wittenham, who took me on a walk around the Wittenham Clumps. Their work is transformative, including the recent restoration of a neglected coppice in Little Wittenham wood into a thriving, biodiverse habitat, encouraging bees with new apiaries on their farm and levelling up opportunities for environmental education by removing barriers of cost and transport to resource-stretched schools.
In the towns in my constituency, Sustainable Didcot, Sustainable Wantage and Sustainable Wallingford are doing fantastic work to lead community climate change action through projects on waste, transport, food, biodiversity and social justice. Finally, the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust manages nature reserves, monitors species and runs projects to support declining species such as water voles. All those organisations need Government support to ensure that they can continue to play their part in protecting nature and our environment.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Norfolk is home to some of the finest natural environments anywhere in our country. In my constituency we are fortunate to have the Brecks, a unique biodiversity hotspot in the UK, vital for rare and threatened species. It supports more than 12,500 species of plants and animals, 2,000 of which are endangered. Like many hon. Members, I am passionate about chalk streams—in my case the River Nar and the River Little Ouse. Around 85% of the world’s chalk streams are found in England, many of them in my constituency. Sadly, after 14 years of neglect under the previous Government, our rivers are in a sorry state.
Currently, extensive areas of the Brecks enjoy habitats regulations protections, allowing rare birds, plants and butterflies to be protected from further harm. The same can be said for some of our chalk streams. If the recommendations in the Fingleton review are accepted in full and transferred more broadly as a planning framework, as has been suggested by some, that is under threat. The hard work that I have seen being undertaken by Natural England, Norfolk Wildlife Trust and Norfolk Rivers Trust, alongside farmers and landowners, risks being undermined.
No one is saying that we should not build more houses, and no one is saying that we should not be investing in clean energy and infrastructure, but economic growth and environmental protection should not be mutually exclusive; in my opinion, they depend on one another. The potential cost to our economy if we do not protect these areas is staggering and terrifying, particularly for areas such as my South West Norfolk constituency. Wildlife trusts in Norfolk have highlighted to me the devastating financial costs of environmental damage, warning of a 12% reduction in GDP. In my constituency, that would be due to flooding, water treatment wastage, loss of tourism and the permanent destruction of agricultural land. Nature has never been at odds with development and planning.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on this important debate. I, like many others, would love to speak about a whole host of things, but given the time constraints, I will just talk about chalk streams.
Chalk streams are globally rare ecosystems; there are approximately 200 in the world, and 85% of them are in England. They are internationally significant freshwater habitats and should be a conservation priority. In West Dorset, our chalk streams—the River Frome, Wraxall brook and West Compton stream—are in decline, alongside the salmon populations in them, because we have not had proper environmental protections or biodiversity being properly prioritised. The Rivers Trust sewage discharge map shows that the South Winterbourne was affected by storm overflows 223 times in 2020, for a total of more than 2,641 hours.
My proposal is that we introduce a blue flag style standard for chalk streams, mirroring coastal bathing water classifications—clear, public facing measures that are visible and easy to understand. Mandatory, regular testing and enforceable consequences for failure would help rebuild public trust and provide the transparency that people rightly demand.
Given that I have spoken far faster than I thought I would, I will also make a plea for the upcoming water White Paper to make water companies statutory consultees on all new planning projects, and to make rainwater harvesting mandatory on all new builds. Pre pipe solutions are the key to taking the strain off our sewerage system. The water White Paper is a fantastic opportunity for the Government to do those three things. If they do them, it will be brilliant for the public.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Three for the price of one! I call Martin Rhodes.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this debate. Much of his speech focused on England and on rural areas. As the Member for Glasgow North, I hope to open up the debate slightly, in terms of crossing the border into Scotland, the rest of the UK and the world, and also into urban as well as rural.
Often, there is a focus on climate rather than nature based solutions to help mitigate and adapt to the environmental crisis that we face. Many argue that the protection of nature is hampering economic development. Not only are they compatible but, more fundamentally, the decline of nature will undermine economic development. Wetlands protect us from flooding; mangroves protect us from storm surges; and peatlands store carbon and regulate water flow. This is our natural infrastructure. They are essential not only in tackling climate change but in limiting damage to built infrastructure, reducing insurance costs and strengthening economic resilience.
In 2022, parties to the United Nations convention on biological diversity signed the global biodiversity framework. This landmark agreement, among other ambitions, seeks to conserve 30% of land and waters by 2030—“30 by 30”, as it is commonly known. However, much more needs to be done if we are to achieve those ambitions. Analysis from the Natural History Museum reveals that we are not sufficiently protecting the most critical ecosystems upon which global biodiversity—and indeed humanity—relies. In areas delivering the most vital ecosystem services, biodiversity is decreasing faster.
I thank my hon. Friend again for securing this debate. Nature has an essential role to play, helping us to mitigate and adapt. Our national and international commitments can enable us to progress towards other biodiversity targets, including those focused on restoration, resilience building and nature’s contribution to people and the economy more broadly. We must continue to champion this cause.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Sir Roger. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), who made a fantastic speech.
Some 70% of our land mass in this country is agricultural land. We are achieving nothing for biodiversity if we do not work with the people who work that land. The most damaging thing the Government have done on this issue over the last 12 months—it was indeed 12 months ago—was to close the sustainable farming incentive with no notice whatsoever.
We are pleased that the Secretary of State has announced the reopening of SFI in June, but it is worth bearing in mind that that will only be for up to two months and there is no guarantee, even in the Department’s statement on the issue, that it will last two months. If the money runs out before then, people will be excluded from applying. That means that we are back to first come, first served. Those farmers who are wealthier, who have more time on their hands and who have staff will be able to get in, and smaller farmers, particularly in the uplands areas, will not be able to do so. That will be damaging for biodiversity.
The limitations on the scheme are deeply concerning. They are meant to incentivise farmers to have part of their farm for environmental protection and part of their farm for food production. This is the error that we have been making for the last 40 years—the idea that we either produce food or care for the environment. We absolutely must do both; that is what farmers want to do. I fear that this scheme is wrong-headed.
Some 55% of the food we eat in this country is produced in this country. That is dangerously low given the international situation; this is something we already knew. We need to support farmers not just to care for the environment, but to feed us.
The Government limit the June window to farms up to 50 hectares, which excludes upland farmers on less than minimum wage who farm the commons at the top of mountains. That is foolish. I ask the Minister to rethink. My final word is this: the greenest thing we can do is to keep Britain’s farmers farming to care for our environment.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Protecting our natural environment and biodiversity is essential for our fight against climate change and our drive towards sustainability, and for future generations to enjoy the spaces so dear to people. I often hear from constituents about their concerns regarding the protection of species and habitats, sewage dumping and the threats of global warming, deforestation, droughts and flooding. I know from representing such communities that there are often competing demands when it comes to our green spaces, especially as, across the country, there is a need for stronger local infrastructure and affordable housing; but that should never be to the detriment of our environment and biodiversity.
Whyburn Farm and Misk Hills in my constituency is an unfortunate example of this. Located in Hucknell, this is a green space treasured by the community and a vital space for nature, health, wellbeing and local history. Many of my constituents regularly use this space to exercise and enjoy activities. Ashes have been scattered there; there have been first dates, first steps and memories of sledging. Its beautiful views even inspired Lord Byron’s work.
Ashfield district council has put in a local plan that will use greenfield sites, when brownfield and greyfield sites were available. That will cause damage to our local environment. The Planning Inspectorate rightly rejected this plan, but it has left the area of Whyburn Farm and Misk Hills vulnerable, which is why we have a speculative planning application. The developers have shown an utter disregard for the community, refusing to meet with them and ignoring local knowledge.
Recognising Whyburn Farm and Misk Hills as a country park would transform the community in Hucknell by ensuring that there is green space for absolutely everyone. In my constituency of Sherwood Forest, more than 4,000 children live in poverty. I ask the Minister to meet with me to discuss how a solution can be found before we lose this space altogether, and I urge the Government to consider introducing new ways for communities to have a voice in the protection of their environment.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for leading this debate.
I would like to focus on the biodiversity net gain industry, or BNG, which has been threatened by changes in Government policy. BNG is one of the most effective tools we have for restoring nature at scale, and it is working. Projects like rewilding on the Knepp estate in my Horsham constituency show what can be achieved when landowners are empowered to invest in habitat restoration. They have built a thriving habitat bank and are supporting neighbouring farmers through major restoration projects. Crucially, all of that depends on a functioning BNG market. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to the Knepp estate.
Across England, more than 5,160 hectares have already been restored thanks to mandatory BNG, generating jobs, investment and genuine ecological recovery. That is why proposals to exempt sites under 0.2 hectares are so deeply concerning; they could severely undermine the emerging nature markets just as they are beginning to deliver results. The industry wants to work with Government, and has recommended an exemption for sites under 0.1 hectares. Doubling that is a mistake that the Government should address.
I say gently to Ministers that environmental protections are not barriers to growth; they are the foundations of long-term sustainable growth. Weakening BNG now would undermine nature recovery, destabilise green investment and damage the rural economies that depend on it. Nature-based solutions are not optional extras, but an essential part of our climate infrastructure. That is why we must defend BNG and empower rewilding and restoration projects across the country.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The power of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) must resonate around Whitehall and warn the City, developers and all who seek to profit from our natural habitats.
Today, I want to talk about York. York is described as a humane city and the Strays of York are green fingers that reach into its heart. Walking along the river, we barely see bricks and mortar. We have our own biometric marker, the tansy beetle—an iridescent, beautiful beetle, about a centimetre in length. It is known as the jewel of York, and yet it is the barometer of all that is going wrong. Flooding caused by the grouse shooting up on the moors is destroying its habitat. We are left with so few beetles in the country, because we will not find them anywhere else. Yorkshire Water has failed to manage our water system, and drought is causing the tansy beetle’s habitat to dry and the tansy plant, the only one on which it lives, to wither. The pollution coming down the River Ouse is also causing real strain.
The tansy beetle has its own action group to conserve this precious jewel. In 2016, 46,000 of the beetle were found. The group’s work raised that to 91,000 by 2023, and yet today the beetle is at risk. We cannot let those who profit from our system and destroy our natural habitats rob us of these precious parts of our nature. It is so important that the Government take action. We need not a national security assessment, but a nature security assessment.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
We are told that access to green and blue space improves mental health and could save the NHS more than £2 billion annually. We are told that urban nature provides around £823 million a year in air pollution removal benefits. We are told that England’s natural capital is valued at around £1.3 trillion, and we are told that ecosystem services deliver more than £37 billion in annual benefits. I want to discard my prepared remarks and speak more idealistically. That same idealism led me to abandon a normal life and row alone across our three oceans to raise awareness of the environmental crisis. It is this mindset of putting a price tag on our natural assets that has led us to the predicament—this heartbreaking situation—that we find ourselves in.
To reduce our natural environment to mere pound signs is an insult—a very anthropocentric perspective, where we value nature according to what it delivers to us. I suggest that we have a moral duty to future generations to halt the extinctions. It is not our job to play God—to decide which species are worth saving and which are not based on whether we find them useful, charismatic or cuddly. Every single species plays a crucial role in the web of life that we are far from fully understanding.
I thank the Minister in advance for her remarks today—in many ways, I feel that I am preaching to the converted, because I know that she already gets this. I wish that we could get any other Minister or Secretary of State into this Chamber to hear these arguments; we need to put respect for nature at the heart of all decision making across Government if we are truly going to get on track for the future that the next generations deserve.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for his passionate speech. Chatham has a proud maritime history and connection with the oceans, as well as the beautiful chalk streams of the escarpment that flow into the River Medway.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Chalk streams are rare and irreplaceable. In Hampshire, we have some of the most iconic ones in the Test, the Itchen and the Loddon. Does my hon. Friend, like me, welcome the inclusion of chalk streams for the first time in the national planning policy framework, and will he join me in urging the Government to find other ways to protect and restore such vital habitats?
Tristan Osborne
I could not agree more. I am proud that chalk streams are part of the portfolio that we are looking at to safeguard our natural world.
However, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, my focus is on a different ecosystem—one that is no less important than our terrestrial ecosystems. I want to ask the Minister several questions on oceans. Last summer, we celebrated with David Attenborough the ban on bottom trawling in this country. Will the Minister provide an update on when we can expect to implement that ban in UK waters?
Enhanced marine protected areas are also key. We should celebrate the fact that the UK recently signed the UN global ocean treaty, but are we looking to enhance our marine protected areas to protect our species within those? Lastly, we know that microplastics and plastic pollution are a significant problem in oceans around the world; as part of the circular economy review that we are shortly to publish, can we reduce the amount of plastics being fed into our oceans and environment? Ultimately, the Earth and the oceans do not belong to us; we belong to them. We are custodians of the future for generations to come. I hope that our oceans will be part of that tapestry.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this debate. Some 12% of species are threatened with extinction in the countryside we live in, as he underlined very clearly. The 50% loss of biodiversity since the ’70s is a serious problem. I want to give an example of what my council, Ards and North Down borough council, does. The council has a strategy of planting and rewilding council land; indeed, it is actively trying to purchase other land for the same purpose. I am always very pleased to see the Minister in her place—I wish her well, including for her recovery. I ask her what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will do to help councils to make more of a difference, if councils are willing to step up and do something.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The Wood Lane playing fields in my constituency are in difficulty because the council faces bankruptcy and is looking to sell property. Does the hon. Member agree that something needs to be done about that?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do, and I will hand over to the Minister to respond at the end of the debate.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Nature underpins our wellbeing and our economy, and in South East Cornwall we truly understand that. Take the Cornish black bee: hardy, resilient and well suited to our Atlantic winds, it heads out to gather pollen even in unfavourable conditions, and that determination feels very familiar to Cornish people. The Cornish chough tells a similar story. Once lost from Cornwall, it returned in 2001, and its comeback shows that, with the right protection, species can recover.
I am proud to serve as a seagrass champion, because seagrasses are one of the most powerful natural climate solutions: they absorb and store carbon at a remarkable rate, soften wave energy and reduce coastal erosion—something extremely needed since the start of this year, as Cornwall has been battered by back-to-back storms that have severely impacted my region. Protecting seagrass meadows is a practical climate action and a sound economic policy.
In my local area, fishing and farming have shaped the economics of our villages and towns for generations. They rely on healthy soils, clean water and abundant seas, so clean water remains a priority. The proposal for designated bathing water in Lostwithiel is therefore very welcome, and I encourage residents to engage with the consultation on that before it closes at the end of the month. However, my constituents are rightly frustrated by the impact of sewage discharges, and confidence in South West Water has been undermined by a history of poor transparency. I call for decisive action to improve its operations, alongside meaningful engagement with local residents, businesses and me.
On Dartmoor, biodiversity and traditional land management are closely linked. Will the Minister provide further information on how the sustainable farming incentive could play a part in protecting the Dartmoor ponies, which were at risk under the previous Government? Finally, I ask her to continue to focus on rural and coastal areas that have long been forgotten and to use Cornwall and our unique natural heritage as a pilot area in future Government schemes. I look forward to working with her in Cornwall in the future.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. You have five minutes.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I commend, as we all do, the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this important debate—it could not be more timely.
I start by asking the Minister why this Government refused to publish the full national security report on global biodiversity loss. The reason for that refusal is pertinent to today’s debate; it seems to be a refusal to be honest with the public about the inextricable links between nature, climate change and our national security, and how vulnerable it makes our country and society when we do not act on the evidence. That evidence states that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse have severe consequences for food and water insecurity, crop failures, fisheries collapse and intensified natural disasters. That is cause for alarm and action.
Instead of responding with urgency, however, the Office for Environmental Protection has confirmed that not only do the Government remain largely off track to meet their environmental commitments, but, worryingly, they have committed to
“doing little that is new or different”
to change that. The latest State of Nature data shows decline, with one in six species at risk of extinction. We have heard that just 14% of England’s rivers are in good ecological health. Action on nature loss and climate breakdown cannot be dealt with in silos. That is why the Liberal Democrats, led by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), have pushed for an annual climate and nature statement from Government.
The Conservatives and Reform, meanwhile, refuse to accept that climate change is one of the greatest drivers of nature loss and propose the rolling back of climate legislation. There seems to be a similar siloed approach from this Labour Government—this time a nature-blind approach. While we commend the Government’s drive towards decarbonisation, the loss of nature is also accelerating climate change by disrupting habitats that capture and store carbon, such as peatlands and woodlands.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that habitat loss will not be helped if the Government accept recommendation 19 of the Fingleton review, which will weaken the duty to support our national parks? Our national parks did not stop the building of Sellafield, or of Trawsfynydd in Snowdonia national park; the Quantocks national landscape did not stop the building of Hinkley. We need to protect our national parks and landscapes.
Pippa Heylings
More than 20 leading nature organisations, including the Wildlife Trust, the National Trust and the RSPB, have warned that the changes my hon. Friend mentions would weaken environmental law by effectively allowing developers to pay to destroy protected wildlife.
I would like the Minister to respond on proposed recommendations 11, 12 and 19 of the Fingleton nuclear regulatory review. We do not want any more of the damaging framing of nature as a blocker to growth, or any more actions such as the weakening of key biodiversity safeguards in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. As my hon. Friend said, the proposed exemptions to biodiversity net gain risk hollowing out one of the most important tools for nature recovery. That is not just the case with nuclear energy; the Prime Minister has said that he also wants environmental deregulation across the entire industrial strategy, which would risk breaching level playing field provisions in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement.
Liberal Democrats take a different view. We would accelerate environmental land management schemes with an extra £1 billion a year to support nature-friendly farming, as my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) said. We would halt and reverse nature’s decline by 2030 and double nature by 2050. We would strengthen the Office for Environmental Protection, and properly fund Natural England and the Environment Agency.
We have heard much about chalk streams, the jewel of our natural heritage, which is why I brought forward legislation with cross-party support to nominate the UK’s chalk streams as UNESCO natural world heritage sites. I hope the Minister will support that legislation. Nature is our joy and our pride, and it underpins our economy, our health, our food security and our safety.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this important debate. We have heard many powerful contributions from across the Chamber.
As the Member of Parliament for Epping Forest, I recognise the importance of biodiversity and protecting our environment. Epping Forest, the heart and lungs of north-east London and our part of Essex, hosts 55,000 ancient and veteran trees, and has a wonderful mix of ancient woodland, open grassland plains, heathland and wetland habitats. It hosts 10 bat species, nine native reptile and amphibian species, over 1,500 fungal species and 28 butterfly species. However, it is sadly affected by actions, including fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour, that can significantly impact wildlife and nature. I urge the Minister to work closely with the Home Office to help to tackle, deter and prevent such rural and semi-rural crimes.
Epping Forest is not immune to the Government’s intrusion into the green belt with centralised housing planning and excessive solar development, which harm our biodiversity, food security, and the communities that depend on it for leisure, sports and access to local environments. This is not the answer. The Government must work to build on brownfield first and protect nature and biodiversity.
The previous Conservative Government’s Environment Act 2021 established legally binding targets, including on increasing species abundance so that by 2042 it is far greater than in 2022, and at least 10% greater than in 2032, and on restoring or creating more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats outside protected sites by 2050. It also set the framework for local nature recovery strategies, seeking to agree priorities for nature’s recovery, map the most valuable existing natural areas, and create or improve habitats and meet wider environmental goals. All local authorities should have published their strategy before the end of last year, but some have not. Will the Minister update us on when all the strategies will be published?
Our Conservative environmental improvement plan built on that Act. It committed to protect 30% of our land and sea by 2030, supporting the COP15 global target to protect 30% of global land and ocean that we agreed. We also announced the species survival fund—£25 million of funding specifically to protect our rarest species, from red squirrels to water voles. In farming, we provided the innovative farming in protected landscapes funding, which helps biodiversity and nature restoration. The previous Conservative Government laid the foundations. The current Government must continue that work in earnest.
The recent Government report “Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security” highlights the danger of inaction and raises serious questions about the UK’s preparedness if action is not taken or is not successful. I hope that Ministers will take the report very seriously and consider how some of the Government’s actions, such as the family farm tax, have pressured food production and supply.
Habitat loss and ecosystem collapse are also threatening countries and their resilience across the world. It is extreme folly for the UK Labour Government to surrender the Chagos islands to Mauritius and charge UK taxpayers £35 billion in the process, for the British Indian Ocean Territory is home to one of the most pristine marine ecosystems on Earth. Mauritius does not have the record to maintain these high conservation standards. In the 2024 environmental performance index, Mauritius ranked 109th for marine key biodiversity area protection, 83rd for marine habitat protection and 131st for marine protection stringency. Quite apart from the adverse defence implications, I am deeply concerned by the Labour Government’s wilful blindness to the fact that Mauritius does not have the record to steward one of the world’s most delicate ecosystems.
The Government report highlights how ecosystem degradation can threaten UK national security, and we know that biodiversity and food security depend crucially on strong biosecurity. Just last week, foot and mouth disease was confirmed in Cyprus. The Government must be vigilant and not hesitate to take action. We need to act at many levels, in the UK and internationally, to protect our ecosystems for the sake of national and international security.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Sir Roger. For anyone who is unaware, I broke my wrist playing beach volleyball; the score was Germany 1, England nil—let us hope that is not repeated at the world cup this year. I thank all colleagues who have sent their good wishes.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on his excellent opening speech, and I thank other Members for their thoughtful contributions. I am not the water Minister or the oceans Minister, so I will do my best, but if I am unable to reply, we will organise the meetings that Members seek so that they get the answers they deserve.
Nature is the monopoly provider of everything we need to exist, and it is our duty to protect and restore it. In my own Coventry constituency, where there is one the poorest and most highly developed wards in the country, there are signs of water voles—Ratty is alive and well. I saw my first ever kingfisher about a mile from Coventry city centre, and there are also otters living in the canal and at Coventry golf club. Nature is all around us if we sit, look and know where to find it.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
Does the Minister also agree that, where there is political will—such as the Mayor of London with his white storks and baby beavers, or even in progressive boroughs like Haringey that plant thousands of trees—we really have hope of making some progress?
Mary Creagh
I congratulate the mayor; he is a trailblazer both nationally and internationally through his climate and nature work. I know that Justin Beaver and his wife—I cannot remember her name, but it is a similarly cringeworthy pun—are living happily ever after. Actually, I do not know whether beavers live happily ever after; I think they are quite mean to each other. But they are definitely living happily in Ealing and providing those natural ecosystem services that we need—they are nature’s original ecosystem engineers.
In December, we published our 2025 environmental improvement plan, and over the next five years, it will accelerate progress towards those Environment Act targets. I gently say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), that some of those targets do not have a baseline. When I was talking to our chief scientific adviser yesterday, I asked how we will meet some of those species targets, and we will have a baseline developed by 2028-29. It is all very well legislating, but it is also about how things are measured. As a former Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, I am all about how we measure it, because that is how the Government are held to account. I want to hold to account myself or any future Minister, whoever it may be.
Mary Creagh
I will just finish my point. Over the next five years, we will improve species abundance, reduce species extinction risk, and restore or create more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich land. We are also delivering our international commitment to protect 30% of the UK’s land and sea by 2030, which will help us to tackle the climate and nature crises while supporting growth.
We have heard a little about housebuilding versus infrastructure, and the system we inherited was too slow and too fragmented. Across the country, we have more than 164,000 homeless children living in temporary accommodation. In my city of Coventry alone, 2,000 children wake up to that reality every day—we have one of the highest rates of child homelessness outside London. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) also has about 800 homeless children in his constituency.
Those realities of nature loss and homeless children have a similar root cause: political short-termism and the ducking of big decisions on land use, investment and environmental recovery, leaving the nature and housing crises to deepen. Politics has failed both, and the nature restoration fund can unlock stored housing and infrastructure while still achieving enormous, tangible environment outcomes. We want more for infrastructure and more for nature, not less.
Mary Creagh
I will not give way, as I want to respond to some of the points that hon. Members made.
The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) mentioned biodiversity net gain, which became mandatory in February 2024. There is emerging evidence that it is working as intended, and we will publish our response to our consultation on that shortly. Developers are seeking ecological advice earlier in the planning process so that they do not waste money trying to build on precious sites, and they are seeking to avoid biodiversity impacts when choosing between sites.
The shadow Minister talked about local nature recovery strategies, as did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The hard work of local authorities to finalise and publish those strategies is bearing fruit. When we came into office, those authorities were not really sure what the strategies were for, so we had to provide a lot of guidance and work with local councils and regional combined authorities to publish 28 of the 48 strategies, with the remainder fast approaching completion. Those strategies will be a new tool in driving action on the ground, and helping partnerships in the public, private and voluntary sectors to work together to focus collective efforts on where they will achieve the most.
We will also go further and faster on protected landscapes. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) and I saw kids from Newcastle who were out for their first ever walk in his gorgeous Northumberland national park. Making sure that our green spaces are greener, wilder and more accessible is crucial to what we want to do. On species recovery, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) talked about the red-billed chough and the tough little Cornish black bee. Bees’ Needs Week is coming up soon, and I urge everyone to go to the website and get their local organisations involved. Kew at Wakehurst will host the prizegiving this year, and I encourage local groups to get involved.
Since the early 90s, we have prevented 35 national extinctions through the species recovery programme and supported 1,000 species, such as the fen orchid, the large blue butterfly and the red-billed chough. We are committed to funding that programme—there is a new round of funding until 2029. More than 200 projects have applied, and we will announce the successful ones in May. We talked about beavers, and I was thrilled to visit the National Trust’s Holnicote estate in Somerset for the release of a mother beaver and her two kits last month, which was one of two wild releases in south-west England this year. Beavers bring many benefits: creating havens for other wildlife, improving water quality and reducing the impact of flood and droughts. That is part of our mission to protect and restore nature.
On landscape recovery, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) talked about the vital role of farmers and land managers in creating wildlife-rich environments. The plans for landscape recovery are backed by a down payment of £500 million over the course of this Parliament, which is the lifetime cost for the first tranche of projects coming through in round one. We expect future tranches to be delivered with further funding allocations. That part of the largest nature-friendly farming budget in history goes alongside significant funding for further nature-friendly farming schemes.
We heard from the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) that, last year, tree planting in England reached its highest level in over 20 years, but our woodland cover is still too low. We are committed to meet the Environment Act target to increase woodland cover to 16.5% by 2050, and the new national forest in the Ox-Cam arc is going to make his constituents closer to nature. That shows that we can build beautiful housing, a new railway line and new nature alongside each other.
This year, we will publish a new trees action plan for England, outlining how we will meet our Environment Act target and improve the resilience and conditions of trees and woodlands nationwide. We have £1 billion for tree planting and forestry sector support over this Parliament, which is the largest investment in nature in our history.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) raised the issue of our overseas impacts and the 30 by 30 work. Our overseas territories hold over 90% of the UK’s unique species. We reaffirmed our joint ambition with the territories to protect their ecosystems and launched the first ever co-created overseas territories biodiversity strategy with every territory Government. We have funded 43 new Darwin Plus projects worth over £7.9 million. Nature-based solutions include Saint Helena’s cloud forest, which is providing clean drinking water, the British Virgin Islands mangroves and the Falklands Islands peatlands.
We have heard about salt marshes and seagrass, and they are incredible buffers against the increasingly intense storms that are buffeting our ocean. Our ocean is also under threat from acidification and heating, and that is why we are driving to protect marine ecosystems and working for a global plastic pollution treaty. A new chair has been elected for that process, and we look forward to making further progress.
We have committed £14 million to eight projects in our ocean grant scheme to support locally led solutions to protect the ocean and the communities who depend on it. In Mozambique, for example, that is supporting local partners to establish a corridor of 20 locally managed marine areas.
I am not the Minister for chalk streams, but I want to address them very quickly and say to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) that we will be delivering more than 1,000 targeted actions for chalk stream restoration. I will take his message back to the water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy). On the national policy planning framework, the consultation is still live, and I think we are looking in that consultation to put chalk streams as features of high environmental value into planning policy.
We welcome and support the ambition of the curlew action plan. There are many such plans across many of our protected landscapes. I am happy to get the water Minister to meet the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). On soils, we have committed to bringing 40% of our agricultural soil into sustainable management by 2028 and increasing that to 60% by 2030. Soil is the foundation of our food system, but also an important part of our climate system. That will be achieved via our environmental management schemes—
Written Statement
New Medium Helicopter
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I am updating the House regarding the new medium helicopter procurement. In an incredibly volatile and unpredictable world, characterised by emerging threats and shifting geopolitical dynamics, the importance of a robust and agile sovereign defence industry cannot be underestimated, and medium lift will remain an enduring requirement moving forward.
The Government have been clear that we intend to spend more of a rising defence budget with British-based firms, helping to make defence an engine for growth.
I am announcing today that the Government have selected Leonardo’s AW149 for the NMH requirement. We inherited this procurement from the previous Government, and through joint working between the Ministry of Defence and Leonardo, including by the Defence Secretary and Leonardo’s global CEO, the Government have secured an improved agreement with Leonardo in respect of the NMH acquisition.
The new deal delivers on the strategic defence review and defence industrial strategy—improving warfighting readiness and strengthening the UK’s defence industrial base.
The Government recognise the importance of Leonardo UK in delivering sovereign capabilities in rotary lift. Leonardo UK’s work in respect of developing new autonomous helicopter options is world leading, and I am grateful to the team at Leonardo Helicopters in Yeovil, businesses across the UK, Leonardo in Italy and its UK supply chain for their commitment to renewing the capabilities of our armed forces.
The agreement with Leonardo will deliver the 23 new medium helicopters and four training simulators, securing 3,300 jobs at Yeovil in Somerset. But our agreement goes further than the previous procurement started by the last administration.
I am pleased to report that we have gained an agreement from Leonardo that paves the path for future military international orders to be built in the UK, with an increased workshare for the UK above 40%. Leonardo have also agreed to make the United Kingdom the home of exports for the AW149, enabling greater access to the market and the potential for over £15 billion of export opportunities over the next decade.
Furthermore, Leonardo has agreed to make Yeovil its global centre of excellence for autonomous helicopters, and today I can confirm to the House that the Ministry of Defence will also invest further in Proteus, the UK’s first autonomous uncrewed air system, which is built by Leonardo and recently undertook its first flight. The development of uncrewed and autonomous technology in the UK is at the heart of the Government’s defence industrial strategy and could offer the opportunity to make platforms such as NMH optionally-crewed.
This Government are committed to a new partnership with industry. Working collaboratively, we have secured a substantial deepening of the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and Leonardo UK. It increases UK workshare in the new medium helicopter and secures the operations of Yeovil for many years to come.
This is a substantial improvement on the previous arrangement and is not only the renewal of the MOD-Leonardo UK helicopter relationship, but a clear articulation of the new approach the Government are taking as we prepare for the publication of the defence investment plan.
[HCWS1376]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, as is customary on these occasions, I must advise that, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026.
Relevant document: 50th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, this fee order sets out the immigration and nationality functions for which a fee is to be charged, and the maxima amounts that can be charged in relation to each of those functions. In the order, we propose a number of changes that will facilitate government policy. Fees charged by the Home Office for immigration and nationality applications are an essential part of the department’s funding settlement.
This order will increase fee maxima across a number of chargeable functions, including those for the new electronic travel authorisation—ETA—and entry clearance as a visitor for visas valid for a period of more than 12 months. It will also include a visa on a route to settlement, a settlement visa, naturalisation and registration as a British citizen or as one of the specified other categories of citizenship, and certain nationality-related services. I should explain that the actual fee levels that are to be charged for those seeking to enter or remain in the UK are not being changed in this order. Any changes to the fee levels will be made through separate legislation and will be accompanied by a full economic impact assessment.
In laying this order we have sought to provide clarity to Parliament, and indeed to the public, about our intention to increase certain fees when parliamentary time allows. These are as follows. We will increase the fee maxima applying to an application for an ETA from £16 to £20 in order to facilitate a subsequent increase in the chargeable fee to £20. This will be by negative resolution in the event of those fees being brought forward. The fee maxima for entry clearance as a visitor for a period of more than 12 months will increase from £250 per year to £253 per annum. This will allow the Home Office to increase the fee for a two-year visitor visa from £475 to £506. We are increasing the fee maximum for visas on a route to settlement from £3,600 to £3,635. This is to facilitate a subsequent increase to the fee applications by other adult dependent relatives of a British citizen, or a person with settled status who wishes to join their family in the UK. That will rise from £3,413 to £3,635.
In this order, we are amending the fee maximum for settlement applications from £3,600 to £3,635 in order to align with the changes to the fee maximum for visas on a route to settlement, reflecting, I hope, the connection between these two chargeable functions. The fee maxima for naturalisation as a British citizen or as a British Overseas Territories citizen and registration as a British citizen or other nationality status will increase from £1,605 to £1,709 and from £1,500 to £1,540, respectively—all subject to parliamentary approval. This will allow us to increase the fees for naturalisation and registration as a British citizen by adult applicants to the new maxima levels. We are also increasing the fee maxima for nationality-related services by 6.5% to support a subsequent increase in relevant fees to the new maxima level. This will include the fee for a certificate of entitlement of right of abode, which will increase from £589 to £627.
To be clear, we have announced our intention to increase the fee levels later this year, but they will not be increased until we lay separate legislation—the immigration and nationality fees regulation—which will be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. These changes will facilitate the generation of additional income for the migration and borders system, which will in turn support the broader funding of the system, reduce reliance on the general taxpayer and support the delivery of government priorities. With that explanation, I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order. The principle behind the changes that he has just outlined is well-established. Since 2003, under the then Labour Government, successive Administrations have accepted that immigration and nationality fees may be set above administrative costs in order to contribute to the wider operation of the system. We have consistently supported the view that those who use and benefit from the immigration system should make a fair contribution, reducing the burden on the taxpayer.
As the Minister outlined, the instrument is a precursor to proposed increases in the maximum fees that may be charged across a range of products. The ETA will rise from £16 to £20, visit visa maxima will be uprated, the cap for limited leave and settlement will increase, and nationality-related maxima, including naturalisation as a British citizen, will rise. With the exception of the ETA, these increases are 6.5%.
The impact assessment suggests that setting fees at these maxima could generate around £1.8 billion over five years. That is significant revenue in the context of a system whose annual costs run into many billions. The Government argue that demand for visas is relatively inelastic and that modest increases do not materially reduce volumes. If that assessment is robust, it provides a rational basis for the approach.
In our view, two issues merit scrutiny. First, the ETA increase represents a 25% rise. Has any assessment been made of the impact on visitor numbers? Why was £20 judged the appropriate level? Given the acknowledged uncertainty in the modelling and potential implications for tourism, including in Northern Ireland, it would be helpful if the Minister could update the Committee on any evaluation that is under way and confirm when its findings will be published.
Secondly, how will the additional income be used? The Government have committed to reducing migration and tackling illegal entry, yet the costs of irregular migration remain substantial. Will the revenue primarily fund those pressures, or will it deliver tangible improvements in efficiency and border security? Does the Minister anticipate further increases in the near future?
In closing, we support the principle of the order and will not seek to divide the Committee. However, it is right that we seek assurance that higher fees will support a system that is not only self-sustaining but demonstrably more effective. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the broad support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for the principle behind the order. I am grateful for his generous support for the direction of travel that we are undertaking. He has asked two specific questions, which I will try to answer for him.
On the ETA scheme, we are increasing the fee maximum to £20, rising from £16. As he said, that is an increase of around 25%. Moving from £16 to £20 will put us in line with the American fee and the pending European fee. In general terms, it is a reasonable amount of resource.
The noble Lord asked whether that will have an impact on tourism, particularly in Northern Ireland. Last week, I answered questions in the House on the Northern Ireland ETA. We have had discussions with the Northern Ireland tourist board to look at the impact of that, because many people enter the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland via planes to Dublin from America or other ports. We discussed that in detail. We are introducing ETAs in Northern Ireland to enhance our ability to screen travellers upstream. People who arrive in the United Kingdom, including those travelling from Ireland into Northern Ireland, will need an ETA, in line with the UK’s immigration framework. I genuinely do not believe that a £20 fee is going to deter someone from visiting the great city of Belfast, the Mountains of Mourne or the Giant’s Causeway, or, in a wider UK context, from visiting London and seeing all the sites that we have here. It is a reasonable fee for people entering to pay. Although it is a higher fee than the 6.5% general fee, it is a reasonable fee and it brings us in line with other partners.
The noble Lord asked the perfectly legitimate question of what happens to the money that the Home Office makes on the application fees. The Home Office does not make any profit from the fees, in line with the charging principles set out in the Immigration Act 2014. Fees for immigration and nationality services are set in consideration of the costs of processing an application, the wider costs of running the migration and border system, and the benefits enjoyed by successful applicants. Any income from the fees set above the costs of processing goes towards funding the wider immigration system.
The noble Lord will know that, in the past year, we have put additional staff into processing asylum claims and into border control. Through the then immigration Bill, on which the noble Lord gratefully served and offered good scrutiny, we have established a new border command and new border scrutiny. We have put in place the work that we are doing with the French, the Belgians and the Dutch on border control. We have done the work with Germany. We have passed the immigration Act. All of that is still a cost to the system, and any surplus made from the application fees will go towards that and stop us having to have recourse to the Treasury for additional funding.
The Home Office believes that it is right that a greater share of the cost of operating the system is borne by the applicants who directly use it, rather than funding being provided additionally through HM Treasury from general taxation. The figure mentioned by the noble Lord is a considerable sum of resource. That will be used entirely within the Home Office for funding what will be, I hope, a strong and important immigration system.
Rent Officers (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit Functions) (Modification) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit Functions) (Modification) Order 2026.
Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, noble Lords can tell from me advancing to the wrong place that I have never done anything like this before. It shows that this is something about which I feel absolutely passionate, from my role as the housing spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats and from my own experience as now patron of a local homelessness charity in Watford, New Hope, which I hope I helped not only to survive but to thrive during my time as the elected mayor. This issue is close to my heart.
I have been asked to give a few apologies to the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Tyler, all wished to speak today but are unable to do so due to genuine, legitimate commitments elsewhere.
I start by looking the Minister square in the face and saying that I know she understands this issue and that I know where her heart is. I am doing this because I feel that there are real issues here that are not being factored into the Government’s assessment and financial considerations. That is where I am coming from.
Local housing allowance is not just an abstract welfare lever; it is the mechanism that decides whether people can pay their rent or lose their home. Freezing it again is not fiscal housekeeping—that is where I am coming from today. It is a political choice that knowingly widens the gap between rents and support until families fall through it. A freeze—that is what it is—does not freeze rents, eviction notices or hardship; it freezes help and support while everything else keeps rising.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Thornhill set out the case for the Government to rethink their decision to freeze local housing allowance. She set it out superbly, with all the consequences that will occur as a result of a further year’s freeze on local housing allowance. I want to paint a picture of what that means to families in the small town in Yorkshire where I live and where I am an elected councillor.
You would not say that where I live is the richest of places on the planet; all the information indicates that some parts of my town are in the bottom 10% of the deprivation scores and most of the town is between 30% and 40% in the deprivation scores. That is the general picture of the town. It is a Victorian town with lots of Victorian terraces, two-up, two-downs, some back-to-backs—if anybody in London knows what that means—and the sort of places that open straight on to the street.
I looked this afternoon at a private-rented two-bed property—that means a two-up, two-down—and it is £750 per calendar month, or £173.05 per week. What is the local housing allowance for that part of Kirklees Council? It is £120.82. What that means is that families are having to find £50 a week extra. If they qualify for LHA, they are already not well off, and they are having to find £50 a week for that property. That is the cheapest I could find. I found another one, also a terrace, slightly larger but still a two-bed, and the rent is £825 a month, or £190 a week, so there will be a much bigger difference.
I understand where the Government are coming from, because the housing benefit bill has zoomed upwards. What my noble friend and I are arguing is that it needs a total rethink. I know that the Minister would not want what I have just described to be the case, and that equally, the country cannot keep spending billions of pounds on housing benefit. Some of us round this table in the Grand Committee know that this is one of the consequences of right to buy. If you live in a council property or a housing association property, the difference will not be as high, and most council house rents match local housing allowance. That is the background problem. How we solve it, I do not know, but the Government need to put their mind to it.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for opening this short debate. Let me say at the start that His Majesty’s Opposition support the principle behind the instrument before us. It reflects a careful exercise of the Government’s statutory powers. The order will ensure that local housing allowance rates, which determine the housing support paid to universal credit and housing benefit claimants, remain at the level set on 31 January 2024 for the 2026-27 period.
While we believe that the decision behind the order is sensible—and I would argue, the only way—we also recognise that concerns have been raised, including by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, about the impact of freezing rates in a context of rising rents. Both noble Baronesses put that case very eloquently. According to figures from the DWP, rents have increased by 14% since the LHA was last increased in April 2024, and over 50% of people in receipt of either housing benefit or universal credit see a shortfall between the cost of their rent and housing support. I say again that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, eloquently set out her case and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, added her own facts and interesting anecdotes. She went on to say that we cannot carry on spending as much as we are, with which we all agree.
The question that we all come back to is what to do about this. I will refer later to the two-child limit, which is perhaps a black cloud hanging over us all, but can the Minister set out what other measures of help are available for households facing squeezed budgets? Can she explain, particularly for me, the thinking and the policy behind the crisis and resilience fund—the so-called CRF—which will, as I understand it, incorporate the old discretionary housing payments, though not in Wales? I would like to understand the difference here between the CRF and the DHPs, or how they interrelate. By what mechanism will those who are most in need be targeted from now on? What role is there for local authorities?
In her speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to houses and homes. She is quite right, because lowering rental levels is surely a priority to help with this particular issue. The Government have said that homes, and building more homes, are a priority. They have stated publicly and clearly that they need and wish to build 1.5 million homes by 2030. If that were the case, it would increase supply, which would, in turn, decrease rents. With that, comes decreased demand, and I suppose the theory is that each house will therefore demand less rent. Where are these new homes? We are more than 18 months into this Government. What progress is being made? This strikes me as being a vital element of this order. The evidence shows that fewer homes are being delivered per year now than the maximum that the last Government managed in a year, which I happen to know was 240,000. I look forward to the Minister’s response to these and other points outlined by the Committee.
This order must be seen in a wider context. We must bear in mind public spending and the welfare policy under this Labour Government. Since 2010, successive Conservative Governments have sought to reform and target welfare so that it acts as a genuine safety net and encourages people into work. With the introduction of universal credit, the central focus was ensuring that the welfare bill was affordable to the taxpayer. We have now set out a plan to deliver £47 billion-worth of savings over the next Parliament; around £23 billion of that will be from non-pensioner welfare reforms, reducing waste and tackling the rising debt. I must make it clear that we will and we must continue to protect those who are genuinely and most in need.
This Government’s approach has been rather different. They have dramatically increased welfare spending, including the breaking of fiscal promises and presiding over higher public debt and taxes. More worryingly, their decisions seem to have been shaped by short-term political pressures, rather than by clear and disciplined fiscal frameworks.
The most notable example of this is the Government’s decision to remove the two-child benefit cap—a policy against which they previously whipped their own MPs. As the Committee will be well aware, this cap was introduced by the previous Conservative Government in 2015 as part of a broader effort to ensure fairness in the welfare system. Indeed, Labour’s own leader initially refused to scrap it, even withdrawing the Whip from MPs who voted to end it and treating it at the time as a tough but necessary choice. Yet in an abrupt reversal, the current Chancellor and Prime Minister abolished the two-child limit in the 2025 Budget at an estimated cost of more than £3 billion, stating:
“We on the Labour Benches do not believe that the solution to a broken welfare system is to punish the most vulnerable”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/25; col. 397.]
children. Those are well-meaning words, but that is a stark departure from Labour’s earlier position and one that flies in the face of its own fiscal constraints.
The U-turn came at a time when the Prime Minister’s net favourability happened to be at its lowest. This is irresponsible decision-making. The Government’s expansion of welfare spending has led to higher taxes and long-term pressures on the public finances, with the UK continuing to borrow well over £100 billion per year to fund day-to-day spending. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, might bear this figure in mind because reducing it is surely a massive challenge and a must do to make a real difference through massive savings, which will, ultimately, feed through into alleviating local pressures to help the least well-off. Surely this is one thing that must be looked at with more urgency.
To be clear, we do not believe it is fair to raise the two-child limit. This is because many families in work make the decision to live within their means, including making decisions about the size of their families. These same families lose out when additional funding is provided to those out of work who decide to have more than two children. I am aware that the Bill will soon come before the House and that we will have the opportunity to debate this matter all too soon—it might even be next week—and we will continue to press the Government to ensure that housing support, and welfare more broadly, are sustainable and fair. We must make every effort to support individuals and families into well-paid work and not increase dependence on benefits.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for introducing her Motion. If that was the first time she has done so, I commend her on how clearly she set out her case. I thank her for giving us the opportunity to debate the incredibly important subject of housing support. I also thank the other noble Lords who have contributed. For clarity, the order sets local housing allowance rates from April for 2026-27. In his Written Ministerial Statement on 26 November last year, the Secretary of State confirmed that LHA rates would not increase for 2026-27 but would be maintained at their current levels.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, have come at this from the perspective of fiscal inheritance. The fiscal inheritance is not a defence, but it is a reality. I remind the noble Viscount that this Government, when they arrived, were not immediately able to make choices to tackle many of the problems that had been left. Frankly, this was a target-rich environment; there were challenges right across the environment. Our public services were falling apart, our roads and houses had not been supported, and benefits had been frozen or put below inflation for many years, from the coalition Government all the way through until this Government took over. So there are some really significant challenges. That is at the heart of what the Government had to do: we had to make some very difficult choices across the piece on spending, and I will try to explain why.
A key driver of high rents is the lack of housing supply, which is an issue for the whole country, not just for those who get help for their housing from the social security system. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, set out the challenge that we are all facing: a significant amount of money is being spent. The Government are prioritising action in the longer term; if we focus only on the short term, we will never be able to address this issue. I will come back later to some of the specifics that have been asked about.
We have therefore committed to build 1.5 million homes in England this Parliament, which includes the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation. We aim to build 300,000 social and affordable homes, and the whole programme is backed by a record £39 billion investment. We know that in many cases it takes a long time to build the homes we need, so we are committed to a whole-system approach to unblock the barriers to building and to address productivity in the housebuilding sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is right: people need housing support now.
To illustrate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the DWP continues to spend around £37 billion a year on housing support, and over £13 billion of that is support in the private rented sector. She is right that these are huge sums, even in the context of the social security budget. The Committee may be aware that the last LHA increase in April 2024 cost £7 billion over five years. These are significant sums, so when the Government have to make choices, they have to look very carefully at each individual element of the choices in front of them.
LHA rates are reviewed every year by the Secretary of State, and a range of factors were considered before he decided not to increase rates. He looked at the rental markets across Great Britain. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is right that rental inflation is slowing: it was over 9% in November 2024 and, by last January, it was down to 3.5%. But the fact is that there are still housing affordability challenges, which are particularly acute in some areas of the country.
Given the challenging fiscal context, the Secretary of State also considered broader social security and wider cross-government priorities, including on homelessness, ahead of Budget decisions. He chose—and he was right—to prioritise certain measures that had a key impact on poverty and living standards. Reducing child poverty is a core manifesto pledge for this Government, and we intend to deliver on it. Removing the two-child limit—we will debate this in more detail next week, and I look forward to debating it with the noble Viscount—will lift 450,000 children out of poverty in the final year of this Parliament. That will rise to around 550,000 alongside other measures set out in the child poverty strategy, such as the expansion of free school meals.
I take the points made by both noble Baronesses about the challenges. If people have gaps in their rent, something else has to go. However, people’s incomes have to be seen in the round. Their incomes are formed not just by the amount of money being given for housing but the amount of money being given to support their children and whether they have to pay for all meals or can get free school meals. Therefore, the Government are making choices, and all these things have to be seen in the round.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Can the Minister clarify that this will be a different way to use what was previously DHP rather than additional new money?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I will come on in a moment to try to answer the specific question. If the noble Baroness will give me one second, I move to that point, because I want to explain how it will work. I thank her for nudging me.
I will look at a number of the questions that were asked. The noble Baroness mentioned the Crisis report saying that only 2.7% of properties were affordable. For clarity and for the record, the Crisis report looked at newly advertised rents, which are typically higher than those for continued tenancies. Although the report highlights the cost challenge of moving to a new tenancy, we do not think it accurately represents the whole picture. LHA rates are based on confirmed rents for sitting tenants rather than the advertised rents. I am not challenging the broader issue; I just wanted to make that clear for the record.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the impact on homelessness. As we all know, the causes of homelessness are multifaceted and are driven by a range of factors, both personal and structural, but the relationship with social security is clearly one of those factors. The DWP has worked closely with the MHCLG on the national plan to end homelessness, which is driving sustainable change and addressing the root causes of homelessness. We explicitly considered LHA rates against homelessness goals. We are committed to working together with the MHCLG and the Treasury to keep LHA rates under review—I hope that gives the noble Baroness some reassurance.
However, we also know that too many people are living in temporary accommodation and that local authorities are under pressure, so we want to prevent homelessness in the first place. We are investing £3.6 billion in homelessness prevention and rough-sleeping services over the next three years, as well as the removal of the two-child benefit cap, increases in universal credit, and other measures. We are delivering the increase in supply of social and affordable housing.
On food poverty, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, we have announced action to transform our food system to ensure that it delivers access to affordable, healthy food. However, we are engaging routinely and regularly with stakeholders to understand the key priorities. We have also taken the step of expanding free school meals to all those on universal credit, which will in itself lift 100,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament.
Briefly, before I come on to the crisis and resilience point, the Government have committed to building 1.5 million new homes. That is a stretching target, which is what we intended it to be. We are backing that up with a record £39 billion of investment to kick-start social and affordable housebuilding at scale across the country.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I feel very strongly about the use of the phrase “affordable housing”. Affordable housing is, by definition, not affordable. The broad definition of affordability for rent is 80% of the market rent, which, for most people, is not affordable—but social housing at social rents is. I would love the Government to erase “affordable” and just talk about 300,000 homes for social rent. That would make a difference; I hope the Minister will agree.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The 300,000 target is for both social and affordable housing. I would be very happy to share the noble Baroness’s views with my colleagues at MHCLG to make sure that they reflect on them, if that is okay with her, as that policy is probably above my pay grade.
On the question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, the real challenge is that, if we do not get a whole-system approach on this, we are never going to unblock the barriers to building and addressing the productivity issues in the housebuilding sector. We are, therefore, working really closely with industry—including developers, housing associations and local authorities—to try to get a step change in this area. We have already taken some significant steps to address the planning issues that were holding back the supply of housing. Within months of coming into government, we published our revised National Planning Policy Framework, and, in December, we launched a consultation on further reforms to the framework to unlock additional housing supply.
The noble Viscount also asked about what will happen to vulnerable people. Let me explain what is happening there. At the moment, there is something called the household support fund, and, separately, there are discretionary housing payments. Both of these are short-term funds; the DWP gives the money to local authorities to pay them out. The household support fund was only ever done for six months at a time, and it was never clear that it would be done again for the following six months. DHPs, however, were set for a year at a time. There were, therefore, two separate, short-term discretionary schemes with different purposes and different sets of rules. Just to complicate things, they also often went to different tiers of local government.
Instead, we are creating the crisis and resilience fund, which is a single, multi-year, streamlined fund. It will eventually replace both the household support fund and DHPs in England from 1 April 2026. The key is that people can plan for crisis and resilience support longer down the line. To ensure that there is a transition from where we are now to where we are going, discretionary housing payments will be replaced by the housing payment strand of the crisis and resilience fund, which will, for the first two years, simply mimic what discretionary housing payments do now; it will carry on in the same way. In Wales, DHPs will continue to be maintained and delivered, while Scotland has developed its own alternative for that—as this is a devolved issue—which it launched in 2024. So our intention is that that is what will happen.
The £1 billion includes the element for the housing strand but we are working closely with local authorities so that, by the time we get to year 3, we can look at how that can be done. Also, they will be able to top this up if they want. I recognise, in the context of all the challenges they have faced, that some local authorities do this at the moment because they want to put more into housing.
I hope that that is helpful. I would be very happy to answer any other questions.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Thank you; that was very helpful. May I have some further clarification? Will the CRF, therefore, combine the needs around housing with the needs around budget expenditure for those individuals who are targeted for help? I am thinking that local authorities—if it goes through them—will want to look at each case as it comes up. They will want to look at the housing issues and the expenditure issues and combine the two, which would make sense if that were the case.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Of course, there are still issues about tiers and responsibility. One of the challenges is that local government reform is going on, which is one of the reasons why we need to make sure that we work with local authorities so that, by the time we get to that point, we have taken account of that. But this is the housing strand within the CRF—the CRF does other things too; it does not deal only with housing. The housing strand, however, is there to deal with support for those whose housing needs are supported through the social security system. I hope that is okay.
The noble Viscount also asked me who makes the decisions, and it is the local authorities. We believe they are best placed to make informed judgments about relative priorities and needs in their area, but we engage with them regularly through regular forums and we publish guidance on both schemes.
I hope that has picked up the questions that all noble Lords have asked. I am always very happy to be interrupted. If I have not, I will look through Hansard, and I will be happy to write if I have missed anything.
To conclude, we really must continue to provide support towards rent costs for those who need it, including the most vulnerable. However, we will have to balance that with challenges in other areas and with the needs of the taxpayer. In the current challenging fiscal environment, measures with the greatest impact on government goals in the area of poverty have been prioritised. That is why we are investing in social and affordable housing, as well as removing the two-child limit to lift children out of poverty—which, by the way, I do not regard as a cloud hanging over anyone; it is a wonderful opportunity to lift children out of poverty, and I am proud that the Government are doing it. That was a little parenthesis. We are also fixing the work disincentive for vulnerable people living in temporary accommodation and supported housing.
Once again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for giving us the chance to discuss this important issue, and I hope that she and the Committee can understand the reasons for the choices we made.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
What I do understand is making difficult choices, and I often say it is a difficult position to be in—well, I would like to be in it, but I do not underestimate the difficulty of it.
I thank my noble friend Lady Pinnock who, as always, brings it slap down to reality and where we are; she is great at that. I also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie—I never doubt his sincerity or the logical way in which he presents arguments and asks questions. He has today confirmed why I am at this end of the table and not that one—but hey ho.
I agree with the Minister that one of the issues today is short-termism; very often, it is from election to election, and it has absolutely been responsible for all the mess she has had to pick up. It has to be said that we are very much in tune with many of her aspirations and we wish them well. Unfortunately, however, we cannot see two, five, seven or 10 years into the future, so we do not know what will happen in the meantime.
It has been helpful to hear the Minister outline everything today, but I am still not convinced that this does more than move the money around. Let me put it this way: I wish the Government had made another choice. I just looked at the figures the Minister gave. She said it was £7 billion over five years, but if it is £1 billion a year for the new and old funds, that is £1.25 billion over a year, and it is £2.8 billion a year in temporary housing. So I am still not convinced that it all adds up, but I am sure that in a metaphorical smoke-filled room somewhere, the Minister has a sheet and she is saying, “Okay, that’s the right decision” because of whatever. I think we just have to hope that things improve in the future.
The Minister mentioned the reality of renting and keeping things in touch with what actual rents are. I therefore urge her to talk to her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, about the database that was promised in the Renters’ Rights Act, because rent levels are meant to be on that database, and that will be a very helpful part of it. During the passage of that Act, I was very pro the database, but it seems that a lot of things have been shoved into the long grass a bit. The database is a valuable tool. The proof of the pudding will be what happens in the future, and we hope for the sake of those tens of thousands of children and families that the Government are correct. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
House of Lords
Carbon Budget 6
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether their policies and plans will deliver Carbon Budget 6.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
Carbon budget 6, which was set out in 2021 and is current from 2033 to 2037, was subject to several legal challenges. It is now in the hands of the present Government. The Secretary of State carried out a full and rigorous assessment of the package, policies and proposals prior to publishing the recent Carbon budget and growth delivery plan and concluded that they will enable carbon budget 6 to be met. He will continue to monitor policy delivery and keep the package under review.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for the Answer. You can imagine this is something that concerns me, because the previous Government lost two court cases about this as they were not going to achieve what they were aiming for. We have just had carbon budget 7. I am quite curious about whether this Government have really done the right risk assessments. The previous national security assessment said that nature damage will cost 12% of GDP by 2030 relative to what could have been achieved. If Labour are interested in GDP, it really ought to sort itself out on the issue of the environment.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
We do not have the announcement of carbon budget 7 until the summer. The noble Baroness might care to think about what the process of looking again at carbon budget 6 was after those legal judgments. Indeed, the Government have taken a much more robust approach to developing the plan, which has allowed us to make a much clearer and more rational assessment of the savings that will enable carbon budgets to be met and to quantify them fully.
We have also quantified a number of real-world trends that are rather important today, and which are shaping our society and economy. That means our assessment reflects how we would expect the world to change as we accelerate towards net zero. None of these things were done when the previous Administration set out carbon budget 6—indeed, they were part of the legal challenge to those budgets. That is the reason why we consider that carbon budget 6 can be met, in addition to which a number of new policies and directions have come forward since this new Government took office.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, if we are going to meet our carbon budgets, clearly, the challenge of getting low-carbon electricity generation as quickly as possible is crucial. The latest figures I have for Q2 2025 suggest that nuclear power was about 15.1% of electricity generation. How do you square that with the Greens’ manifesto, which says that they want to get rid of nuclear power in this country?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The continued presence of nuclear power as a low-carbon power source is, and will be, an integral part of carbon budget 6 being met. It would be very difficult to catch up with those carbon budget 6 figures without nuclear power. It will come and go a little bit, in terms of retirements of nuclear power stations by the mid-2030s and new nuclear power stations coming online, but it will come back to at least that 15% figure. It is very difficult to see how carbon budget 6 might easily be met without that power in place.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Cross Benches and then from the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to hear that the Government continually reassess carbon budget 6, but I would like to hear the Minister’s response to the concerns of Ofgem, which has said that the volume of grid connection applications
“exceeds even the most ambitious demand forecasts”.
Further, last week, the Energy Secretary said that energy demand “remains inherently uncertain”. What is the Minister’s department doing to try to work out how much energy will be needed by data centres? Can the Government commit to using only low-carbon sources of power for these operations?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
In terms of the Government’s clean power 2030 plans, pretty much only low-carbon power will be used for operations in the future. As far as data centres are concerned, this is one of the real-world trends that I mentioned has been analysed out in the carbon budget considerations. While AI will certainly considerably reduce the amount of electricity that is being used, the overall trend towards a large number of data centres will increase its use, so you have trends going in either direction. However, that is within the modelling that has been done so that we can consider how the budget can be met.
On grid connections, among other things, Ofgem is very much under way in reducing the number of people in the queue and making sure that the grid is far better able to accommodate the early connections and consequences of the rollout of new grid bootstraps, for example.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, given that the pursuit of carbon budgets has so far given us the highest electricity prices in the OECD, can the Minister confirm that the pursuit of decarbonisation has so far primarily resulted in the deindustrialisation of Britian, and that our carbon budgets do not take account of the fact that we have simply exported carbon emissions to the rest of the world?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
It is certainly not true that the pursuit of a low-carbon economy has led to deindustrialisation. The noble Lord need only look at the £60 billion of investment that is coming into the green economy and all that goes with it. Indeed, the low-carbon economy is growing three times as fast as the general economy. Many of the things that are coming in concerning low-carbon energy are very much concerned with industrial plants, grids, new forms of electricity generation and so on, which will not only produce large numbers of jobs but a very sound industrial base for the country.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, to return to the Minister’s original Answer in relation to legal challenges, what assessment has been made of the electric vehicle rollout and boiler replacement mandates and their timeframes, and the Government’s ability to meet the building and transport emission cuts and the sixth carbon budget in good time?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
On EV rollout, the noble Earl will be aware of what has been put in place for ending internal combustion engine use in vehicles and the phase-out of hybrid by 2035. The rollout of electric vehicles continues unabated, and the number of electric vehicle charging points in this country, currently at more than 80,000, is well on target for what we think necessary over the next period to ensure that the fleet works as well as it should.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
Does the Minister accept that in the UKCS we have a far smaller carbon footprint for our own North Sea gas than the full life-cycle emissions of imported LNG from Qatar and the United States? Given that the Government’s energy security is challenged with growing dependency over the next 10 years on LNG ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, why are we the only country in the world that is failing to accelerate development of our own gas reserves, in the North Sea, for energy security and environmental objectives so that we can deliver firm and affordable power to all our high-energy-use industries, which currently face crushing energy costs, four times higher than in the United States?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I think the noble Lord knows that, even if we were substantially to increase the footprint of gas production in the North Sea, that would not come on stream for many years. Secondly, gas is traded on international markets at a particular price, so it would make no difference to energy costs in the UK, because the gas would go to one of the three international gas markets and bringing down that price would be beyond the control of the UK—unless we introduced draconian measures to prevent the price discovery of the particular levels of gas being undertaken on international basis, which I am sure the noble Lord would not be happy with.
Defence Industrial Strategy 2025: Economic Growth and Job Creation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forbes of Newcastle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential impact of the Defence Industrial Strategy 2025 on promoting economic growth and job creation in English regions and devolved nations.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, investment in defence is investment in jobs and growth in every nation and region in the UK. That is why we have invested £773 million in the defence industrial strategy, which will position the UK as a global leader in defence technology by backing UK businesses and harnessing the sector’s strengths. There are five defence growth deals, revamping our procurement framework and launching an ambitious skills programme. The defence industrial strategy will create new good-quality and highly skilled jobs across the UK and drive economic growth.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, in warmly welcoming the Government’s commitment to significantly increasing defence expenditure and the opportunity to use this lever to promote economic growth, especially through the development of dual-use technologies and extended supply chains, I draw my noble friend the Minister’s attention to the fact that only seven of 14 mayoral combined authorities have so far produced local growth plans that explicitly name defence and national security as priority growth sectors for their area. Does he share my view that better connections between combined authorities and the Ministry of Defence are required to ensure that there are real and tangible economic benefits in every nation and region to increase defence spending? Will he ensure that His Majesty’s Government engage systematically and effectively with regional leaders to ensure that this welcome investment creates the maximum number of jobs possible?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with that. It is really important for the defence industrial strategy that we liaise with all the devolved Governments and, as my noble friend says, with local devolved councils and mayoral authorities. Kim McGuinness is the Mayor of the North East, in my noble friend’s part of the country, and I know of the work that he has done with local authorities. It is essential that we work with them to deliver the economic growth that we want across all the regions of England and nations of the UK.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the defence industrial strategy will have no economic effect. What might make an impact is a defence investment plan, backed up by the necessary level of resources. The absence of such a plan is undermining business confidence and investor confidence. When will the Government start taking such crucial decisions at a pace that matches the urgency of the international situation we face?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I accept the point with respect to the publication of the defence investment plan. As the noble and gallant Lord will know, that will be published as soon as it is ready. Look at what has been happening. Noble Lords across this Chamber demanded that the Government spend money on Leonardos, and we announced investment in them just recently. We have also invested huge sums of money on the Clyde and at Rosyth to build new ships. We are investing huge sums of money to develop the dockyards in Plymouth to improve the availability of the submarines, and we are also making numerous investments, such as in Rolls-Royce, with a £9 billion nuclear programme over the next few years. I understand the point the noble and gallant Lord is making, but the Government are not standing still—we are already spending billions of pounds investing in our defence industry.
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 Conservative Benches.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, may I press the Minister a little on the point that the noble and gallant Lord just raised about the defence investment plan? When I asked him about this in January, he referred to the comments of the Secretary of State at the beginning of January that the Government were working flat out to get this plan done, and there were rumours that it would be ready for the spring. Looking at the pleasant weather outside, spring seems to have arrived. When will the defence investment plan arrive? People will judge the Government not on what they say but on what they do.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I understand the point the noble Lord is making, and it raised some mirth in here, but the defence investment plan will be published when it is ready and when the Government have made the decisions about matching the budget to the capabilities they want. These capabilities should be matched to the demands of the future, learning the lessons of Ukraine.
As I said to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the Government are not waiting for the defence investment plan before investing billions of pounds in our defence industry across the country, in the ways I laid out. I go back to the point about the Leonardos. We did not wait for the defence investment plan to do that: £1 billion is going to be spent to ensure we have helicopters. Numerous noble Lords have also been to Rosyth and the Clyde and have seen the ships being built there. This Government are investing in our defence industry, and the defence investment plan will be published when it is ready.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, of course we welcome the decision to award the helicopter contracts for Yeovil, which the local MP, Adam Dance, has been campaigning for, and we are glad that it has been signed. But the reality is that without this investment plan, there are jobs and investment on hold in defence installations right across the UK. They desperately need to know when the orders are going to flow and when the money is going to come through. We also need to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses have a real stake in building up our high-tech capacity and in filling in our munitions requirements.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
On the last point, of course munitions are important, as we see particularly at the moment. That is why the Government are investing £1.5 billion in six new munitions sites. Thirteen sites have been identified, they are being reviewed, and we will come forward with those munitions sites so that we have them available. Again, that is money being invested. We are also talking about small and medium-sized businesses. We know that the future is not just in the big primes but in small and medium-sized businesses. That is why we have set up within the Ministry of Defence an organisation to drive that growth. Small and medium-sized businesses are crucial, and we will develop those as well.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
My Lords, I agree that we should judge the Government on what they do. My noble friend the Minister has referred to the £10 billion defence contract with Norway to build Type 26 frigates, which has for the first time in many years brought sustainability to the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde. I ask my noble friend the Minister to double down on commitments to make sure that the jobs and investment that flow from this benefit all in Scotland, most particularly those in deprived communities. I ask him to set up a taskforce to make sure that all Scots and all people in the west of Scotland benefit from this—as I say, particularly the most deprived. This Government are taking action; let us make sure that people get the benefit of that action.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. I will consider her suggestion to ensure that the most deprived communities benefit from the investment. That is why we have the skills agenda and why Scotland has a defence growth deal. My noble friend will know that nearly 12,000 jobs are dependent on MoD investment in Scotland and that on the Clyde and in Rosyth we are seeing significant investment. This Government will drive that investment forward.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I refer to my register of interests. I welcome the defence growth round table that took place in Belfast last week. By all accounts it was a very worthwhile event, particularly its focus on the challenges to growth. Does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on political leaders in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh to get behind the defence industry and not shy away from it at this particularly turbulent time?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I do agree. The noble Baroness will know how many jobs in Northern Ireland are dependent on the defence industry—not least Thales, which has seen a £1.6 billion investment. I would have thought that everyone would have welcomed that for the jobs and prosperity it brings.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, while I accept what the Minister has said about current investment, there is a continuing delay in defence investment and orders, which not only is damaging to the Government’s relationship with the home defence industry but risks pushing urgent UK requirements down the queue for future deliveries. Will the Government confirm that the UK’s orders remain prioritised for the Type 26 frigate programme?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We will ensure that we deliver the frigate programme as announced. We are delighted with the frigate deal that has come from Norway, and we are hoping to bring forward other significant investments. The noble Earl, with his Scottish roots, will know how important this investment is to Scotland. We will continue to drive that investment forward. We will make sure that we protect our own frigate programme as far as we can, but exports are an important part of what we do as well.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, Northern Ireland is rightly designated as one of the five key UK regions that are pivotal to the success of this strategy, thanks to the Province’s expertise in cyber security, shipbuilding and missile manufacturing. Can the Minister update the House on precisely what progress His Majesty’s Government have made in delivering this strategy in the six months since it was published and what benefits it has brought to the people of Northern Ireland?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said, there have been meetings in Northern Ireland to drive the strategy forward. We are hoping to make an announcement about the growth deal for Northern Ireland to build on the consultations that have taken place. Northern Ireland is home to Thales and a diverse range of defence and dual-use industries. The country is recognised as a leading cyber security hub, boosted by the Queen’s University Belfast Centre for Secure Information Technologies and Momentum One Zero. It is also a critical home to Thales and Harland & Wolff, companies that are critical to our support for Ukraine and our maritime strength. That is a good news story for Northern Ireland and for the whole of the UK.
British Farming: Competitiveness
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harlech
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase the competitiveness of British farming against imported produce.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my farming and land management interests in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are backing British farmers to create a productive, profitable and sustainable future for farming. We will always consider whether overseas produce has an unfair advantage and any impact that it may have. Where necessary, we will be prepared to use the full range of powers at our disposal to protect our most sensitive sectors. We will set out our wider plans to boost farming profitability and long-term viability later this year.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. UK food self-sufficiency has fallen below 65%. Britain increasingly relies on volatile international markets while holding its own farmers to higher standards than most of our trading partners. The Batters review was unequivocal that food security is national security, so, yes or no, will the Government commit to treating agriculture as a sensitive sector in all future trade negotiations and ensure that no future trade deal allows imports produced to lower welfare or environmental standards to undercut British farmers?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have been very clear when working on our trading agreements with other countries that our standards are sacrosanct. We will not allow deals that undermine the standards that we have in this country. We are investing £11.8 billion in the farming budget over this Parliament, so we are absolutely serious about building our farming road map and responding positively to the Farming Profitability Review from the noble Baroness, Lady Batters. It is really important that any products that are produced to different environmental or animal welfare standards can be placed on the UK market only if they comply with the strict requirements that we put in place.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, the way to help with this significant issue would be the Government achieving their own manifesto promise of getting at least 50% of food supply to the public sector produced by British food producers. Can the Minister share with us what is preventing the Government achieving that with some urgency?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely correct that we talked in our manifesto about the importance of public procurement in supporting our food industry. The Procurement Act allows contracts for certain value thresholds also to be reserved for smaller UK suppliers. We want to look at the big suppliers and the smaller suppliers in order that we can deliver that manifesto commitment as best we can, because 50% is a large amount of our food procurement. Last year, we had a new national procurement policy statement, which puts emphasis on weighting environmental and social outcomes in government contracts. British farmers and local suppliers will be very well placed to meet those outcomes.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, one way to improve the competitiveness of UK farming is through innovation. The Government have invested a considerable amount in research and innovation in relation to agriculture and the food system through UKRI. As a result of that, the UK is at the forefront of a number of novel technologies, including precision breeding and the use of AI to detect animal diseases. In negotiating a new SPS agreement with our colleagues in Europe, will there be a carve-out for these new technologies so that we can continue to develop and use them even if we have a new agreement and dynamic alignment with the European Union?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am going to have to disappoint the noble Lord in that I am not able to discuss any specific carve-outs that we are looking at during the negotiations with the European Union. What I can say is that the innovative areas that he referred to are under discussion, because they are very important both for our scientific communities and for our farming communities, and those discussions are ongoing.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interest as a member of the Government’s Veterinary Medicines Working Group. In so doing, I commend the work of my noble friend the Minister in achieving agreements with the European Union in that regard. Further to that, can I urge her, working with the EU as part of the reset, to ensure that we achieve an SPS veterinary and phytosanitary agreement that will help promote and protect our farming industry and food security, not least in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that working with the European Union around sanitary and phytosanitary issues regarding veterinary medicines is very important and something that we are clearly focused on. I also thank her for her role in the Veterinary Medicines Working Group. The whole group came together to do the best we could to ensure that veterinary medicines were still available in Northern Ireland after the end of the grace period at the end of last year. We will continue to work together on how we move forward within the EU reset.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the Government have said that they do not expect the EU–Mercosur trade deal to impact UK food production, supply or security, or indeed UK imports of agricultural products from the bloc. However, the British Agriculture Bureau has taken a market-wide view and has warned that the deal risks increasing competition on the EU market, potentially displacing products on to the UK market. What is the Minister’s assessment of this? I declare my interest as a dairy and beef farmer.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is important to say that the UK values its relationship with the Mercosur countries and we are committed to identifying ways to continue to strengthen our trade relations. We are not currently negotiating a free trade agreement with Mercosur, but our trade strategy is clear that we will consider new free trade agreements where there is a comprehensive deal that makes sense at the time.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in relation to the latest free trade deal with India, there is every reason to believe that Indian dairy products will be allowed into the UK market without reciprocal rights for British dairy farmers to export their products to India. How can such a deal be done when we are trying to support British farmers?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
On the India deal, we maintained tariffs on several products, including pork, chicken and eggs. That was because we had concerns about animal welfare standards and the potential impact on British farmers. That is what we will do and the position we will take when looking at trade deals with any country.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, when will the Government publish their response to the excellent Farming Profitability Review by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters? Will it focus on the farm-to-table food chain to ensure that profitability reaches the farm gate and is not consumed by retailers, wholesalers and distributors en route? In that regard, will it also take note of the model set forth in Great South West’s recent agri-food growth plan, which shows the value of regional focus, championing local farming and food production? I note my interest as a Devon farmer and a programme board member of the food security board.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
On the latter part of the noble Earl’s question, Great South West does tremendous work in this area. I went to the launch of its review, which is a blueprint for how the Government believe we should be delivering and supporting farming in our country. I commend the noble Earl for his work with and support for that group.
There are a large number of recommendations—57—in the Farming Profitability Review from the noble Baroness, Lady Batters. We are looking at those carefully but taking some actions on a number of them already so that we can deliver practical support and certainty for farmers where we can before we publish our full response. Part of that is the new farming and food partnership board, which we have announced, that will bring together farmers, processors, retailers and the wider supply chain to drive collaboration and increase the kind of fairness that the noble Earl talked about.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My noble friend referred to the Government’s procurement plans. In my experience, I never found any government procurement plans; there were departmental procurement plans. It was impossible in particular regions to get the prisons, the schools and the hospitals to work together, because they had their own budgets and decision-making. That is still the case today, and it goes against co-ordinated effort to help British farmers.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
One of the important things that we are doing in Defra and other departments is trying to have a better collaborative relationship with local authorities. Much of what we want to do as a Government will be delivered by local authorities so, unless we support them better, we will not be able to deliver much of what we need on the ground. Procurement is an exact example of that.
Assisted Dying Legislation: Isle of Man and Jersey
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to enable legislation passed by the Tynwald of the Isle of Man and States Assembly of Jersey allowing assisted dying to receive Royal Assent in a timely fashion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, since receiving the Isle of Man’s Assisted Dying Bill, we have engaged with its authorities, in line with the UK’s responsibility for its international relations. This includes ensuring compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. Advice on Royal Assent will go to the Lord Chancellor in due course and, when we receive the Jersey law, we will follow the normal process of scrutiny in a timely manner.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. We are in an odd position—are we not?—on the assisted dying Bill. The Isle of Man has legislation in place, the Welsh Assembly has just approved a legislative consent Motion, the States Assembly of Jersey has agreed a Bill and the Scottish Parliament will shortly follow. Yet, after nearly nine months and 180 hours of consideration in our Parliament, we are still stuck on Clause 3 of a 57-clause Bill. Given that 73% of the public back the Bill, is not the position of the Bill’s House of Lords opponents beginning to look rather odd and, frankly, out of touch?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend knows, the Government have been clear that we are neutral on the topic of assisted dying and the passage of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. It is a Private Member’s Bill and my noble friend the Chief Whip has made it clear that there will be no government time given to the Bill in your Lordships’ House. It is for your Lordships to determine the progress of the Bill.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, before Royal Assent has even been granted to Jersey’s Bill, a Deputy has tabled a Motion calling for assisted dying to be extended to non-terminally ill people with unbearable suffering. In reply, the Health Minister has said “Now is not the time, but it would be appropriate to consider extending the law as part of the three-year review of the Act”. Does the Minister not agree that this demonstrates that the terminal illness criterion is no cast-iron guarantee, but is simply the mission creep that many of us have warned against concerning our legislation?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, the Crown dependencies are self-governing jurisdictions with their own democratically elected Parliaments. The UK is not responsible for looking at the content or the policy of any legislation that they pass, but merely for checking that it is compatible, for example, with the European convention. I am certainly not going to say anything that would change the Government’s position of neutrality in relation to the Private Member’s Bill that is passing through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the process leading up to advising on Royal Assent is one in which the UK Government examines island legislation to see if it has unintended effects in the United Kingdom. Is that process being gone through and, if so, how, given that we do not know what the Government’s position would be on such fundamental questions as whether assisted dying would be provided within or outside the National Health Service, and all the dependencies rely on specialist medical help from hospitals in England?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
At the risk of repeating myself, the Government do not look at the merits of the legislation that they receive in relation to the Crown dependencies: these are stand-alone pieces of legislation that do not affect the position the Government take in relation to the Private Member’s Bill before this House.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, in addition to the assisted dying legislation in the Crown dependencies of Jersey and the Isle of Man, there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, observed, also legislation coming forward in Scotland and, quite distinctly and separately, in England and Wales. If assisted dying becomes lawful in one jurisdiction of the United Kingdom but not another, can the Minister explain what UK-wide framework has been developed to manage the legal, ethical and medical consequences of that divergence, or are we in danger of creating for the United Kingdom a fragmented regime in this most ethically sensitive issue, without any agreed cross-border protocol?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I understand why the noble and learned Lord asks that question, but it would be entirely premature of the Government to work out what the situation is going to be, since we do not know whether or if that Private Member’s Bill will pass through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I oppose the principle of assisted dying and I think that the current Bill is very flawed. However, I also regret the fact that your Lordships’ House has not been able to actually have votes on some of the key elements within the Bill. I think there are many noble Lords who regret the way this Bill is being conducted.
My noble friend says the Government are neutral, which I fully understand, but, in the current circumstances, surely the Government need to think about how Parliament can be helped to come to some conclusions. Surely, we would start with a vote in principle in the Commons. If it is in favour, the Government should produce a Bill that would allow us to have proper scrutiny. Will she at least consider a way forward that enables us to come to a proper conclusion?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I do not know how many more ways I can find to say that the Government are neutral on this Bill. My noble friend the Chief Whip has made extra days available on Fridays: we still have four more to go. How that time is used is a matter for your Lordships’ House, bearing in mind that the position of the Government consistently has been that this is a question of conscience and not a matter for the Government.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, how are the Government considering the proposed legislation in the different areas to be safe within the European Convention on Human Rights, given that we have already heard that Jersey’s euthanasia is proposed to extend to those who are not terminally ill and that the deficits in the infrastructure of the Isle of Man Bill have already been identified? There is ongoing discussion about the Bill proposed in Scotland, which looks quite different, and the Welsh Assembly gave legislative consent to only some parts of the Bill, under the impression that, if it did not, it would have no control whatever over how the legislation was enacted, given that health is devolved to Wales.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. She has asked for quite a lot of information and we may have to write to her on that. I can certainly speak about what happened in relation to the Isle of Man. We have the Isle of Man for assistance on the Bill’s reliance on codes of practice for the implementation of pre-death and post-death reviews. We also asked for assistance on the training and guidance of healthcare professionals, specifically around safeguarding against potential coercion. The Jersey Bill has not arrived with us yet, but I repeat that the merits of the legislation are not a matter for this Government.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, set out in the Ministry of Justice’s communications with the Isle of Man, there are a number of concerns with the legislation there that are very similar to the concerns that many of us have with the Bill before this House, and many amendments have been put down to deal with those concerns. We would be making faster progress if the sponsor of the Bill would engage seriously with those concerns and accept some of the amendments that have been put forward by those who want to make the Bill better.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
Can anybody think of another way for me to say that the Government are neutral in relation to this Bill? And I am certainly not going to comment on matters that are for the sponsor.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that respecting the settled will of the legislatures of the Isle of Man and Jersey on matters within their domestic competence strengthens the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Crown dependencies? Will the Government therefore commit to publishing clear criteria and timeframes for the granting of Royal Assent?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The most recent communication from the Isle of Man—the latest information—was received at the end of January. Officials are now preparing advice for the Lord Chancellor. It would be completely inappropriate for me to comment on either the timing or the content of that advice.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, notwithstanding the Government’s determined position of neutrality, which the Minister has rightly said she has repeated many times, would she not accept that, once Royal Assent is given to the procedures and the Acts in Jersey and in the Isle of Man, there will be an extraordinarily unsatisfactory patchwork of provision across the United Kingdom for assisted dying, and therefore it is particularly important that the Government should make sure that the Bill before your Lordships’ House is properly completed?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I still cannot think of another, better way of saying it. I think it would be rude to my noble friend to say that I refer her to my previous answer, but I am afraid I do.
Deputy Chairmen of Committees
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Senior Deputy Speaker
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I beg to move the three Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc. In doing so, I place on record my considerable thanks to deputies past and present, who are so integral, indeed essential, to the work of your Lordships’ House.
Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
Gibraltar Treaty
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving the House the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement. I should begin by saying that the Official Opposition welcome the fact that the Government of Gibraltar have been at the table throughout these negotiations. Gibraltar is British. The Government tell us that sovereignty was never on the table throughout these negotiations, and it never should be. I only wish they were consistent in their application of this approach to other treaties.
This treaty runs to more than 1,000 pages and, of course, we need time carefully to consider the detail. I thank the Minister and his colleagues for ensuring the publication of the treaty in draft. This has allowed us to begin the process of scrutiny early. Can the Minister say when the treaty will be laid formally so that we can plan for the CRaG process that will follow? When we went through the CRaG process for the 2025 UK-Mauritius treaty, the Government failed to follow the Ponsonby rule, which established the convention that the Government will allow a debate on a substantive Motion in respect of treaty ratification where a formal request is made by the Official Opposition. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will follow the convention if a request is received in respect of this treaty?
On a connected scrutiny point, can the Minister say whether domestic legislation will also be needed before we proceed to ratification? If so, when will that be laid before the House? As the Minister knows, we have been critical of the Government’s sequencing of the agreements in respect to the UK-Mauritius treaty and the Bill, so can he say whether the Government are aware of any extant and binding treaties in respect of Gibraltar that may be in tension with the terms of the draft treaty that has now been agreed with the EU?
I turn from process to the practicalities of the treaty. Can the Minister please set out the steps that will be taken under the treaty to protect the rights of British citizens freely to visit Gibraltar? We know that dual passport checks will be undertaken at the airport in Gibraltar. What recourse will a citizen have in circumstances where Spanish border control and British border control are in disagreement on a person’s admission to what will remain British territory? Can he say what oversight UK authorities will have over the activities of the Spanish border control operations in Gibraltar? What is the process for dispute resolution?
Ministers know that we on these Benches have profound concerns about the process of dynamic alignment. We must not be rule-takers. How will dynamic alignment operate under this treaty? How will Gibraltar and the UK avoid becoming subject to ongoing EU rule-taking without meaningful political control? Can the Minister confirm that Gibraltar and not EU politicians will decide on her own future?
When the Minister in the other place was asked about Article 25 and its reference to the ECHR, he said that
“we comply with the ECHR, as does Gibraltar and, indeed, Spain and the EU. We do not shy away from that”.—[Official Report, 26/2/26; col. 489.]
That is, obviously, a statement of the status quo, but can the Minister please explain what the status of Article 25 would be if the UK were to withdraw from the ECHR? Would an amendment to the treaty need to be agreed with the EU at that point or could the UK derogate from Article 25 unilaterally?
Finally, on a point of fairness, this treaty appears to create an imbalance in the treatment of EU citizens and UK citizens. An EU national may have free access to Gibraltar through the land border without any restrictions whatever, but a British national travelling from the UK could potentially be banned from entering at the airport by Spanish border control guards. These are challenging issues, and we understand why compromise can be necessary, but could the Minister please set out the work that he is doing to ensure that UK citizens continue to have smooth and free access to Gibraltar, which is, after all, still a British territory? I look forward to the Minister’s reply to these questions.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister back to FCDO business, even though it may well be temporary. These Benches support this treaty. In the House of Commons, without any sense of irony, the Conservative Opposition said that Parliament had been kept in the dark about this treaty. However, it was the previous Government who ignored the wishes of the 96% of people of Gibraltar who sought to remain in the EU, forced on them the hardest of Brexits, took no action to correct the damage that they were told by Gibraltarians would happen, and then refused to present to Parliament a mandate for negotiations to have a sustainable agreement.
I therefore thank the Government for working closely with the Gibraltar Government and agreeing with these Benches, who said before the election that nothing about Gibraltar should be agreed without Gibraltar. I also put on record the hard work of the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister, Joseph Garcia, who is from our sister party, as well as of officials, including the recently retired Dominique Searle, the Gibraltar representative in the UK, for all their patience, perseverance and dedication to reach agreement.
I welcome the fact that the Gibraltar Parliament is debating this treaty as we speak. The fact that the Gibraltar Government have accepted a constructive amendment from the opposition means that we will likely see it pass unanimously in the Gibraltar Parliament and then be sent to us for consideration under the CRaG process. I hope that, if our EU committee seeks a debate on this, the Government will honour the Grimstone convention in this House and timetable a debate. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government will do that if the EU committee seeks it.
These Benches have supported, and will always support, the right of the Gibraltarians to decide their future. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that there are no sovereignty concessions and, indeed, no mechanisms in this treaty that would allow for sovereignty claims? I know that the Gibraltar Government sought independent legal advice to confirm this, but the Minister putting it on the record at the Dispatch Box would be helpful.
I believe that the EU and Spain have entered into these new arrangements in good faith, but we have to be conscious of the previous unilateral actions of Madrid, which has caused disruption and concern for Gibraltarians in the past. Can we receive assurances that the dispute resolution mechanisms between the EU and the UK will also allow for Gibraltar to seek to extract itself from the terms should it feel that the terms have been reneged on? I hope that that will never be necessary, but we do not know; a right-wing Government in Madrid might perhaps take a different view from the current one.
I note also the Gibraltar Government’s pragmatic position on the involvement and operation of the ECJ. We are perhaps starting to see sensible approaches again, which is welcome. As we seek better and closer relations with the EU, can we ensure in the reset on SPS and, I hope, youth movement that there will be no negative implications for this treaty? I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. Also, as part of the SPS discussions, can we seek an SPS point for Gibraltar adjacent to Gibraltar—not farther away than currently being envisaged—which will be greatly beneficial to the Gibraltar economy?
The benefits of the work of the Gib Government will be for the people and the economy of Gibraltar. There are 15,000 crossings each day for workers in Gibraltar. All parts of society are interconnected. The healthcare and social care service is reliant on staffing and family relationships cross the frontier. This does not make any Gibraltarian less British, but it does mean that easing and removing friction is a pressing need.
We would also like to see no delay now in the implementation and I ask the Minister if we are preparing for provisional implementation of the agreed text, prior to formal ratification, to avoid the unnecessary burden of installing costly infrastructure for entry and exit systems before 10 April. This would be a pragmatic and welcome step.
We welcome the approach of the Gibraltar Government, the UK Government and the EU, and we hope that we can learn positive lessons and build on this leadership by Gibraltar so that the rest of the UK can adopt a similar mechanism and processes to enjoy the benefits that Gibraltar will see. If it is good for the people and economy of Gibraltar, does the Minister agree that it is good for the people and the economy of the UK as a whole?
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords for their questions and contributions and I welcome their support for the agreement. There is no doubt that this is good for Gibraltar. I declare an interest: I was a union official representing members in Gibraltar for 30-odd years, so I visited it on numerous occasions. I also went there and experienced it when there were difficulties on the border. In fact, I represented 10,000 Moroccan workers who were based in the barracks in Gibraltar when the border was far from open, so this is good news. Sovereignty is not, and never has been, on the table. In fact, the agreement safeguards it explicitly, and the double lock we set out at the beginning has been fully respected.
I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that we expect the signature next month. Following the signature, the treaty will be laid under CRaG in the usual way, and we will follow the appropriate parliamentary processes. There are, of course, parallel processes on the EU side that must be observed. There is no doubt that we will follow CRaG, and Parliament will be able to fully scrutinise the treaty.
This really is good news not only for the economy and the people of Gibraltar—as the noble Lord said, 15,000 people will be affected, and this has the support of Gibraltar—but the economy of Gibraltar is 90% service-orientated and the cross-border employment created is also having a positive impact on the region in Spain, so it is good news for Spain as well. Certainly, when I first went to Gibraltar, La Línea and the area around that was one of the highest areas of unemployment in Spain. So, this really is good news.
I can also reassure the noble Lord that British citizens have always been subject to immigration checks in Gibraltar. That has always been the case. Certainly, as a union official, I could not work in Gibraltar unless explicitly approved by the Gibraltar Government. Immigration and entry into Gibraltar is and will remain the responsibility of the Government of Gibraltar. As the noble Lord said, as we speak, the Gibraltar Parliament is considering the treaty. The principle we have adhered to in these negotiations is “Nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar”, and we have been clear that that will continue to be the case as we move forward.
We are also clear that, as is normal in these types of agreements, a range of mechanisms are available to help the parties to resolve disagreements. Certainly the expectation is that we will resolve those issues amicably through dialogue, and if that is not possible then there is a formal dispute resolution mechanism that includes the possibility of using independent arbitration to resolve the issues. Lastly, although we hope it does not come to this and no one expects it to, there is the ultimate insurance of a unilateral termination clause that can be used in the event that it becomes apparent that the agreement is not working for us or our Gibraltarian partners. So it is clear that all the guarantees that we have sought, particularly those regarding our military operations and facilities, are there.
I am pleased that the noble Lords welcome the agreement and that, after five years of uncertainty for the economy, we now have a situation where we can move forward that will support the continuation of Gibraltar as a British territory but under the control and determination of the Gibraltar people.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I have visited Gibraltar many times, and I trust the judgment of the Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, who has welcomed this draft treaty. However, its publication has echoes of the Windsor Framework, which was supposed to strengthen Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom but has instead diluted UK sovereignty over the Province, where EU law now increasingly dominates, has created a major trade barrier between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and has significantly increased costs for consumers. How confident is the Minister that the draft treaty has been properly thought out and will not leave Gibraltarians in the same position as Northern Ireland, subject to a diktat from Brussels over which they have no say? Might it also increase the risk of Gibraltar’s proud British identity being compromised by a Spanish Government who have long wanted to have their own flag flying over the Rock?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
There have been a number of occasions when the noble Lord and I have been in Gibraltar together, so I certainly understand and fully appreciate his commitment. However, I want to be clear that we were not willing to enter into an agreement that the Government of Gibraltar were not content with. They are fully supportive of the agreement, which they judge will be good for jobs and businesses in Gibraltar, for the people of Gibraltar and indeed, as I said earlier, for the prosperity of the whole region.
Gibraltar is not joining the EU single market or Schengen. It will align with some laws through its own domestic system, mainly in relation to immigration and customs. The Court of Justice of the European Union will not have jurisdiction over Gibraltar but will have a limited interpretative role in resolving disputes over EU law. Accordingly, Gibraltar courts will factor CJEU rulings into their consideration when ruling on matters that touch on EU-aligned law in Gibraltar.
However, let us be clear: we know that Gibraltar is a small place geographically, but it has huge potential for service industries. That is where the jobs are coming from and where Gibraltar exports, and this agreement will guarantee that for the future. With all parties agreeing to that, we can see a prosperous future for the people of Gibraltar.
Lord Redwood (Con)
What increases will there be in taxes, excise duties and handling charges? How much money will be sent to Spain for levelling up? What are the estimated costs of all the additional regulation? Is this not rather bad for business in Gibraltar?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not think a single businessman in Gibraltar would agree to that. As the noble Lord said, 98% of the people in Gibraltar, through their referendum, supported the continuation of membership of the EU. The EU benefited Gibraltar in terms of cross-border trade and prosperity. The situation since Brexit has been five years of uncertainty that has impacted on businesses. What the Gibraltar Government fully understand, but perhaps the noble Lord does not, is that their service industry is their biggest export—that is what generates jobs. Other customs and tax issues are for the Gibraltar Government to agree, but they will work in concert where that does not impact on the trade that they seek to expand upon.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest in Spain. I very much welcome this draft treaty. I think it is very much for the benefit of the United Kingdom, Gibraltar and Spain. There is reference in the helpful note prepared by the Foreign Office to various “Parliaments with an interest”. The note then goes on to say:
“The Government will … work closely with the Government of Gibraltar, the EU and Spain”.
Can I ask about ratification? Does this treaty need to be ratified by the European Parliament, the British Government, the Gibraltar Government and the Spanish Government—or not? That is one question. Secondly, there is reference to indirect taxes in Gibraltar being imposed without adopting VAT. Can the Minister explain what that means?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
This is a treaty between the EU and the United Kingdom and obviously the EU has consulted and engaged with the Spanish Government, who are supportive of the EU agreement. We have been consistent, as I have said before, and there has not been a single meeting without the Gibraltar Government and the Chief Minister being present. That will continue in any discussions. On the tax and customs relationship, there will be changes, not least because the border will be open for goods. The days when I bought 200 cigarettes and put them in the boot of my car to get across that border are well over. Cigarettes will undoubtedly cost roughly the same in Gibraltar in the future as in the EU. That is still substantially lower. I notice the noble Lord smiling at me—it is about time he stopped smoking.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I have recently joined the European Affairs Committee. Does the Minister agree that it might be better, when we consider all this, to take on board what the Government of Gibraltar think its impact will be on business in Gibraltar, rather than, with all due respect to him, what the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, thinks?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think the noble Lord is right. That is the principle we have adopted. In tomorrow’s newspapers, particularly those in Gibraltar, we will read that the Parliament of Gibraltar agree. It is a matter for Gibraltar; it is good news and I think we should appreciate that.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, it is good to hear that the Minister has a personal connection with Gibraltar and experience of working there, because there is so much misunderstanding about what Gibraltar is and who the people of Gibraltar are. Will he confirm that his Government recognise that Gibraltarians are not and never have been Spanish, that they are Gibraltarian, that they want to remain British, and have always said so? Will he further confirm that his Government recognise the strategic importance of Gibraltar as a base for the Royal Navy—an integral part of NATO operations in the Mediterranean and the surrounding district—and that that will always be respected?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Absolutely. The noble Baroness knows my commitment to Gibraltar. This Government are committed, and Minister Doughty has been absolutely clear about that in all the negotiations. I repeat, nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar; that is the key. Nothing in the agreement, either now or in the future, will fetter our ability to operate unimpeded at the naval base. This was a firm condition for us, and Spain has been co-operative and is a key NATO ally. My noble friend is sitting next to me; MoD officials and Ministers have been closely involved in the negotiations and the Defence Secretary fully supports the agreement. It is absolutely a commitment that we will maintain.
Lord Barrow (CB)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the conclusion of these negotiations. This has been years in the making and I know from first-hand experience how tough the negotiations were. However, this is a UK-EU agreement, so how will the Government of Gibraltar be involved in decision-making if it comes into force? What will happen, for instance, if the Government of Gibraltar feel that the agreement is no longer delivering the hoped-for economic and other benefits?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and hope that I made the position clear at the beginning. To repeat, Minister Doughty wrote to the Chief Minister yesterday, making these principles absolutely clear. In fact, the Chief Minister read out to the Gibraltar Parliament the principles about which we have been clear throughout the negotiations: nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar. The agreement has been negotiated to ensure the long-term continued security and prosperity of Gibraltar. The United Kingdom will exercise its powers on the termination or suspension of its obligations under the agreement only following full consultation with the Government of Gibraltar, whose wishes and views we will follow. That is the principle to which we will stick rigidly.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
It is wonderful to hear the phrase “nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar”. How much Northern Ireland would have wished that was the case when we were having negotiations with the European Union; however, that is a matter not for the Minister but for the previous Government, who would have done well to take that on board.
To follow on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about dispute resolution, in the past Madrid has caused some difficulties for Gibraltar by closing the border and what have you. Are the Minister and the Government happy with what has been put in place to deal with any difficulties that may arise from Madrid? That would be really important for the Gibraltarians, who have suffered in the past.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right—the Gibraltarians have suffered in the past, as I have personally experienced and seen. That has had a serious impact on the economy of not only Gibraltar but the local surrounding area. We are clear that dispute resolution processes and mechanisms will be available to both parties and are sure that any situation is best dealt with through agreement. However, if it cannot be resolved amicably, there are processes in place that we are certain will work.
What we have seen over the past five years of negotiations is a determination for all parties to see this as a way to ensure the success of Gibraltar’s economy and its continued opportunity for employment for 15,000 people in the local area. Both Gibraltar and Spain are benefiting from this agreement.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Purvis about provisional implementation before 10 April.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not have a clear answer on that. We have a process; the treaty has to go through a formal process in the EU. But I think today’s debate in the Gibraltar Parliament, where I hope there will be unanimous agreement—I share the noble Lord’s aspiration—will ensure that there is a stability about the future. People know the way they are now going, which is getting rid of that five years of uncertainty that we have seen since Brexit.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, many years ago the commander-in-chief of a commando brigade invaded Spain when they were meant to be exercising in Gibraltar. That was quite embarrassing, but my question relates to the military. I have not had a chance to look at the totality of this treaty, but what I have heard about it is very good. Will we still be able to use the Z berth for nuclear submarine repairs in Gibraltar? Will we be able to store the whole gamut of weapon stocks that we have, without any interference or checking from the Spanish, and will we be able to do both air and maritime operations from Gibraltar, without any aspect of those coming under the purview of Spain?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am not going to declare what arms we have where at the current time, but the reality is that nothing in this agreement will affect our ability to operate unimpeded. That is absolutely guaranteed and the MoD has been involved, certainly in respect of our naval operations out of Gibraltar. The noble Lord also mentioned the airport and elements of the agreement relating to it. Obviously, there is oversight of the company running its commercial civilian aspects, but these do not affect RAF Gibraltar. The terms of the agreement fully protect the operations and independence of the UK’s military facilities in Gibraltar. The airfield is run and managed by the MoD; the agreement does not change this one bit.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, we have the current slightly bizarre situation where British military aircraft flying into RAF Gibraltar are not allowed to overfly Spanish airspace. Is that resolved by this treaty or not?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Nothing impedes our operations and, of course, Spain is a NATO ally and we work co-operatively with Spain. One of the really good things about this agreement from a civilian point of view for Gibraltar International Airport—again, this is an important point on the economy—is that flights will be able to operate across Europe, including to Spain. That will create opportunities for the airlines that operate out of Gibraltar. It is a tourist destination in the area, so great opportunities can exist from this agreement.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, in the other place the Foreign Secretary stated that uniformed Spanish officials will be stationed at checkpoints only at the borders. However, various commentators have since warned that these same uniformed officials will be able to operate within the territory away from the border. Can the Minister give the House some reassurance on this very important point?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not think there is any confusion. There will be border checks, but the key difference is that it will operate so that there is freedom across the border. The border will be open in the terms of the agreement, which is significant, but flying into Gibraltar there will be checks. Those checks are required and will be operated on the same basis as we have, for example, with the French in St Pancras. We have border controls in London done by the French. A similar sort of operation will be conducted in the terms of this agreement.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend kindly write to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, about flights into Gibraltar over Spanish land? I only ever visited in 1977 and 1979, in solidarity when the Spanish had closed the border. It is a great place for tourism but, if I remember correctly, there is a very tight turn on the aircraft because of the inability to fly over Spanish land.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Commercial flights were obviously limited because there was no opportunity to fly anywhere else in the EU. I have flown there many times and have done that sharp turn; it can be pretty frightening. The really good thing about this agreement is that it opens up Gibraltar International Airport to other EU destinations and other destinations in Spain. I think that is a really good thing that will change. I repeat that the agreement does not impede any of the activities of our defence operations, whether that is the RAF or the Navy.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
Can I ask the Minister a point of clarification? I think I understood him to say this in his opening statement. Is it the British Government’s legal position that the nature of entry requirements to Gibraltar is a matter for the Gibraltar Government and not the UK Government?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Yes, it has always been the case. Believe it or not, that also happens in Jersey and the Isle of Man. It is not an unusual situation. I have visited Gibraltar on numerous occasions and had to go through those checks. If I wanted to stay for any lengthy period, I had to request permission from the Gibraltar Parliament.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise that these negotiations have been taking place over many years and have included the noble Lord. I pay tribute to Minister Doughty and his team for all that they have done, and the Governments of Gibraltar and Spain. Does my noble friend agree that this deal concludes the final chapter in the Brexit deal and leaves us free to pursue a modern, mutually beneficial economic relationship with the European Union?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Those aspirations are not necessarily reliant on each other. The really good thing is that this agreement is for the people of Gibraltar and the Government of Gibraltar. I agree with my noble friend: Minister Doughty has worked tirelessly with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to achieve this agreement. On whether it will influence our future, we all know that the prosperity of our country and Gibraltar requires good relations with the EU. That is our objective and we will continue to do that.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
“(7A) Regulations made under this section may not come into force earlier than the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which they are published.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulations establishing the retail licensing regime for tobacco, vaping and nicotine products in England may not come into force until at least one year after they are published. This is intended to ensure that businesses and local authorities have sufficient time to understand, prepare for and implement the new licensing requirements, including administrative systems, training and enforcement arrangements.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 21A is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kamall. In Committee the Minister stated that the Government would design a licensing regime that would support compliant retailers while targeting rogue operators. She also spoke of minimising burdens where possible and recognised the importance of ensuring that retailers and local authorities had sufficient time for training and development. Reference was also made to a call for evidence and to the subsequent consultation that would address matters such as the process for granting licences and implementation generally.
A retail licensing system will require the creation of application systems, fee structures, compliance mechanisms and, crucially, enforcement arrangements. Local authorities will need to establish or adapt administrative systems, train their staff and ensure alignment with trading standards and environmental health functions. Small retailers, many of them independent businesses, will need to understand the new requirements. They will obviously have to submit applications, adjust their own internal processes and potentially invest in training or record-keeping systems.
In our Committee debate, I was encouraged by the Minister’s statement, which indicated that the Government were actively seeking views on how long a period implementation would require. I therefore have a number of questions for the Minister. First, can she update the House on the outcome of the call for evidence, if she has it, and the subsequent consultation to which she referred in Committee? Specifically, is she in a position to provide the feedback the Government have received from retailers and local authorities on the time they would require to implement a licensing regime?
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for asking some very practical questions, to which I hope we will get some practical answers. The only thing I will raise—I do not want to flog a dead horse for the moment—is that there are existing regulations for off-licences, and it would be interesting to see the degree to which the Government feel that those should be reflected, just in case there is a need for the two to come together at some time in the future.
Amendment 25 is key. Tobacco retailers are concerned —I have discussed this following the last debate—because they have never been in this area in any depth. They feel quite strongly that they should have some means of checking they have registered properly, and that, if the local authority changes something, they have a means of going back and checking on that portal. That is the reason for this amendment, and I will listen carefully to what the Minister says when she responds.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the six amendments in this group that stand in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston. In doing so, I declare an interest as president of the CTSI, although I emphasise that these amendments are not linked to the CTSI or my role there.
Before speaking to those amendments, I will speak in support of Amendment 21A, moved by my noble friend Lord Howe, because small businesses will need all the time they can get to prepare for yet another layer of administrative burden. By way of background, the track and trace system, for which specialist tobacconists have been preparing for over five years, requires every economic operator to have a unique identifier code that they must supply when an order is sent out to them. Even something this simple has been remarkably complex and very time consuming. It has taken one supplier in the handmade cigar sector well over two years to register all its customers, and it is not yet there. A fully fledged licensing system, with all that it entails, is likely to be much more complex, especially for businesses such as hotels, for which cigars are not a primary source of income.
Businesses will suffer and possibly cease trading if the licence application process is excessively burdensome in terms of cost, time or hassle. Traditionally, the handmade cigar sector, which comprises mostly family-owned businesses, has been permitted extra time to prepare for new legislation, such as on packaging, display restrictions and so forth, in recognition of how much harder it is for small and micro-businesses with fewer resources to adapt.
I move on to Amendments 23, 30, 43, 45, 114 and 115 in this group. I hope that these amendments will be seen as being a constructive, good-faith effort to identify an evidence-based, proportionate and workable solution for specialist tobacconists. Their principal business, comprising some 70% of their turnover, is in handmade cigars. As I explained on the first day of Report, handmade cigars, which are artisanal, individually crafted, high-value and relatively expensive premium products, are fundamentally distinct from mass-produced, lower-priced, machine-made, small-format cigars and cigarillos. In other words, they occupy a completely different segment of the market. That distinction matters in terms of price, consumer characteristics and, most importantly, the evidence base relating to youth uptake and public health.
There is no credible evidence that handmade cigars contribute to youth uptake or act as a gateway to nicotine addiction. That fact was challenged last week, and I should therefore reiterate that where there is any data or evidence of cigar usage by young people, it refers not to handmade cigars but to machine-made, mass-produced, lower-priced, small-format cigars and cigarillos. The overwhelming majority of those purchasing handmade cigars are over the age of 25, with most being over the age of 35. Furthermore, handmade cigars are not inhaled and are consumed infrequently, not habitually. They are sold almost exclusively through specialist tobacconists and other distinct retail channels to informed adult customers.
In these amendments, we do not oppose the principle of licensing. The introduction of a new licensing framework, however, raises legitimate concerns about how it would apply to existing specialist tobacconists. They are a small number of lawful specialist businesses whose principal business is handmade cigars. Most of them are long-established, multi-generational, family-run, small and micro high-street enterprises. They have long been separately recognised in legislation and regulations. These amendments would provide for the grandfathering of existing specialist tobacconists into the new licensing scheme and seek to protect them from future regulations that might impose numerical caps or geographical restrictions.
These amendments do not go as far as proposing a separate category of licence, nor do they propose exempting new entrants from the licensing regime. They simply recognise that the small businesses operating lawfully under the current stringent regulatory framework should be neither unnecessarily destabilised by the introduction of a new regime nor gradually extinguished by density or zoning controls designed for different purposes. On this point, it is worth noting that in certain locations—St James’s in London is one example—they form a recognised specialist cluster that is popular with tourists and is not dissimilar in character to Savile Row in the context of the bespoke tailoring.
At a time when small businesses face significant economic pressures, we should be cautious about regulatory layering that risks unintended consequences for niche sectors that do not present the public health harms that this Bill is designed to address.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to a number of the amendments laid in my name, starting with Amendments 24 and 25. Noble Lords will note that Amendment 24 seeks to establish a national register of tobacco and vape retailers. The reason I am pushing this so strongly is that the national register would strengthen traceability and support our trading standards officers and, importantly, could become a mechanism to strengthen consumer confidence and public reporting of rogue traders, by providing the general public with the means to distinguish legitimate retailers from rogue operators.
As for Amendment 25, noble Lords will hopefully understand the significant challenges that small businesses in this country are facing at this time. Yet here we are, through the Bill, finding yet more ways to strangle our small, legitimate traders with more red tape and more bureaucracy. I, like several people, I am sure, have heard directly from small retailers that many of them do not even bother to report people who carry out smash and grab thefts to the police, due to the time it takes out of their working day.
With these themes in mind, we should be mindful of passing legislation that places new and undue burdens on these small businesses. If we get this wrong, I fear that this legislation unamended would push many small and currently legally trading businesses into the hands of criminal enterprises that are fuelling illicit tobacco and vape trading across the UK. That is why, through Amendment 25, I am asking for the creation of a single digital portal for licence applications and renewals. This digital portal would lessen the burden on businesses, while also enabling greater oversight from enforcement agencies, all the while reducing the risk of administrative errors.
Amendment 31 would enable licensing authorities to suspend or revoke alcohol licences in cases where tobacco or vape licence conditions are persistently breached. Beyond the fact that, in breaching tobacco and vape licensing requirements, the person would fail to meet the definition of a “fit and proper person”, if the Bill is to succeed, it must be based on meaningful economic consequences that hurt and impact illicit trading. Alcohol represents a very significant proportion of convenience store turnover. Linking the two regimes creates a deterrent and uses existing powers under the Licensing Act 2003. If everybody is serious and genuine in their endeavours to protect children through this legislation, we must close this enforcement gap and send a message to those who breach tobacco and vape conditions by deeming them unfit to sell alcohol.
Finally, Amendment 44 seeks to ensure fairness and avoid regulatory arbitrage by ensuring that there is consistency across England and Wales. I seek your Lordships’ consent to apply the same alcohol licence linkage principle in Wales to that which I have proposed for England. That principle is that serious and persistent breaches of tobacco retail conditions should carry real commercial consequences, hitting rogue traders in a way that seeks to gravely disrupt and deter rogue trading.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, we have had a very valuable debate so far on the practicalities of a generational ban on smoking. I have been particularly intrigued by the journey we have taken. In that journey, a number of people have come to me, and I thank them for the enormous amount of information and support we have received from the specialist cigar industry. I was particularly delighted, noble Lords may be interested to hear, that my noble friend Lord Parkinson alerted me to a brand of cigars that sadly no longer exists called the House of Lords Cigar Range. I am sure we could sell that in the gift shop if things changed.
I also thank the Minister for her assurances over sampling rooms. I know this was debated, but I would be grateful for further clarification relating to her correct assertion that plain packaging will be difficult for specialist tobacconists to comply with, and thus extra care will be taken to ensure that they can carry on their business within the law, and that their specific needs will be met, as they are already in relation to the display of tobacco products.
However, these amendments, to which I have added my name, go further in protecting this important if niche industry of specialist tobacconists. The purveyors of these handmade, hand-rolled cigars, as my noble friend Lord Lindsay said, employ hundreds of people. They are largely family-owned or small businesses. They have been trading in some cases for hundreds of years and, importantly, provide delight to thousands of tourists and enthusiasts every day.
Regarding compliance with local licensing regulations, I do not believe that these shops have ever had any form of enforcement or issue around their compliance. I believe their behaviour to be exemplary. If we do not acknowledge the difference of these specialist tobacco shops but simply lump them in with the hordes of vape shops that are a blight on our high streets, we will end up in the worse situation that is causing the sorts of problems that we see today and that have just been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to follow my noble friend, although I fear that, after his poetry, I will be much more prosaic. I will speak to Amendment 21A, moved by my noble friend Lord Lindsay. I want to talk in particular about the implementation of the enforcement and licensing scheme in relation to vaping and nicotine products.
In Committee, we discussed how the Government might implement the registration and licensing scheme, and the regulation of vaping and nicotine products, in co-operation with industry. I am grateful to the Minister for our subsequent discussion and for her letter. However, while the letter followed up the analogy we used in the debate with the role of the Portman Group on the regulation of alcohol products, it referred to the wrong bit of what the Portman Group does. She referred to the voluntary aspects in relation to advertising and sponsorship, whereas the correct analogy is with what it does in relation to the naming, packaging and protection code.
In essence, what that does is ensure that where products which are intended, as determined by the adjudication panel, to appeal to children are put on the market, it is able to notify retailers, who ensure that the product is not stocked. In the Bill, in relation to vaping and nicotine products, as the Minister will be aware, there is intended to be a tighter regime than is the case in relation to alcohol products. That still lends itself to the co-regulatory solution, not because the industry is looking for a voluntary solution but because it is looking for a more proportionate and effective solution.
In particular, I want to make it clear that if there is a register of products, and Clause 94 says there will be, there will then have to be somebody who makes a judgment on whether a product that is registered is compliant with the requirement of not being intended to be attractive to children. The essence of what we are setting out to do is to avoid children accessing or being attracted to vapes.
The scheme in this Bill needs somebody to do a job like that of the adjudication panel. Through the licensing that is in the clause, it is available for conditions to be attached to licences for retailers to make it clear that if there is an adverse adjudication in relation to a product that is registered, it would not be stocked by the retailer. This is not voluntary; it seems to be intended to be watertight, but somebody somewhere has to make an adjudication on whether the naming, packaging or promotion of a product, although it may be compliant with the legislation, is none the less intended to be attractive to children.
As the Minister will know, a series of judgments over time will inevitably have to be made. The least proportionate approach is for there to be a constant effort on the part of the Government to establish in regulations what is and is not permissible. It is much better to have a process, as the Portman Group does, by which an adjudication panel arrives at a quick and effective solution.
I am asking the Minister that we continue the debate which he has kindly entered into with me and that officials use the time which my noble friend is looking for in Amendment 21A to ensure that we have an implementable solution which the vaping industry, and the retailing industry in particular, can be confident in and can put in place before commencement of those provisions.
Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group. If there is to be a retail licensing scheme, it needs to be more robust, fairer and more enforceable than currently envisaged. It needs to respect and reward retailers who are already complying with the law, which is the point behind Amendments 23, 30, 43, 45, 114 and 115 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and other noble Lords, and identify and punish those who are operating illicitly and illegally, which is the point behind Amendments 31 and 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister.
The amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, proposes that existing, compliant and currently exempted specialist tobacconists selling handmade Caribbean cigars be automatically included in the new retail licensing scheme. This tiny number of about 120 micro-businesses, many of them multigenerational, already face the prospect of the damage done to their business by the proposed packaging regulations, and, albeit in many years to come, as their customers are almost exclusively into early or late middle age, the prospect of competing with illicit sales as a consequence of the generational ban part of the Bill.
As they are the very model of compliant, law-abiding specialist retailers, would it not be only fair at least to give them the certainty that they would automatically be included in the retail licensing scheme? Would it not lessen the burden and cost of the new licensing regime itself if it automatically granted licences to those 120 responsible businesses with a proven track record of being good actors in the tobacco area? The Minister has already said that she is not in the business of putting small businesses out of business, so I hope the Government look favourably on these amendments, which would give them an easy way of keeping at least some of these businesses in business.
Amendments 31 and 44 recognise the reality that many tobacco products are sold from premises that not only sell alcohol but derive most of their business from it. As drafted, there would be two separate licensing regimes—one for alcohol and the other for tobacco products. Would alcohol retailers not be far more circumspect about selling illicit tobacco products if, by doing so, they risked losing their alcohol licence and therefore their main source of income? Would trading standards officers and local authorities not find it much easier to enforce one combined licence than two separate ones? Would illicit products’ supply chains not be more easily disrupted if they lost their sales outlets through an unrelated alcohol penalty? Finally on these amendments—here I cross over to the previous amendments—would it not be fairer for existing specialist tobacconists if the bad actors were discouraged from unfairly competing with the good actors by having their alcohol licence removed and thus their businesses seriously affected?
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments standing in my name together with those from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston. As referenced by many of the previous speakers, they deal with the grandfathering rights that we would hope to get for the particularly small businesses in this sector. I thank the Minister for her engagement on these issues and her willingness to take meetings and have discussions.
It has been said, but it is worth emphasising, that hand-rolled cigars are a distinctive business that has a different health impact and profile—of not having youth adoption. However, I repeat that it has a significant economic benefit for the luxury tourism industry, which is an important component of a country with the tourism profile that we have. Therefore, these businesses—small in number as they are—offer a distinctive service to the nation and should be considered carefully with the impact of the proposed legislation. There are distinct production methods, consumption patterns and market demographics for these products. Therefore, the risk of imposing a regulatory framework designed for industrial-size manufacture on a small-scale, family-orientated and economically sensitive sector requires adequate proportionality.
These amendments are designed to do that for the 120 or so businesses that would be covered by them, where there are huge concerns about economic viability, together with all the other matters that face small businesses. The Government have a strong concern to make sure that we do not always legislate such that we impede the opportunities for small businesses. These are very important principles to which we should adhere, and these amendments offer clear and enforceable definitions to ensure that the legislation can be targeted and proportionate. They would not undermine any of the public health objectives but would define their application to ensure that vulnerable specialist tobacco vendors were granted a retail licence under the new scheme, with the right arrangements to allow flexibility in circumstances around rental increases and other things that are particularly impactful on this size of business.
I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance that these matters have been considered carefully and that the opportunities for these companies to continue to exist are supported by the Government.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will respond to this group of amendments concerning the proposed retail licence scheme for tobacco and nicotine products. We welcome the inclusion of a retail licensing scheme in this Bill. This is a significant and constructive addition to earlier versions. The proposal represents a major step forward in strengthening the regulation of tobacco and nicotine sales in the UK. It brings the sale of tobacco into line with established practice for alcohol. Tobacco, of course, remains the single most harmful product that is still readily available. It is the single biggest cause of preventable illness and early death in the United Kingdom. It therefore follows that the sale of these products should be subject to comparable regulatory oversight. Extending the oversight to vapes and other nicotine products will further assist trading standards in addressing non-compliant, unregistered and under-age sales. This combination of proportionate regulation and clear enforcement powers will help to protect both the public and responsible retailers from unscrupulous and illegal competition.
The principle underpinning this reform is simple: the right to sell products that carry health risks must come with clear responsibilities. We want a system that supports compliance, deters abuse and places public health at its heart. Amendment 21A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would ensure a minimum of a one-year gap between regulations being passed and coming into effect, allowing for a transition period. We entirely understand the wish to allow retailers, local authorities and other enforcement bodies adequate time to prepare for the new framework. Implementation must be orderly and practical. However, setting a fixed one-year time delay in primary legislation risks creating unnecessarily rigid constraints. Some elements of the scheme may be ready to begin earlier, while others might benefit from a longer period. The Government’s approach—to determine the precise timing through secondary legislation, informed by evidence gathered from those affected through consultation and negotiation—will ensure that that transition happens as smoothly and credibly as possible.
Turning to Amendments 23, 30, 43, 45, 114 and 115, I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, regarding how existing specialist tobacconists should be treated within the new regime, including on transitional protection and possible exemptions. We acknowledge that the Government have already made some considerable steps in these areas, and we fully recognise the intention here: to try to give certainty to small specialist retailers who have operated responsibly and reasonably within the law for many years. However, these amendments would, in effect, enshrine grandfather rights in primary legislation, automatically conferring licences or permanent exemptions from any future limits on the number or distribution of these outlets throughout the United Kingdom and the devolved Administrations. That would effectively pre-empt the consultation process and remove discretion before any evidence has been gathered or assessed in any way.
It is important that all aspects of eligibility, transitional arrangements and the scope of any future caps or location-based controls are properly considered through consultation, considering not only the interests of existing traders but the wider objectives of public health, community protection and fair enforcement. Given that this applies to existing retailers, not new ones, it does seem that these points should be made within the consultation. We hope that the Minister intends to do that and is open and considerate to these small and normally very compliant retailers—a point that has been made several times. We imagine that the retail licensing scheme will differentiate between the different types of retailers; but given that all details have yet to be confirmed, these amendments feel premature to us.
Amendments 24 and 25 relate to national registers and a unified digital portal. Again, to us, it feels like these things will be necessary for any licensing scheme, and we therefore assume that these amendments are not necessary, but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that. On Amendments 31 and 44 and alcohol licences, we believe that this is already possible, but it would be useful if the Minister could confirm that.
I would like to pick up on one point that was made in the debate. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a word about how breaches made under one licence would be communicated and passed on to the people who are regulating the other licences, and how she feels these two licensing schemes would interact with each other, specifically where breaches have taken place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, as well as the engagement they have been good enough to give their time to before Report.
Let me start with the amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. The UK Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive are carefully considering the design of the licensing scheme. A recent joint call for evidence asked detailed questions about implementation. This included specifically inviting feedback on whether applications for existing businesses should be treated differently from those for new businesses, and whether factors such as the location and density of retailers should have a role in granting licensing. I know, particularly from the debate today, that the question about existing businesses is a matter of concern to noble Lords.
We are aware that, under reforms to alcohol licensing through the Licensing Act, existing compliant businesses were indeed brought on to the new system, as noble Lords have referred to before, using grandfathering arrangements. I can assure noble Lords that we are considering this carefully alongside the feedback from our call for evidence, and we will invite further feedback when we consult on our proposals. However, the main point I would like to emphasise—a number of noble Lords have asked about this, and rightly so—is that, as I have said before, the Government do not wish to create a scheme which arbitrarily puts law-abiding retailers out of business. That is absolutely not the intent of this policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, along with other noble Lords, raised questions about specialist tobacconists, which we have discussed, and rightly so, on a number of occasions. With regard to various regulations that we have spoken about, and on specialist tobacconists broadly, as the noble lord, Lord Johnson, acknowledged, I gave the assurances on day 1 of Report last week, and I hope they have been heard.
We want a scheme that is proportionate and fair, as I believe noble Lords do, particularly to the many existing businesses that operate responsibly—I emphasise that, because they deserve credit—but we also want to deter those who break the law, which was called for by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron. Again, feedback on our proposals will help us strike the right balance. While I cannot accept the noble Earl’s amendment, I hope I have provided some reassurance that we are considering the details of this scheme in a way that is sympathetic to his aims.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for tabling Amendments 24 and 25 and to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for tabling Amendment 21A. I am sympathetic to what noble Lords are seeking to achieve with these amendments. We agree with the need to introduce more rigour around who can sell these products and to minimise additional burdens on retailers and local authorities as far as possible. We also share the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, to ensure that retailers have enough time to prepare for the new licensing scheme. However, I believe these amendments are not needed as they are about how the scheme is implemented effectively. This is something we need to consider properly—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to this—through consultation.
I can confirm to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as I have before, that we are in regular contact with retail associations on implementation of the Bill, including the design of the future licensing scheme. This work will continue.
I know how strongly the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, feels about the point that he is raising. We have engaged with the UK’s main independent vaping bodies—the UK Vaping Industry Association and the Independent British Vape Trade Association—and that engagement will continue. We will continue to hear their considerations and those of their members, but ultimately our policy decisions on future regulations will be guided, as noble Lords are aware, by evidence to protect and improve public health. I appreciate the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which is different from the one that I am suggesting, but I hope he can be reassured about our engagement directly with those bodies because we feel that is the right thing to do.
I want again to reference our call for evidence, which asked about what support retailers and local authorities may require. It encouraged feedback on what works for existing licensing schemes. It also asked a specific question about how long is required to implement the scheme. These are all things rightly of concern to noble Lords in this group. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised a point about timings, how the timetable will go and including a lead-in time. We are considering these issues carefully and will reflect on the feedback that we have received before consulting on our proposals. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, understandably asked for an update on the feedback in the call for evidence. That is important because the feedback will, as the noble Earl knows, inform our proposals for consultation. I am not able today to provide the update that the noble Earl rightly seeks, not least because we are still considering the returns from the call for evidence, which closed at the end of last year. But I can say that in our view there is no need to introduce legislative requirements, as in these amendments, before consultation has taken place. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a point about the amendments being somewhat premature, but I know they have the best of intentions. The Government are fully committed to ensuring that there is fair and reasonable time for businesses to adapt to any new regulatory regime.
Turning to Amendments 31 and 44 from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, I am again sympathetic to what he is seeking to achieve. Where a business is found to have not complied with tobacco and vape legislation, it makes sense to bring into question whether that business is acting responsibly in relation to other products. However, any action that licensing authorities take against businesses should, as we would all expect, be justifiable and proportionate. A decision to suspend or revoke a business’s licence might have a significant impact on its livelihood and should not be taken lightly. Noble Lords have rightly made that point in this Chamber.
We are talking here about different products; it might not always be the case that non-compliance with one licensing scheme means that a business is non-compliant with another. It is important that licensing authorities take decisions with evidence of the business’s capability to sell specific products in line with the objectives of the respective licensing schemes. However, I agree that breaching a tobacco and vape licence may indeed be a useful signal for licensing authorities to more closely investigate a business’s compliance with their alcohol licence or vice versa; this is something that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, also asked about. Licensing authorities can and should use their judgment and knowledge of a business’s track record to inform the level of scrutiny that they apply. This includes, where there are concerns that a business is not complying with one scheme, carrying out additional checks to ensure compliance with other licences that it may hold and taking appropriate action where needed.
I hope that noble Lords have been reassured not only today but in the engagement that we have had prior to today, and that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response to my amendment, which was largely reassuring and provided useful clarity. I think we all agree that, with the new licensing regime, enforcement must be effective and proportionate while also ensuring that businesses, especially smaller businesses, have time to prepare. I welcome the Minister’s assurances on this. However, if the will is there, I think useful progress could be made on the constructive ideas put forward by my noble friend Lord Lansley; I know that she has had discussions with him about these.
Last week the Minister provided welcome assurances to my noble friend Lord Lindsay on specialist tobacconists. She acknowledged their unique character and indicated that it is not the Government’s intention to remove the existing exemption, which allows such premises to display tobacco products provided that those products are not visible from outside. In relation to my noble friend’s amendments in this group, I thought the logic of his case was compelling and I was therefore encouraged to hear the Minister say that the Government were sympathetic to the aims implicit in the amendments. I look forward to some good news on that front and hope that my hopes there are not misplaced.
I thought the amendments from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister contained some interesting ideas. They are all aimed at strengthening enforcement, improving verification processes and, more broadly, simplifying the operation of the licensing regime. As my noble friend said, there could also be benefits for consumer confidence. These are all good things so, whether or not my noble friend presses his amendments in due course, I hope that the Government will take some of his ideas away and give them further consideration. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 21A.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This removes combined authorities etc from the list of local authorities that can be licensing authorities (since where a county or district council is a licensing authority its functions can be given to a combined authority under other legislation).
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group were tabled in my name for Committee but were not moved at the time. Government Amendments 67, 69 and 74 are also needed as part of these changes. However, as these amendments are also required for changes that the Government are introducing to the use of proceeds from fixed penalty notices, they will be debated as part of the next group.
At the moment, the Bill places responsibility on trading standards to enforce the future licensing scheme. However, the licensing authority for the scheme will be set out in regulations. The licensing authority may sit in a different tier of local government from trading standards and therefore, as the Bill is currently drafted, would not be able to enforce the scheme. Feedback from stakeholders has suggested that enforcement of the licensing scheme would be stronger and more seamless if those responsible for administering the scheme could also enforce it. These amendments will therefore ensure that whoever is designated as the licensing authority for the scheme will have the powers to do so. In any scenario, trading standards officers will still be able to enforce the scheme alongside the licensing authority. These amendments will help the licensing scheme achieve its aims of supporting legitimate businesses while tackling those who disregard the law, and, in doing so, will support public health.
I turn to government Amendments 144 and 145. Amendment 145 was tabled in my name in Committee but was not moved. It has now been necessary to also table Amendment 144, which is connected. These amendments seek to resolve an issue which has arisen during the passage of the Bill. The Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 repeals certain enforcement procedures and provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1987. As currently drafted, Clause 103 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations which rely on these provisions. Therefore, without amendment, there is a risk that we may not be able to confer the necessary powers on enforcement authorities.
Amendment 145 allows for the provision of equivalent powers to fully enforce regulations made under Part 5 without referring to the Consumer Protection Act. In doing so, it ensures that regulations made under Part 5 are fully enforceable. Amendment 144 allows for flexibility in the penalties that can be imposed by regulations under Part 5. This flexibility will enable regulations creating new offences to replace certain offences from the Consumer Protection Act and to provide for the lesser penalties associated with them. The amendment retains the maximum term of imprisonment that the Bill currently provides for as a safeguard.
Government Amendment 49 corrects a minor drafting error in the Bill; it does not reflect a change in policy. Finally, government Amendments 208 to 215 are consequential, as a result of changes made by the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025. I hope that noble Lords will support these amendments.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will respond to this group of minor and technical government amendments, which relate primarily to enforcement and regulation-making powers. I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of these technical and complex but necessary clarifications within the Bill. Briefly, our Benches appreciate the explanation given but we fully support what the Government are doing in these amendments and have no particular concerns with them. In the interest of time, I will avoid going into the detail, but we have no objection to any of these amendments.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will also be brief. I am grateful for the support of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. As I stated in my opening speech, these amendments serve to strengthen the overall enforcement of the Bill, as well as the processes for future regulation—something that I know is of concern to both Front Benches, as well as all noble Lords. For this reason, I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments to clause 18 and Schedule 2 allow a licensing authority that is a district council but not a local weights and measures authority to impose financial penalties for breach of licensing conditions.
“(6) In this section—“personal licence” has the meaning given by section 16(8);“premises licence” has the meaning given by section 16(8);“relevant district council” means a district council that—(a) is specified as a licensing authority under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, and(b) is not a local weights and measures authority.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.
Baroness Merron
“(2) In this Schedule “relevant district council” has the meaning given by section 18(6).” Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 18, page 10, line 29.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This makes a change to ensure drafting consistency.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
My amendments to this clause, clauses 33 and 35 to 39, 44 and 47 and my new clauses inserted after clause 39 collectively ensure that the licensing provisions may be enforced in England concurrently by local weights and measures authorities and by district councils that are licensing authorities.
“(1A) In this Part “relevant enforcement authority in England” means—(a) a local weights and measures authority in England, and(b) in relation to the enforcement of sections 16 to 18 (retail licensing: England), in addition, any district council in England that—(i) is specified as a licensing authority under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, and(ii) is not a local weights and measures authority.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to clause 38, page 20, line 25, requires fixed penalties imposed in respect of licensing offences in England to be used as set out in clause 38(3) rather than being paid into the Consolidated Fund. The provision for Wales is moved to a new clause after clause 39.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, in an earlier group I spoke about the importance of fixed penalty notices in the Bill, as they provide trading standards officers with an additional enforcement tool to bring retailers into compliance without taking up court resource. I have carefully considered the points raised by noble Lords in Committee about the proceeds of fixed penalty notices issued for licensing offences, including those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
I am therefore pleased to have tabled these government amendments because they will allow local authorities in England and Wales to retain all the proceeds from the £2,500 licensing fixed penalty notices for enforcement purposes, rather than having to return proceeds to the Consolidated Fund. That will enable local authorities to reinvest proceeds into strengthening the enforcement of tobacco and vape legislation—something that noble Lords have asked for.
In addition, we are investing up to £10 million of new funding in trading standards annually until 2028-29 to tackle the illicit and underage sale of tobacco and vapes, and to help to enforce the law. This funding is being used to boost the trading standards workforce by hiring 120 apprentices across England, and we will continue to provide funding to support the apprentices over the next three years as they complete their training.
Trading standards plays an essential role in ensuring compliance with tobacco and vape legislation. The enforcement provisions in the Bill, further strengthened by this amendment, will give them the tools they need to carry out that role. Proper enforcement of the law will protect the public from potential health harms and help to realise public health outcomes from policies in the Bill and other tobacco and vape legislation. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the government amendments in this group. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 66 and 68 in my name. These provide that the money collected by trading standards in small fines imposed by fixed penalty notices for offences other than those related to the licensing regulations should go towards smoking cessation services provided by the relevant local authority. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for this since the Bill was first introduced to Parliament.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I say a big thank you to the Minister for listening; as she rightly said, she has listened and taken on board the comments made in Committee. Amendment 78, which I tabled in Committee, is in fact in the same terms as the Minister’s Amendment 64, which she introduced earlier this afternoon. My purpose was to ensure that local authorities would be able to enforce, more effectively and more substantially, the provisions of the Bill and their trading standards responsibilities generally. I am very glad that the Minister listened so positively to our Committee debate.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I was very happy to give way to my noble friend to allow him to heap more praise on to the Minister. Sometimes Government Ministers cannot always be assured of receiving praise from other Benches.
My noble friend Lord Howe and I welcome these government amendments and are grateful to the Minister and Department of Health and Social Care officials for reflecting constructively on our debate in Committee on fixed penalties.
On Amendments 66 and 68 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, while I do not disagree with the sentiment, which is admirable—since in theory hypothecation of taxes, public fines and penalties would lead to more transparency on how taxpayers’ money is spent—there is also a strong argument in favour of more fiscal devolution to local authorities, and whether we should use legislation to tell local authorities what they should be doing with the funds they are responsible for. Nevertheless, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reaction to those amendments, and I thank her and the Government once again for their amendments.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions to this debate. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that there are no limits to the amount of praise that can be received by Ministers on this Front Bench, and noble Lords should feel free, at any time, to heap praise. We will always be grateful.
I am grateful for the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—we are very pleased to see her back in her place in good health—and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. On the noble Baroness’s Amendments 66 and 68, I have heard the call for, as she described, a broad approach. We recognise the importance of local smoking cessation services, which is the very reason we are investing an additional £260 million pounds over the next three years within the public health grant. This will mean that at least £150 million is ring-fenced for stop smoking services every year. The funding is protected, as the noble Baroness seeks, and cannot be used for other public health initiatives. It provides assurance and stability for these essential services.
In addition, we have extended the national smoke-free pregnancy incentive scheme for a further three years from 2026-27 to 2028-29, with funding worth up to £15 million—£5 million per annum. We are also committed to integrating opt-out smoking cessation services into routine care within all hospitals, as set out in the 10-year health plan.
I hope that this reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about how committed we are to providing support for smokers to quit without the need to fund services using proceeds from fixed penalty notices. Instead, as your Lordships’ House has heard, we believe that proceeds can be better used by local authorities on the enforcement of the Bill and other tobacco and vape legislation. It is important that local authorities are able to retain the proceeds to cover their costs in issuing fixed penalty notices and reinvest any remaining funds in enforcement. Strong enforcement of the measures in the Bill and other tobacco and vape legislation will help ensure that we deliver our ambition to achieve a smoke-free UK and to protect future generations from the risk of nicotine addiction. In other words, on the very important points that the noble Baroness is pursuing through her amendments, that ultimately is the best way of reducing smoking.
Government amendments 64, 65, 67, 69 and 74 will support this by allowing local authorities to retain all the proceeds from the £2,500 licensing offence fixed penalty notices as well as the £200 fixed penalty notices in the Bill, which goes further than noble Lords were originally requesting. With that, I hope that noble Lords will support these important amendments.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 38, page 20, line 17.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
As Amendment 65 has been agreed, I cannot call Amendment 66 for reasons of pre-emption.
Amendment 67
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
As Amendment 67 has been agreed, I cannot call Amendment 68 for reasons of pre-emption.
Amendment 69
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
“Fixed penalty notices: Wales(1) A local weights and measures authority in Wales that has reason to believe that a person has committed an offence under, or under regulations made under, any of the following may give the person a fixed penalty notice in respect of the offence—section 1 (sale of tobacco etc to people born on or after 1 January 2009);section 2 (purchase of tobacco etc on behalf of others);section 6 (age of sale notice at point of sale: Wales);section 10 (sale of vaping or nicotine products to under 18s);section 11 (purchase of vaping or nicotine products on behalf of under 18s);section 14 (displays of products or prices in Wales);section 15 (free distribution and discount of products);section 20 (offences in connection with retail licences: Wales).(2) A fixed penalty notice is a notice offering a person the opportunity to discharge any liability to conviction for the offence to which the notice relates by payment of an amount specified in the notice within the relevant period. (3) The amount specified in a fixed penalty notice in respect of an offence under section 20 must be an amount equal to level 4 on the standard scale of fines for summary offences.(4) The amount specified in a fixed penalty notice in respect of any other offence must be £200.(5) For the purposes of this section “the relevant period” is the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the fixed penalty notice is given.(6) A fixed penalty notice must explain—(a) that the local weights and measures authority has reason to believe that the person has committed the offence, and why,(b) the effect of subsection (7), and(c) when and how payment may be made.(7) Where a fixed penalty notice has been given to a person (and has not been withdrawn)—(a) no proceedings may be instituted for the offence before the end of the relevant period, and(b) the person may not be convicted of the offence if the person pays—(i) the full amount of the fixed penalty in the notice before the end of the relevant period, or(ii) 50% of that amount before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the relevant period starts.(8) Where proceedings are instituted for the offence after the end of the relevant period, that period is to be disregarded for the purposes of calculating the period mentioned in section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.(9) A fixed penalty notice given under this section may be withdrawn by the local weights and measures authority that gave it at any time before a payment is made in pursuance of the notice.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
“Fixed penalties in Wales: use of proceeds(1) Any sums received by a local weights and measures authority in Wales in pursuance of a fixed penalty notice must be used in connection with their functions under or under regulations made under—(a) this Act;(b) the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 (S.I. 2016/507);(c) Part 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017.(2) In this section “fixed penalty notice” means a fixed penalty notice given under section (Fixed penalty notices: Wales).”Member’s explanatory statement
This is in part consequential on my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27. The amendment also changes the effect of the current provisions in requiring fixed penalties imposed in respect of licensing offences to be used as set out in the new clause rather than being paid into the Welsh Consolidated Fund.
“Power to change amount of fixed penalties: Wales(1) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations amend section (Fixed penalty notices: Wales) in relation to the giving of fixed penalty notices in respect of any offence other than an offence under section 20 so as to—(a) change the amount which must be specified in notices, or(b) change the percentage discount for early payment. (2) The amount mentioned in subsection (1)(a) must not be changed to an amount that exceeds level 3 on the standard scale of fines for summary offences.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Merron
(a) a filter that does not form part of a tobacco product or herbal smoking product;Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to make regulations applying to filters any provision of Part 1 that applies to tobacco products.
“(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this Part for the purpose of extending to filters any provision made by sections 7 to 9 in relation to a relevant oral tobacco product.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to ban the manufacture, sale or possession with intent to supply of filters.
Baroness Merron
““filter” means a filter that is intended to be used when smoking a tobacco product or herbal smoking product (including a filter that forms part of, or that is intended to be inserted into, an item such as a cigarette holder or pipe);” Member’s explanatory statement
This defines “filter” for the purposes of my amendments to clause 45.
Baroness Merron
““relevant enforcement authority in England” has the meaning given by section 32(1A);”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 32, page 17, line 27.
Baroness Hoey
“Regulations made under Part 1: Windsor Framework(1) Before making any regulations under this Part, the Secretary of State must—(a) commission an independent legal opinion assessing—(i) the extent to which the implementation of this Act in Northern Ireland complies with the Windsor Framework;(ii) the likelihood of any increase in the illicit trade in tobacco products if regulations under this Act are made in relation to Northern Ireland otherwise than in England, Wales and Scotland;(b) publish that legal opinion;(c) consult any person they consider appropriate.(2) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this Part unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the legal opinion under subsection (1) demonstrates that the implementation of Part 3 of this Act (sale and distribution: Northern Ireland) is fully compliant with the Windsor Framework and consistent with the Tobacco Products Directive of the European Union (2014/40/EU).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations about the sale and distribution of tobacco in England and Wales until they have considered and demonstrated that to do the same in Northern Ireland would be fully compatible with the Windsor Framework and the Tobacco Products Directive.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in moving this amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, I will speak also to Amendments 120, 201 and 216, in my name, to which the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Naseby, have added their names. I should say at the beginning that I wholeheartedly support Amendment 207 but will not refer to it.
When the Windsor Framework was proposed, I and others warned that it would be anti-democratic, in the sense that it would lead to laws being introduced in Northern Ireland over which the people had no democratic say. We warned that it would mean that laws approved by our elected Parliament could sometimes be blocked in a constituent part of the United Kingdom, so these amendments are all about the primacy of our law over EU law.
Since the framework, EU rules have quietly been applied to Northern Ireland, affecting items such as mundane tumble dryers, smartphones and vehicle imports. Those are all very irritating and anti-democratic, but this Bill is really on a different scale. The generational smoking ban and the Tobacco and Vapes Bill are flagship policies of His Majesty’s Government. They were in Labour’s manifesto and have sweeping implications, which have been debated, for trade, retailers and hospitality. They touch on civil liberties, on our culture and on the integrity of the union.
When foreign states seek to use the Windsor Framework to obstruct the implementation of this legislation in Northern Ireland, the matter cannot simply be waved away. I am afraid that that is precisely what the Government appear to be doing on this issue, right from the beginning of Second Reading. Seven EU member states have said that the Bill violates EU tobacco directives and undermines the single market. They have formally registered their opposition and called for the law to be blocked.
The Government’s response is to say, first, that they have a different interpretation of the law; and, secondly, that, even if that is wrong, they should be able to proceed on public health grounds. However, we have known about the legal issues that this Bill faces in Northern Ireland for over a year. King’s Counsels, former Ministers, leading journalists and leading academics have raised the alarm. Of course, they have been proved right on other Bills where government legal experts said that they would be fine and that nothing could stop them being implemented in Northern Ireland—then, of course, we saw that they could be.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 202 in my name and that of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Northover, would require the Secretary of State to publish a road map to a smoke-free country every five years, and sets out some specific obligations that should be included within that road map. The Bill is world-leading, and I welcome that, but it does very little for current smokers, of whom there are still about 5.3 million left in the UK. Without a comprehensive strategy to ensure that current smokers are supported to quit, we risk certain groups being excluded from the smoke-free future, and, of course, we will have to wait several decades for the smoke-free generation to take over.
The previous Conservative Government published the 2017 tobacco control plan, which set out key areas of focus and the ambition to create a smoke-free generation by tackling youth smoking. This was accompanied by the tobacco control delivery plan, which enabled relevant partners and services to implement the plan. These have both expired, and there is no current strategy on tobacco in place. The Labour Party pledged to publish such a strategy in the health mission document, Build an NHS Fit for the Future, saying that it was important that no one should be left behind. It said:
“We will build on the success of the last Labour government with a roadmap to a smoke-free Britain”.
My amendment asks the Government to make good on that promise now that they are in power.
When I raised this in Committee, it was disappointing that the Minister said:
“There are no plans to develop a report on specific targets or to publish a road map at this time”.
That seems a very clear rejection of the commitment that I have just read out. The reason the Minister gave lacked substance. She justified it by saying that it was
“because we are focusing our attention and total ambition on making sure that we can deliver the Bill and work on the regulations that will follow”.—[Official Report, 27/10/25; col. GC 191.]
However, the amendment asks simply for a report every five years; indeed, there would be no requirement to produce one until 2031. It is not going to take that long to deliver the Bill—hopefully by the end of this Session—and to introduce the regulations shortly after. I therefore hope that the Minister will come to the House today with a more robust defence of the abandonment of the commitment that I have referred to.
A road map would include a clear target to end smoking. In 2023, the Khan review found that
“England will miss the smokefree 2030 target by at least 7 years, with the poorest areas not meeting it until 2044”.
When I asked the Minister about this in Committee, she said:
“We are going even further than the Smokefree 2030 target. As I have mentioned throughout, our ambition is for a smoke-free UK and creating the first smoke-free generation”.—[Official Report, 27/10/25; col. GC 191.]
That is excellent—I entirely applaud it—but without a road map we will not know whether, or indeed how, that ambition is going to be delivered.
I appreciate that the Government have tabled Amendment 205, which requires them to carry out a review no earlier than four years and no later than seven. My noble friend Lord Lansley has tabled Amendment 206, which I am sure he will speak to in a moment. But the government amendment is actually very little different to what should happen anyway. All government departments are expected to review new legislation three to five years after Royal Assent. Known as post-legislative scrutiny, this typically assesses how the Act has worked in practice and whether it has met its policy objectives. Under that obligation, departments are expected to produce a memorandum on the Act three to five years after it is passed, which is then presented to Parliament and departmental Select Committees, which can decide if they want to take it further. So in practice, the government amendment adds very little to what ought to happen anyway.
The timescale in the government amendment is less onerous than current practice, and such a review would be much less specific than the process that I have set out in Amendment 202, which has some very specific targets. Any government review would be retrospective in nature and limited to assessing the specific measures contained within the legislation, whereas subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 202 go much wider. Indeed, Amendment 206, in the name of my noble friend, is also more granular than the government amendment. A road map would require the Government to explain how they intend to use the powers in the Bill and how these will sit alongside broader policy action and service provision required beyond legislation. A road map would provide a shared direction and common goals to work towards, helping to maximise the impact and success of the legislation from the outset, rather than simply looking back at how it has performed years later. For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in this group. For the record, I declare my interest as a trustee of Action on Smoking and Health.
First of all, I follow on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young, around a road map. Surely a road map is less strong in terms of action than the very substance of this Bill in the first place, which is about action. Each successive year of the implementation of this Bill will take another year of smokers out of the reach of the tobacco industry. Therefore, the actions as proposed in this Bill are stronger than a road map would suggest, as that implies a level of choice further down the line. That is clearly what this Bill is intended to avoid—the further consideration of actions to reduce smoking instead of decisive measures to reduce smoking now.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred to the legal opinions, which I believe was a piece of work commissioned by the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, whose members include BAT, JTI and Imperial. Given the industry’s long and litigious history, both here and internationally, it would be remarkable if they did not try to use this process to threaten legal action; that has been their playbook for decades. Some noble Lords will have heard directly from advocates in Kenya, Zambia and Pakistan at a recent ASH briefing. They described years of aggressive industry interference, including a six-year battle in Kenya over measures as basic as health warnings, measures that the industry had already failed to overturn elsewhere. The purpose of these cases is rarely to win on the law; it is to depress political will, delay implementation and exhaust public authorities. That effect is especially corrosive in countries with fewer resources or resilience than the UK. So when we are presented with yet another industry-funded legal opinion, it is reasonable to treat it with caution. The smoke-free generation policy is indeed novel, but novelty as a concept is not a legal defect; it is simply untested. That is not in itself a reason to abandon a policy designed to protect children from addiction and future generations from avoidable disease.
ASH has commissioned its own legal opinion from academics at the University of Liverpool with expertise in both public health and EU law. Their analysis directly addresses the issues raised in the group of amendments that we are debating now. They conclude that there are strong grounds to believe any legal challenge would fail and that the Bill is compatible with EU law. I will explain why.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble Lord for his view on that. Could he explain why Denmark and Ireland were not allowed to go ahead, and why seven countries feel so differently from what he has just said?
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
I will come to that point in a moment and explain further. The TRIS process concluded on 18 February. The UK Government have provided a clear and satisfactory response to the concerns raised by member states, which I hope offers some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.
Far from being alarmed by the UK’s approach, several EU countries are watching it carefully. In France, a similar Private Member’s Bill is gathering cross-party support. In the Republic of Ireland, Ministers opted to raise the age of sale to 21 at this stage but have been explicit that future Governments may “keep going” and consider a rising age of sale. Countries across the EU are following developments here with great interest. We cannot say that positions taken by EU Governments in the past will determine their future positions on this issue. We are clearly leading a global conversation about how best to respond to the harms caused by tobacco. There is not just EU-wide but global interest in what the UK is doing here.
Finally, two successive UK Governments, of different political persuasions, have brought forward the Bill with the smoke-free generation policy at its heart. Both will have taken detailed legal advice and agreed to proceed on the basis of its content. The fact that alternative legal advice commissioned and funded by the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association offers an opinion to the contrary does not, for me, outweigh the judgment of two successive Administrations firmly committed to protecting public health. I therefore cannot agree with the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I hope that the House will consider the strength of legal arguments in favour of the Government’s position as assurance that this is the right and moral thing to do.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord and to speak to my Amendment 206. I might say to him that, to me, it seems clear that what my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and other noble Lords intend in Amendment 202 is to complement what is in the Bill rather than to in any sense contradict it. The intention was entirely to look at how, in addition to the measures in the Bill, we can move to a smoke-free country, rather than simply relying upon the assumption that in the fullness of time—as my noble friend said, in a matter of decades—the smoke-free generation will take over and give us a smoke-free country. It is a very long way ahead that we will arrive at that point.
The noble Lords on both Front Benches—my noble friend and the Minister—and I have all been involved in many of the measures that have got us, over the years, to a reputation of having among the strongest tobacco control policies anywhere in the world. I hope that is something we can collectively work to sustain.
On the point about reviews, and at the risk of lauding the Minister again, I welcome that she has brought forward her amendment. I know my noble friend says it is only a little more than is required in any case, but it is not necessarily required in statute, which is rather important. I note the presence of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who was kind enough to sign Amendment 206, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, did likewise. In part, we were setting out to establish exactly in each statute that there should be the necessary review process. As my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, Amendment 206 has some granularity about what this review actually requires.
I draw attention to what is in Amendment 206. In a sense, I am asking the Minister to say that, in addition to the fact of a review, there will be substance that contributes to the review and is reflected into it in due course. First, there should be independent and substantial research into the harms associated with vape, in particular, and nicotine products. In Committee, we discussed this a number of times and were all less than convinced that we knew what the long-term health impacts would be of substantial vape use. We have some evidence over up to 10 years, but that will certainly not be sufficient for the longer term. We need to have much more and better evidence. I hope the review will not just be about the process of the operation of the Act but will look to where the underlying issues at the heart of the Bill are moving over time.
Likewise, that is why we have included in proposed new subsection (5), to be inserted by Amendment 206, that we should look specifically at the extent to which the operation of the Act reduces
“rates of smoking”
and
“reduced use of vaping products amongst children”,
and whether the operations of the Act lead
“to a reduction in the use of vaping products for the purposes of smoking cessation”.
From the point of view of Action on Smoking and Health, one of the central issues that we need to examine is whether we can be certain we are continuing to secure the benefits of vaping products but not leading more young people, or others, into using vaping products rather than using no smoking products at all—which would be the better solution. We also want to look at what the economic impacts of the Bill might be and have, on a number of occasions, discussed small and micro-businesses.
While it is not my intention to press Amendment 206 to a vote, I hope that some of the granularity within it will be reflected in the review the Minister has vouchsafed to us under Amendment 205, and that she might at the Dispatch Box make it clear that, in due course, they will all form part of the review.
Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who deserves much personal credit for his work on these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, and I are on the same side on these issues. I will speak in support of Amendment 202, because it would be a good thing to require the Government to publish five-yearly reports, setting out a clear road map towards a smoke-free country.
While the smoke-free generation policy will rightly protect future generations from the harms of tobacco, it does not in itself sufficiently address the needs of the 5.3 million people who still currently smoke. If we are serious about creating a smoke-free country then we cannot afford to overlook them. Smoking remains responsible for around 74,000 deaths each year and a national strategy would ensure a focus on getting smokers the support they need to live healthier lives, free from the harms of tobacco. The UK’s tobacco control policies have, over many years, delivered a remarkable decline in smoking rates, representing a major public health success story, but further progress is not inevitable without sustained action.
This can be shown by the example of Germany, where smoking rates have remained at around 30% since 2017. Key differences are the absence in Germany of a comprehensive national strategy and Germany having weaker restrictions on tobacco. Without a clear plan, progress can stall. Crucially, this amendment includes targets and specific interventions for groups and areas with a persistently high prevalence of smoking. This matters because smoking rates remain deeply unequal. In the most deprived areas of the country, one in five people, 21% or so, smoke, compared with just 6.2% in the least deprived areas. Around half of the gap in healthy life expectancy between these groups can be attributed to smoking. Supporting people in these communities to quit would make a significant contribution towards the Government’s stated ambition to reduce health inequalities and make our country more productive, as well as happier. We need to do more to reach groups where smoking prevalence remains stubbornly high, such as people with serious mental illnesses, those living in social housing and those in routine manual occupations.
The Bill will help to ensure that nobody starts smoking, but it must be the first step in a wider national road map to ensure that everyone is supported to kick the habit, which is what most smokers seek. The publication of a road map would complement the Government’s own Amendment 205, which sets out how the implementation of the Bill will be reviewed. A clear plan would articulate what the Government aim to achieve in future and by when. It could also encompass further measures, long called for by the APPG on Smoking and Health, including action on so-called cigarette filters, the publication of industry sales data and warnings on individual cigarettes.
Amendment 202 urges the Government to be bold, set a new target and back it with a credible long-term plan. The APPG examined evidence last year and recommended a national target of 2 million fewer smokers by the end of this Parliament, alongside a clear ambition to make smoking obsolete within the next 20 years. These goals are achievable. I urge the Minister to seize this opportunity by indicating that there will be a road map of the kind that we seek very soon.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds.
I support a smoke-free generation policy, which is central to the Bill. We who support a smoke-free generation want to achieve better-quality health for all, particularly young people, to ensure that they have better health outcomes in terms of heart disease and various types of cancers. Looking at the proposal made by the UK Government to the European Commission in respect of this, it is quite clear that the number of deaths caused in Northern Ireland as a result of smoking is quite high. We should be making every effort to ensure that it is lowered.
We also need lung screening in Northern Ireland. That would help oncologists to identify those individuals who are liable at a later stage to develop lung cancer. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can pass on to the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland that request for the prioritisation of such resources. I have some family members who are involved in oncology in lung specialisms at Belfast City Hospital. They have told me that it would make their job much easier, in identification and in diagnosis, if that screening was available.
The proposal made by the UK Government to the EU clearly demonstrates that these clauses and this Bill are not at variance with the Windsor Framework. Tobacco products will continue to be available in Northern Ireland. The Bill received legislative consent. Northern Ireland is a divided society where there are different views on the Windsor Framework. I support it, but I respect that others are opposed to it. But if the Executive and the Assembly—made up of various parties in a mandatory coalition, with different political perspectives on the constitutional issue and on Brexit and the Windsor Framework—had noted a breach of the principles of free movement of goods and conflicts with the EU, the Windsor Framework et cetera, the Bill would not have received legislative consent.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am grateful to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, but say gently to her that Brexit has allowed the UK Government to pursue this legislation. As we have seen in the cases of Denmark and the Irish Republic, both Governments, whatever they might decide to do in the future, are deciding now that they are unable to proceed with this type of legislation because of the tobacco directive. The noble Baroness needs to be careful of the actuality and the legal position that prevails.
Noble Lords who are in favour of this intergenerational ban and are confident that the Windsor Framework does not provide any legal impediment should have no difficulty with these amendments. Amendment 201 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, makes it explicit that Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provides that European Union law is supreme in Northern Ireland. It is a conduit for the implementation of the Windsor Framework protocol. It says that if there is any doubt, the courts must say that UK law will be operative and cannot be set aside by any consideration of Section 7A. There should be no concern that these amendments are trying to impede the implementation of the inter- generational ban. They are trying to ensure that it will happen, despite the Windsor Framework.
I heard the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, talk about the legal opinion of the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. I have no doubt that it has produced a legal opinion, but many others have as well. The courts in Northern Ireland have ruled on this as well. We need to be clear that those of us who are concerned about this issue are looking at it from the point of view of ensuring that Northern Ireland does not lose out and that we are not prevented from benefiting from what should be a UK-wide, four-nations approach.
The former Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, John Larkin KC, has said that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill
“serves almost as a textbook example of how a measure advanced by a Government commanding a large majority in the House of Commons can run aground, as respects its Northern Ireland component, on provisions contained in the Windsor Framework … Parliament is simply not free to legislate effectively in those policy areas in which EU law still prevails through the Windsor Framework in Northern Ireland”.
We can look at other examples. On legacy legislation, the courts of Northern Ireland have said that Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act means that an Act of Parliament is not just incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore needs to be rectified but is actually disapplied and made of nil effect, because of Section 7A and the fact that European law overrides. We have seen it also in the case of migration law.
This is not some kind of novel concept, subtly dreamt up by a few people in the interests of the tobacco industry; this is a real concern about the application of European Union law—in this case, the tobacco directive—that has the potential and almost certainly the effect of disapplying this law for Northern Ireland. Anyone who is concerned about reducing smoking and the effects of smoking in Northern Ireland, where over 2,000 people die every year from illnesses associated with smoking, should be concerned about this issue and should want to do something about it.
The Government are relying on assertion. They keep asserting that this will apply throughout the United Kingdom. We have heard other speakers in this debate just provide assertions but ignore the clear approach that the courts in Northern Ireland have taken on these matters. Why do the Government not publish their advice, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said? They have published advice in other areas recently, so why do they not publish the advice and let us know what the particular argument is that says, in this particular instance of the tobacco directive, this will not apply in Northern Ireland? There is no logic; there is no analysis by any lawyer that I know of who has looked at this matter and who has dealt with the other cases that have come before the courts of Northern Ireland, and who believes that is the case. So why will the advice not be published?
We are told that this is just a normal age of sale restriction. The fact of the matter, of course, is that it is not just a normal age of sale restriction and therefore exempt; it is a rolling ban, and that cannot be got round. That is why the Irish Republic and Denmark took the position that they did, after getting very serious legal advice from those European Union law experts within their own Governments and the European Commission.
I say very respectfully to noble Lords who have spoken: do not rely on assertions. Do not rely on a view that this will be all right on the night and that there will not be any challenge. The fact of the matter is these things will be challenged. We are trying to build a protection into this Bill that will ensure that Northern Ireland benefits, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, in moving forward with this inter- generational ban. That is entirely reasonable. It is entirely sensible. Why not take the opportunity to ensure that guarantee is in place?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, following on from that very useful contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, it goes without saying that the amendments in this group on the tensions between the Bill and the Windsor Framework are crucial. I want to commend the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for leading on this issue, because she has brought to light something that we need to understand.
It gets to a general concern about the Bill that I have, which is a worry about its workability—legally and when it comes into contact with reality—because I fear a rude awakening. A part of that will be the unintended consequences of the Bill, which a lot of us have tried to draw attention to in Committee and so on. That is why I have added my name to Amendment 206, which calls for periodic reviews of the Act in terms of its operation as well as its effects. I have also tabled my own amendments on the impact of the Act on domestic production and supply chains, which I will discuss later.
Just before I explain why, I am of course glad to see that the Government also recognise the need for a review, and that is very positive. With all due respect to the Minister, I am afraid that Amendment 205 is just not extensive enough. I was particularly disappointed that the consultation is limited to the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland—what about all those other stakeholders who would be affected and what about the research? I would really urge the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, to incorporate parts of my own amendment and that of the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Norton of Louth, into her amendment to make it have some substance and not just be written down for the sake of it.
Amendment 206 gives a concrete shape to what should be reviewed. I appreciate its focus on independently conducted research, particularly now that there have been complaints that, “You cannot trust that research because it is by the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association”. I have similar views when I read research by ASH. The noble Lord who cited it, as though he was a kind of neutral observer, is part of another lobbying group. I would rather have neither as my trustworthy go-to. But I feel that quite a lot of important information is missed if we do not have research, so that is why I like it.
I felt frustrated during our deliberations in Committee that so much information had been overlooked. For example, many neutral academics who have researched the health impacts of vaping, in particular its efficacy in helping people quit smoking and the epidemiology of vaping versus smoking, had been overlooked by the Government. These would be invaluable sources and insights had they been consulted.
In Committee, I also suggested that the Government should look at research coming out of assessing the impact of the single-use vape ban that came into force last June. My amendment was rejected, but, interestingly, early evidence and research, as well as market indicators, show that the majority of adult vapers have transitioned to compliant reusable products. I did not think they would, but they have. That is interesting, because it goes against what I intuitively thought.
However, recent evidence shows that 9% of daily vapers admit purchasing illegal single-use vapes and, more worrying, 15% of former single-use vapers report that they have returned to smoking and/or increased their tobacco use. This sort of research and information is important for us to understand why we need careful monitoring, and with this Bill, we are going to need a lot of careful monitoring.
That is why I commend the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which asks all the right questions to review evidence to discover whether the Act will actually reduce rates of smoking. Will it reduce rates of vaping among young people and children? Will the legislation reduce the use of vaping products for adults? That is not a good outcome, but will that be what happens? What will the economic impact of the law change be on small and micro-businesses? That is something I am really worried about in terms of family-run convenience stores and so on.
The amendment also usefully differentiates between tobacco, nicotine and vape use, which are too frequently in discussions elided without distinction. The suggestion of assessing
“the behavioural responses to the regulatory regimes introduced under this Act”
is key, as the Bill makes a number of suppositions based on the idea that everything in this Bill will have a certain impact on the behaviour of consumers, retailers and other parties. But as this is a novel policy that nobody else has done before, there is no evidence from anywhere else in the world that it will work. We are yet to see whether behaviour will change in the way the Government allege and the supporters of this Bill imagine, so the review will check reality.
My Amendment 207 is more focused on an aspect of the Bill’s impact that we have not really talked about before now. It seeks a structured parliamentary scrutiny of the Act’s practical effects on domestic production, supply chains and market behaviour and enforcement in relation to nicotine products. There is a whole new industry that has grown up domestically around nicotine products, and it is going to be hit by the Bill.
The Bill represents a significant regulatory intervention in a rapidly evolving market. Regulator interventions on this scale can produce structural consequences beyond their primary intent. Often, when Bills are passed, we see problematic effects afterwards, such as compliance costs altering competitive balance, enforcement capacity not being aligned with legislative ambition, lawful operators facing disproportionate burdens and illicit, dodgy suppliers adapting more quickly outside the law than lawful businesses striving and straining to comply with law changes. One area of concern is whether the relatively new, innovative, domestic industry associated with nicotine products will be strangled almost before it gets off the ground.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Young. Supporting a smoke-free society is the right direction of travel, in my view, but I also worry about contact with reality.
A road map should also include the potential unintended consequences of cannabis smoking in a smoke-free country, with real targets and interventions. Walk across London and other towns and cities and smell the cannabis smoking on every street corner. People are breaking the law, with the police doing virtually nothing about it.
Cannabis has profound long-term health implications in the young. Some of us have worked in this space and have to deal with them. What are the unintended consequences of the Bill for the uptake of cannabis smoking among the next generation? I ask the Minister: what work have the Government done on the unintended consequences of this policy, and what do they plan to do about the potential uptake and increase in cannabis smoking, and the increase in illicit dealing on our streets?
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for tabling Amendment 202, to which I have added my name. It would require the Government to publish, every five years, a road map to a smoke-free country: in other words, a plan for the event rather than a review after it.
There are two essential components to achieving a smoke-free country. The first is that no one should start smoking at all. I hope that the Bill will successfully achieve that over time; the Government have shown great ambition in this area. The second component is that all current smokers are supported to quit, so that everyone stops. On this second part, the Government have been a little quieter, until recently. We have heard about the recent success of targets met for the number of pregnant women smoking at the time of delivery: I think it has gone down by half. However, the rates for other groups remain stubbornly high and we are not seeing the same targeting interventions. We need to ensure that we have this type of focus, energy and commitment with other groups, where we know that smoking rates are higher. Plans for these groups could be located in the road map being proposed.
For example, mental health is a key priority area for the Liberal Democrats. There is a dual causal relationship between smoking and mental health: if you smoke, it increases your chances of developing mental health conditions and, if you already have a mental health condition, you are more likely to smoke. Nearly half of those with a serious mental illness in England smoke, alongside a quarter of people with depression or anxiety, compared with 11.6% of the general population. High rates of smoking in this population have a disastrous impact on physical health, particularly for those with a serious mental health illness who, on average, live 15 to 20 years less than someone without. It is estimated that smoking accounts for about two-thirds of this reduced life expectancy.
The pervasive false narrative that smoking somehow alleviates mental health symptoms urgently needs to be addressed, as it creates so many challenges when we are trying to support these smokers to quit. If the Government are going to publish a strategy, a dedicated section on how they will bring down smoking rates in this group would be extremely welcome and needed. I welcome the Government’s concession that vaping vending machines should be allowed in secure adult mental health settings; this should certainly help this population to quit.
Amendment 206, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require the Government to publish a review of the Bill. I welcome government Amendment 205, which does something similar but with a lot less granularity. However, would the Minister give us a little more information about where the Government will get their evidence to underpin the review? Can she assure the House that that evidence will be independent and not influenced by any lobbying or so-called evidence put before the Government by big tobacco, or anybody else who would benefit from slowing down the elimination of smoking in the UK?
The intent of this review should be to support the legislation. As several noble Lords have said, the smoke-free generation is a novel policy and we need to demonstrate the impact and evaluate implementation to encourage other countries to follow. There are also many regulations on the way, along with those from other government departments, on nicotine products. A clear analysis of how these policies will work together would be very welcome.
However, the review must not be viewed as a sunset on the smoke-free generation, and I would welcome comments from the Minister on what, at this point, we know will not be in the Government’s review. For example, the Bill’s impact assessment notes that many of the health impacts of the rising age of sale will not be seen for 10 years, so we should be mindful that this part of the Bill is playing a very long game. There may be early data that we are on the right track and the review will perhaps be able to look at compliance, retailer feedback and all the other things that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned. I feel that much of this falls into the scope of her Amendment 207.
Finally, Amendments 91, 120, 201 and 216, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, raise concerns about the Bill’s implementation in Northern Ireland. I have been reassured by the Government’s response to the TRIS process, which lays out in some detail their response to the concerns raised, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, mentioned, the legal opinion published in the Daily Mail was commissioned by the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. Without seeing it, I cannot really comment other than to say it is not surprising that the industry is laying the ground for future legal challenges. It is, as we know, highly litigious and wants to chill the appetite for tobacco control globally. It all goes to show, I suppose, that if you put two lawyers into a room, you get three opinions. There are, as we have heard from the Minister on other occasions, other legal opinions out there that say that the Bill is compatible, but I leave the noble Baroness to answer for those concerns. However, I support the Government to press on with this vital public health legislation, and to plan it and review it as required.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very useful debate with some powerful contributions, but I should like to turn first to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. It was reported last week in the Times that seven EU member states have formally expressed concern that the Government’s proposed generational smoking ban might breach the Windsor Framework. The Minister said last week that the provisions of the Bill intended to apply to Northern Ireland are compatible with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Windsor Framework. However, these external concerns plainly have not gone away.
In a previous meeting, I was grateful to the noble Baroness and her officials for discussing the Technical Regulations Information System—or TRIS—procedure in respect of liaising with the European Commission and those EU countries that have raised objections. She explained that, in the Government’s opinion, the TRIS procedure is about consultation and will not lead to any decisions that would be binding on the UK Government. Can the Minister clarify if my understanding of the Government’s position is correct in that regard? Will she also update the House on discussions with the European Commission and with representatives of member states that have raised their concerns? Can she also say whether any formal objections have been lodged through the Windsor Framework structures, including the joint committee?
In general on this issue, we see a rather polarised position, with the tobacco industry on one side and ASH and the Government on the other, so I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the Government have sought or obtained any independent external legal advice on compatibility and whether they are confident that the measures would withstand a challenge in the event of infraction proceedings or dispute resolution. Following on from that, what contingency planning, if any, has been undertaken should a divergence issue arise in relation to Northern Ireland?
Let me turn to Amendments 202, 205 and 206, which relate, in their several ways, to reviewing the effects and outcomes of the Bill as an Act. I am supportive of them but especially grateful for Amendment 205, which responds to the plea put forward by a number of noble Lords in Committee that this far-reaching Bill, whose real-life effects on the health of the population must inevitably lie in the realm of uncertainty, merits close review at a point when we are in a position to assess those effects realistically. Hence, I particularly welcome subsection (2) of the new clause proposed by the amendment, which refers to assessing the impact of the Act. As my noble friend Lord Lansley argued persuasively, the review needs to drill down into the granular detail and the substance of how smokers and non-smokers are behaving in response to the implementation of the different strands of policy.
Having said that, I very much support the ideas contained in my noble friend Lord Young’s Amendment 202, for all the reasons that he gave. A review within four to seven years, as the Government have proposed, considering both economic and health outcomes and involving the devolved Governments, is a sensible safeguard as far as it goes. However, a road map and milestones, which both government and Parliament could follow and monitor along the way, would add considerable value. I am sorry that it appears that this is not an idea that the Government are willing to take further.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which have covered a number of important areas. I will start with Amendment 202, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and Amendment 206, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—it was also spoken to by a number of other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. As noble Lords are aware, there is already a duty on government to review most secondary legislation and to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of primary legislation, and we take these obligations very seriously. For Amendment 202 specifically, the point must be reiterated that this Government are committed to achieving a smoke-free UK, and we recognise that this work will absolutely not be over when this Bill receives Royal Assent.
However, I have listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords, and it is for that reason that I have tabled Amendment 205, which introduces a requirement for the Secretary of State to review the operation of the Act within four to seven years of Royal Assent and to lay a report before Parliament concluding the findings of that review. I can assure the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Young, that this includes looking at the impact on communities where smoking rates are currently the highest. I hope that this is a clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to monitoring progress against our smoke-free ambition.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, and others have said that this Bill is not about assisting people to quit. In the last group, noble Lords will recall, I addressed our determination, and laid out the resource that we have committed, to help people to quit smoking now, and that absolutely is a key aspect.
Amendment 205, which I tabled, will ensure that this Government and—I emphasise this—any future Administrations are held to account for conducting an evidence-based review of the Act. Our intent is to make the report within five years, in line with our existing obligations. However, the amendment is set out as it is—it provides the necessary flexibility on timing—because we want to ensure that evidence is in place before conclusions are drawn. We do not want this to be a tick-box exercise.
I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that independent evidence will indeed be central. Most notably, it will include the living evidence map commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, which will collate UK-based and international evidence on vapes and nicotine products for the next five years. This will include things such as any published research evaluating the impact of the Bill, and regular summaries will be publicly available to outline emerging trends and evidence gaps. I am pleased to say that this tool was published on 18 February.
As the Bill’s impact assessment outlines, we would not, in all honesty—I know noble Lords understand this—expect to see the full, transformative impact of the Act for some time. It is for that reason that the impact assessment used a 30-year appraisal period for the smoke-free generation policy. Our modelling found that the Bill will save tens of thousands of lives over the next 50 years. None the less, we expect that this review will capture any early indicators and operational progress.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that there is no limit on consultation just to the devolved Governments because, as I set out on previous groups, we are keen and committed and have already set out how we will consult many. We will continue to commission a substantial package of high-quality independent research on what is world-leading legislation.
On Amendment 207 by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I appreciate her intention to ensure that the impact of the Act receives appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, as I hope she has heard me say throughout every stage of the Bill. As she is aware, the Government already published a thorough impact assessment of the measures in the Bill on its introduction. Where possible, this has covered estimated impacts on businesses across the tobacco and vapes supply chain, including impacts for manufacturers, importers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers.
For measures delivered through secondary legislation, in particular product standards, flavours and packaging, further detailed impact assessments will be undertaken. I have also spoken about government Amendment 205, which will include consideration of economic impacts where evidence allows. I must also emphasise that we will not prioritise the profits of businesses over protecting children from the risks of tobacco products, vaping and nicotine.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, that there is no evidence to suggest that changing the age of sale of tobacco would have any relation to drug use. Indeed, we can look at our experience that, when the age of sale went from 16 to 18, drug use decreased.
I turn to Amendments 91, 120, 201 and 216, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. I hope that these comments, in particular my opening remarks, will be helpful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, because I will start with an update to your Lordships’ House on the notification of the Bill under the EU’s Technical Regulation Information System, known as TRIS. The UK Government have notified certain provisions in the Bill related to Northern Ireland on TRIS. This is an absolutely standard process; it is not an approval process. The Commission and member states may indeed comment, but they do not play a role in approving the UK’s legislation in respect of Northern Ireland.
It is the case, as noble Lords have said, that certain EU member states issued opinions setting out their concerns about the compatibility of the smoke-free generation policy with EU law. It is not unusual for member states to submit opinions on TRIS notifications. To give just one example, several member states also wrote to France recently when it proposed a ban on nicotine pouches, despite several other member states already having introduced such a ban.
The Government have provided a comprehensive response on the opinions they have received. The response sets out the strong public health justification for the policy and explains why the smoke free generation complies with EU law as it applies under the Windsor Framework. The Commission has also now responded, noting our response, and this concludes the TRIS process.
On the points raised by noble Lords including the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and, in a different way, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about legal opinions, your Lordships are probably far more aware of this, but it is worth restating: legal opinions, to state what is obvious, can and do differ. I emphasise that it is not unusual for the tobacco industry to argue that government measures are incompatible with the law. My noble friend Lord Forbes spoke to this very point. Experience tells us that this has happened many times: to give but two examples, on the introduction of standardised packaging in 2016 and on the regulations made under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002.
Amendments 91, 120 and 216 are not required: the Government have already published their response to the Commission, setting out why measures drafted in the Bill which apply to Northern Ireland are compatible with obligations under the Windsor Framework and EU law. I referred earlier to the Government’s published response on TRIS, following detailed opinions from EU member states. I strongly urge all interested Peers to read this if they have not had the chance to do so already, because it sets out in detail why the Government believe that the smoke-free generation policy and other measures in the Bill are compatible with EU law. It covers the Bill’s compatibility with Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the EU tobacco products directive, and the public health justification for measures in the Bill.
Finally, I note that we cannot accept Amendment 201 as it could put us in breach of international law by undermining compliance with our obligations under the Windsor Framework. To this point, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her observations. With that, I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. We had this discussion a few times in Committee. I tabled these amendments to make sure that all noble Lords are fully aware that no matter how much time we spend on the Bill, and whatever happens, it could end up in the EU ruling that it cannot apply to Northern Ireland. That is just a fact. There may be different legal opinions; I certainly have not relied on just the legal opinions of the tobacco industry. I am just disappointed as, once again, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General seems to be very quiet on this and does not want to engage or produce anything that shows us the legal opinion.
However, as has been said many times before, there is obviously agreement between the two Front Benches. Although I welcome the very sensible probing of this by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, there is clearly a consensus that the Bill is going to go through whatever because other Bills are probably more important. I therefore just warn noble Lords that we have been right before when we warned about legal opinion and what was happening in the Windsor Framework, and I think we will be right again. Having said that, I will withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
“Alignment of definition of “filter” etc(1) Section 35 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 3) (interpretation of Part 1) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—““filter” means a filter that is intended to be used when smoking a tobacco product or herbal smoking product (including a filter that forms part of, or that is intended to be inserted into, an item such as a cigarette holder or pipe);”.(3) In subsection (2), for “cigarette filters” substitute “filters that do not form part of a tobacco product or herbal smoking product”.(4) In subsection (3), after “order” insert “amend this section so as to”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This adds a definition of “filter” to section 35(1) of the 2010 Act, amends the definition of “smoking related product” so as to attract that new definition and adjusts the power to modify the latter definition to allow amendments that are not confined to the text of section 35(2).
Baroness Merron
“(b) if not falling within paragraph (a), a filter that does not form part of a tobacco product or herbal smoking product.(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations amend this Part for the purpose of extending to filters any provision made by sections 9A to 9C in relation to a relevant oral tobacco product.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows Part 1 of the 2010 Act to be amended so as to extend to filters provisions relating to tobacco products. It also allows the Scottish Ministers to ban the manufacture, sale or possession with intent to supply of filters.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations about age verification to be subject to approval by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations about age verification to be subject to approval by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
““filter” means a filter that is intended to be used when smoking a tobacco product or herbal smoking product (including a filter that forms part of, or that is intended to be inserted into, an item such as a cigarette holder or pipe);”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines “filter” for the purposes of my amendments to clause 85(1).
Baroness Merron
(a) a filter that does not form part of a tobacco product or herbal smoking product;Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Department to make regulations applying to filters any provision of Part 2 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 that applies to tobacco products.
“(1A) The Department may by regulations amend this Part for the purpose of extending to filters any provision made by Articles 4E to 4G in relation to a relevant oral tobacco product.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Department to ban the manufacture, sale or possession with intent to supply of filters.
“(za) a filter that does not form part of a tobacco product or herbal smoking product;” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Department to make regulations applying to filters any provision of Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 that applies to tobacco products.
Baroness Merron
““filter” means a filter that is intended to be used when smoking a tobacco product or herbal smoking product (including a filter that forms part of, or that is intended to be inserted into, an item such as a cigarette holder or pipe);”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines “filter” for the purposes of my amendments to clause 85(2).
Baroness Merron
“Extension of section 88 to filters(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend section 88 for the purpose of extending it to a relevant offence that involves possession of a filter with intent to supply it to another in the course of business.(2) In subsection (1)—“filter” means a filter that is intended to be used when smoking a tobacco product or herbal smoking product (including a filter that forms part of, or that is intended to be inserted into, an item such as a cigarette holder or pipe);“herbal smoking product” means a product consisting wholly or partly of vegetable matter and intended to be smoked but not containing tobacco;“relevant offence” means an offence created by virtue of regulations under—(a) section 45(1A),(b) section 34A(3A) of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services Act 2010 (asp 3), or(c) Article 6B(1A) of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1907 (N.I. 26));“tobacco product” means a product consisting wholly or partly of tobacco and intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked, chewed or consumed in any other way.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause confers power to extend clause 88 to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(da) filters;” Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Walmsley
“(2A) Provision made by the regulations must ensure that—(a) vaping products are sold in plain packaging;(b) vaping products are not displayed at the point of sale in the usual course of business, including promotional or marketing materials used at the point of sale, such as imagery, wording, branding, or promotional offers;(c) a person who fails to comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations under this section commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.(2B) In subsection (2A)—“plain packaging” means packaging that does not include branding, logos, imagery, or colours designed to make the product attractive;“point of sale” means any location within retail premises where vaping products are available for purchase.”
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 123 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Northover. When in Committee my noble friend tabled an amendment to prevent companies advertising vapes in a way that attracted children, the Minister’s response was that this was not necessary because advertising of vapes would be banned under the Bill except for public health purposes as a smoking cessation tool. In that case they would not be allowed to be advertised in a way that attracted children, and our amendment was therefore not necessary.
Having accepted the Minister’s point, we turned our attention to the packaging itself and point of sale display materials, because we know that the companies trying to sell vapes to people who have never smoked before will stop at nothing to hook people into nicotine addiction. That is why we have proposed that vapes must be sold in plain packaging like cigarettes and not displayed with attractive materials at point of sale. A recent UCL study showed that implementing plain packaging for vapes reduced their appeal to young people but did not affect how harmful adults perceive vapes to be compared with cigarettes. In particular, the paper noted that:
“Packaging is a primary marketing tool for vape companies”,
and that
“it is commonplace for brands to also use youth-appealing elements, such as images, cartoon characters, stylised fonts, and novel brand and flavour names on vapes and e-liquid packaging”.
We therefore felt it worth exploring the Government’s plans with regard to consultation and regulations about the packaging and point of sale of vapes. Vapes were on the market for quite a few years before the big uptick in youth vaping around 2021. That coincided with cheap, colourful, ergonomic disposables flooding the market. We need to make vapes a dull cessation tool again. Regulating packaging can and should be done quickly because vapes are being more aggressively marketed, partly through displays in stores. This is having an effect. Action on Smoking and Health’s latest youth vaping survey found that awareness of vaping promotion grew among 11 to 17 year-olds between 2022 and 2025. There was a significant increase in awareness of promotion of vapes over that period, particularly in shops: 37% in 2022 compared with 55% last year.
In 2022, 56% of 11 to 17 year-olds who were aware of vapes reported that they were exposed to some form of vape promotion. In 2022, 11% of young people who were aware of vapes reported seeing vape displays every time or most times they went into supermarkets. Last year that figure had risen to 27%, so there is a pressing need to do something about this. I accept that plain packaging and display rules for tobacco products were implemented, following consultation, through secondary legislation. I therefore ask the Minister what research has been carried out on the potential effect of plain packaging and point of sale for vapes, whether it would deter young people who do not smoke from taking up vaping and whether it has been shown that there would be any deterrent effect on adults who wish to quit by using vapes to help them to do so. Frankly, I would be very surprised if someone who wishes to quit would be deterred from buying a vape just because it was not in a shiny, colourful, attractive package on a shiny, colourful, attractive display, like the ones I currently see all over the place.
I do not support Amendments 125 and 134 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I felt we had a balanced debate in Committee about the role that flavours play in smoking cessation, and I was reassured by the Minister’s comments at that time. Clearly, regulation of flavour descriptors is easier to do and may give us the desired outcomes, meaning that we do not need to regulate flavours themselves. However, it is important that the Government retain the right to regulate flavours in case evidence emerges about particular flavours that require action.
On Amendment 136A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, the limit on vape size is currently 2 millilitres, but I know there are concerns regarding products that attach to vapes to increase this. I urge caution in this area. While it might seem likely that larger tanks increase consumption, there is not yet evidence of this being the case, and concerns regarding big-puff products may be unfounded. We need to find out. Indeed, the rise in youth vaping in Britain since 2020 appears to have been primarily driven by 2-millilitre, colourful, single-use vapes, not larger-capacity products. It is possible that larger-volume products could have benefits in satisfying consumer demand for longer-lasting products, reducing littering—which would be a good thing—and increasing the price point of initial purchase without unduly raising the price per puff for those using them to quit smoking. I look forward to comments from the Minister on the broad point regarding attachments. I know that both these issues were included in the recent call for evidence, so she may have some early insights for us in the light of that. I beg to move.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 125 and 134 in this group. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for the support that she has indicated for them. On the speech just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I am obviously distressed that she has been exposed needlessly to the sight of shiny vapes in her local supermarket, petrol station or whatever it is. We can sympathise with her on that, but she seems to have ignored entirely the context of Clause 89. This gives the Government the most extensive powers, at least in relation to packaging, which, as far as I can see, could very easily lead to the equivalent of plain packaging, but she made no reference to it.
My amendments would increase the powers that the Government have in Clause 89. I will first explain the rationale for what I am proposing. There is a great deal of agreement—there has been throughout Report—between the Minister and me; I hope that we can continue that in the course of this debate. We agree, crucially, on the importance of how the flavours are described and presented to the public in attracting buyers to vapes.
However, that cuts two ways. We know, on the one hand, that vapes can have what I call “flavour descriptors” on them. These are deliberately designed to appeal to children and young people in a way that we are all opposed to. We do not wish to see vapes marketed in such a way as to seduce children and young people into taking them up. When we see flavour descriptors such as “cotton candy” and “gummy bear” on the side of a vape, we can all agree that that sort of thing should have a stop put to it because we know the market that it is intended to reach. On the other hand, as I think the Minister has acknowledged, for vapes to be an effective cessation tool for adults it is important to have a range of flavours available to them. As I said, I think the Government have acknowledged that.
Where in the Bill is the power that the Government need to regulate flavour descriptors? It is the flavour descriptor—the “gummy bear”, the “cotton candy”—that the Government need a clear power to be able to eliminate. We discussed this in Committee. The Minister very kindly wrote to me afterwards and said that the Government would rely on Clause 89, which relates to retail packaging. This gives the Government a certain number of powers to make regulations concerning packaging, but it does not at any point, as far as I can see, specify the flavour descriptor that appears on the packaging as something that the Government have a direct power to regulate.
The Government may rely on Clause 89, and it may be possible that its scope could be stretched to cover their point. It would ultimately, I suppose, be a matter for the courts to decide. My Amendment 125, fairly straightforwardly, would give the Government that power explicitly. It would add to the list in Clause 89(3), currently running from paragraph (a) to paragraph (k), of the things that the Government can regulate. It would add a further thing: the flavour descriptor that appears on the packaging. I do not think the Government would necessarily want to reject this amendment. It would give them a power that could be very useful; even if they feel that they have this power already, making it explicit would make matters somewhat easier.
To complement that, there is in Clause 91, which relates to contents and flavours, a power for the Government to make regulations concerning the “flavour of relevant products”. Here I want to make a point which I made in Committee and which is of the utmost importance; I speak as somebody who uses vapes. My point is that, in practice—I say this especially for the benefit of noble Lords who do not use vapes—the flavour descriptor on the vape has almost no relationship to the flavour of the vape.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 136A deals with the rapid emergence of devices with a very high puff count—so-called “big puff” devices—which are clearly designed to circumvent the spirit of existing regulation. The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, approved by this House and the other place, set a 2-millilitre limit on vape tank size. That limit was deliberate. It was intended to restrict the volume of nicotine liquid immediately accessible within a device. Yet now we see devices incorporating multiple pods or attaching 10-millilitre refill containers directly to the unit. These create systems with an effective capacity far beyond 2 millilitres. If the law says 2 millilitres it should mean 2 millilitres, not 2 millilitres multiplied by clever engineering.
These are no longer niche products. Millions are now sold weekly. They are cheaper per puff than standard devices and they are particularly attractive to younger users. Research indicates that almost half of 16 to 34 year-olds who vape are opting for these devices with a higher puff count. We now see products on the market claiming to deliver 100,000 puffs. To put that into perspective, that is broadly equivalent to the puff volume of something like 8,000 cigarettes all contained within a single device. The concentration of nicotine exposure in one unit on that scale should give us all very serious cause for concern.
I do not believe this is simply a matter of marketing exaggeration. Some of these devices contain several times more liquid than traditional products, materially increasing the potential volume of nicotine consumption and moving far beyond what Parliament envisaged when it established the 2-millilitre limit. We also see superficial attempts to comply with the ban on disposable vapes. Devices are fitted with USB charging points but retain non-replaceable coils, so that once the coil burns out, the entire device is discarded. This is disposability in all but name.
I anticipate that the Minister may suggest that the Bill already contains sufficient powers to regulate such devices through secondary legislation. If that is so, this amendment merely makes explicit what the Government believe is already implicit. Parliament has previously set a clear quantitative limit. It is entirely reasonable to reaffirm that limit in unambiguous terms, particularly where the market has moved to exploit perceived gaps.
The Minister may also say that the Government have launched a call for evidence and that legislation at this stage would be premature. However, the concern here is not about developing future policy but about the exploitation of the existing framework. The 2-millilitre limit is already law. The issue is whether that settled position can be circumvented in practice through structural design. This amendment does not stifle legitimate reusable products. It does not prohibit refill bottles sold separately. It does not alter the 10-millimetre refill rule. It does not interfere with lawful refillable systems. It simply ensures that a single device cannot be engineered to exceed the 2-millilitre limit through multiple tanks or attached containers.
Effective enforcement depends on legislative clarity. Trading standards officers should not be left to debate whether what is in effect a 12-millimetre system technically complies with the 2-millimetre rule. Clear drafting reduces ambiguity and strengthens compliance. At the very least I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House that there will be no undue delay in addressing devices that are clearly designed to sidestep the intent of the current rules and that prompt action will be taken to close this loophole and uphold the 2-millimetre limit in practice.
Lord Darzi of Denham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I strongly support the Bill and the ambition to create a smoke- free generation. Throughout my clinical and academic career, I have consistently argued for bold preventive action, because nothing would do more to reduce preventable death and health inequality than ending tobacco addiction. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for Amendments 125 and 134. I understand the instincts behind them, but I cannot support them. These amendments would limit the Government’s power to regulate flavour descriptors—the words on the packet rather than the chemical ingredients that create the flavour. Put simply, we would be regulating the label, not the substance.
The Chief Medical Officer’s evidence note is clear. Flavoured vaping products contain a wide range of chemicals, many of which are safe to eat but dangerous to inhale. The long-term effects of inhaling these substances are simply not known yet. Restricting regulations to descriptors alone would deny the Government’s ability to act as new science emerges. As we have heard, flavour is one of the principal drivers of youth uptake. If we regulate only what the packet says and not what the product contains, manufacturers will simply reformulate to maintain the same appeal. We would be inviting a regulatory game of cat and mouse, and it is a game that children will lose.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I hate to interrupt the noble Lord, but Clause 91 gives the Secretary of State powers to regulate the substances that may be included in a relevant product. I am not proposing that we change that at all. I am simply suggesting we change “flavour” to “flavour descriptor”, because flavour is inherently subjective. The substances which may be toxic or harmful would remain in scope of the legislation in the language the Government have chosen to use, irrespective of my amendment. I interrupt the noble Lord only because I am not entirely sure that he has grasped the effect of my amendment, and I thought he might want to reflect on that.
Lord Darzi of Denham (Non-Afl)
If I have not, then I apologise. I still believe it is not clear on paper. I feel it is the flavour that is being bound, but if the noble Lord’s amendment is correcting that, that is fine. Narrowing the powers before the science is settled is another issue. There is very little scientific evidence on the impact of the taste or whatever the inhaler contains. This has not been utilised before, so we do not know the dangers of the substance that is being inhaled. The prudent course is to retain the widest possible powers and to act on evidence as it emerges. To do otherwise will leave our children exposed to risks we could have prevented. I urge the House to at least look at these amendments or reject them.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I shall be brief, because the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has explained what his amendment is trying to do. I just want to query whether narrowing the powers before the science is settled is an admirable aspiration. That gives authoritarian power to the Government to do anything they want because there is no science and it is not settled. How is that evidence-based policy? It is the opposite and I think that is very dangerous.
I want to more accurately emphasise that flavours are part of smoking cessation, but I am only going to do that briefly. The reason why I want to do that is to quote ASH, because—guess what?—ASH says that flavours are a very important way in which adults vape and therefore give up smoking. So, for once, I am quoting ASH in a positive way to say that flavours cannot be demonised and we have to be very careful what we wish for.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but, unless it is designed as a probing amendment, I fear I am not drawn to Amendment 123. In essence, it would tie the Government’s hands on the rules around the packaging and display of vapes. If the amendment were accepted, it would make any prior consultation and legal advice completely pointless. Measures of this depth and scope, mandating plain packaging for all vaping products and prohibiting point-of-sale display in all circumstances, would represent a major intervention in what is currently, and will certainly remain, a lawful market, and not only a lawful market but one that serves a significant therapeutic purpose in a public health context. The extent to which the powers in the Bill relating to the packaging and display of vapes need to be exercised must surely depend on decisions by Ministers following full and proper consultation with the businesses, manufacturers and retailers that would be directly affected.
Some regulation in these areas is almost certainly going to be necessary, particularly if we are to protect young people. However, regulation must be proportionate and evidence based. Vapes are not the same as tobacco, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out. For example, there needs to be scope for product differentiation by consumers. If consumers are denied choice, that will kill off any incentive on the part of manufacturers to pursue beneficial innovation. That consideration is important if we believe that vapes are likely to occupy an important place as a smoking cessation tool for adult smokers over the medium to long term.
On Amendments 125 and 134 from my noble friend Lord Moylan, notwithstanding the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, I hope to hear the Minister make some positive comments. As my noble friend has argued, both today and in Committee, it is not just the flavour of a vape that gives it an appeal but the flavour that it purports to have, and we know that the flavour descriptor can affect the purchasing decisions of those inclined to use vapes as a recreational toy.
In relation to Amendment 136A, there are clearly a number of considerations that must be weighed carefully. On the one hand, higher-capacity devices may be important for some adult users who rely on vaping as a smoking cessation tool. For those individuals, practicality and product functionality can make a real difference in supporting a transition away from combustible tobacco. On the other hand, there remains a legitimate concern, which my noble friend rightly voiced, about whether larger-capacity devices could increase appeal to younger people or facilitate greater nicotine consumption, with implications for addiction.
I suggest that those are finely balanced issues. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on the evidence base underpinning the proposal and how the Government intend to strike the right balance.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions in this debate. Amendment 123 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Clause 89, which I will refer to later as well, already gives the Secretary of State powers to regulate packaging, while Clause 13 already provides powers on display that can set requirements as to where products can be sold.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about evidence. There is evidence that removing branding and standardising packaging reduces a product’s appeal to young people, as the noble Baroness alluded to, while having little impact on adults. However, I can say that we will consult on proposals before making regulations. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has referred to this issue a number of times and I agree, because we are conscious of the need to ensure a balance between dissuading young people from taking this up while not dissuading adult smokers from quitting.
On the point about research, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, we continue to fund high-quality research, including research on the packaging of vapes and nicotine products, and I am glad to say that that is due to conclude later this year. While I understand the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, to reduce the appeal and visibility of these products, and I acknowledge her concerns, her amendment does seek to set the requirements in the Bill. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to, we have a statutory duty and we would be wise to consult on these issues, because we need to ensure, as the noble Earl said, that any restrictions are proportionate and evidence based. However, I reassure the noble Baroness that these are areas on which we will be acting.
On Amendment 136A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, vaping products, as has been referred to in this debate, are already limited to 2 millilitres for tanks and 10 millilitres for refill containers. Over recent years, some manufacturers have developed devices where multiple refill containers can be attached to a single device as a means to circumvent the legislative requirements and restrictions.
I want to assure the noble Lord that Clause 90 provides the powers to amend or place additional requirements and limits on vape tank sizes and the size of refill containers. It is vital that we undertake the necessary consultation, because we wish to make sure that our regulations are based on the best possible evidence related to tank capacity limits and that we do not have unintended consequences for adult smokers who use vapes as a quit aid, something I know is of concern, and rightly so, to noble Lords. It is therefore more appropriate for such detailed technical measures to be introduced through secondary legislation. Our recent call for evidence sought views specifically on tank sizes to better understand current market practices and we are, as I mentioned in an earlier group, currently analysing responses and will consider our proposals for consultation post Royal Assent.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 125 and 134, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I begin by assuring noble Lords—and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, suggested I would do this—that Clauses 89 and 90 already provide powers for the Government to regulate information on vape devices and packaging, including flavour descriptors. I draw the attention of noble Lords particularly to Clause 89(3), which is a non-exhaustive list of the kind of provision that regulations could make, including in paragraph (b),
“the information provided on packaging or otherwise supplied with a product”.
I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by noble Lords about potential unintended consequences of implementing flavour restrictions too rapidly or stringently, and I understand the points that noble Lords have made about the role that flavoured vapes can play in helping adult smokers quit, something the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, did a very fine job of inviting us into the world that he has experienced in this regard. In that spirit, I can confirm the Government’s commitment to consult on regulating flavour descriptors as a first step before considering broader restrictions on flavoured ingredients. This commitment reflects our intention to adopt a proportionate approach, again as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked me to do, supporting adult smokers in their efforts to quit while also working to reduce the appeal of vaping products to children.
However, and on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, I have to be clear that it is essential that we retain the ability to go further in line with the evidence, which the noble Baroness referred to. Flavourings are added to vaping products and that can increase their appeal. Hundreds of flavoured ingredients are used in vapes and, although some are considered safe when ingested, we do not, as the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, said, know the long-term health effects when they are inhaled, particularly in respect of children. Some initial data drawn from the limited research available is concerning and indicates that certain chemicals may be harmful if inhaled. For this important reason, we must have the flexibility to restrict flavoured ingredients in the future to protect public health. We have sought further data on flavours as part of the call for evidence conducted at the end of last year and we are reviewing those responses. In addition, we are exploring commissioning further research on the health impacts of vape ingredients when inhaled.
I hope that all this reassures noble Lords that the powers in the Bill already provide a comprehensive framework to act on these issues and that our approach will remain balanced and evidence-based to strike a necessary balance between reducing youth appeal and ensuring that adult smokers continue to have access to products that may help them quit. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and, in particular, the words—and I hope I quote them correctly—these are areas on which we are planning to act. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I looked very carefully at Clause 89, as my earlier comments in earlier debates on how they might affect specialist tobacconists might have proved to him, but I point out that it talks only about packaging and not about display materials—that appears in a different part of the Bill.
I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that, even if my amendment was put word for word into the Bill, it would not prevent information about the products being provided on the packaging or the display to people who wanted to buy them. That would be fine. My intention—and I know the Minister understands this—is to do everything possible to reduce the attractiveness of vaping to stop it being taken up by young children who have never smoked. Vapes are and should remain a cessation tool.
I am particularly grateful to the Minister, because we have discussed this issue outside the Chamber. She has given me what I want in that she has clarified that the Government have the powers in the Bill to regulate both packaging and display and has said the Government intend to act in these areas. I am very grateful for that. Having been given what I want, I will withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lansley
“(l) the technological features, markings or identifiers on packaging required for product authentication or the prevention of illicit products.”
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to be able to introduce this group and, in particular, to speak to my Amendment 124. This group is about the features of products in Clauses 89 and 90—not the ones that we have just discussed but in particular the technology features to be found in products.
If I can jog to the later amendments, government Amendments 130 and 132 and my Amendment 131 relate to a subject that a number of noble Lords will recall we discussed in Committee. We discussed whether there should be powers in the Bill to regulate the technology in vapes such that the mechanism for regulation would not only be at point of sale but could also be at point of use. My Amendment 131 is designed specifically to achieve that. The Minister has been listening again, and I am pleased to have the opportunity again to thank her for her engagement and that of officials. I also thank her for the amendments she has now brought forward.
The Minister’s Amendments 130 and 132 together would have the effect of allowing for the features of a product to include the technology associated with that and, in Amendment 132, the software included with that technology. What is the point of that? It is to be able to secure that known technology which would allow age gating and verification, linking the electronics in the vape to a smartphone with age verification built into it. This would enable us to provide that only verified adults would be able to use vapes.
What is really interesting is that this is not speculative: the technology is presented to the Food and Drug Administration in America and the latest information I have from IKE Tech, which I thank for its work on this, is the application for a pre-market tobacco product, including a human factors study. In tests, 100% of adults were able to access the product successfully, while 0% of under-age users were able to do so. It is an effective technology.
If I can anticipate the Minister’s view, it is that Ministers are not yet convinced that this is the approach to take; they want to ensure that there is effective point of sale verification. However, I hope they agree that, given the progress that has been made, not least through the FDA in America, which will be demonstrated in a substantial market, the combination of point of sale and point of use may be necessary in future to achieve the level of assurance about age gating to vapes that we want to achieve. At the moment—the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is not with us at the moment, so I am able to quote from Action on Smoking and Health—ASH tells us that nearly half of under-age vapers are buying them from shops, so there is a substantial job to be done. We know that nearly a quarter of under-age vapers receive them via proxy purchases. We will not eliminate proxy purchases through the point of sale restriction, but age gating, in the technology of the product itself, may achieve exactly that.
I think we are all agreed—at least, I hope we are —following the debate in Committee, when we were supported by my noble friends on the Front Bench, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the Liberal Democrat Benches, that we want to have this power available, and I hope that Ministers will look actively at whether this is a desirable thing to achieve. Government Amendments 130 and 132 will achieve that.
There is also the question of Amendment 124, which is the basis of this debate. It relates to Clause 89 and the technology essentially in the packaging of vaping and nicotine products. I shall not press the amendment, because I am assured by the Minister in our conversations that the powers available in Clause 89 would allow that the kind of technology for authentication of a product can be specified. We want to put into products a smart tag, which we discussed previously, and is effectively a near field communication tag embedded in the packaging to enable tracking of illicit products, giving real-time identification of the history of a product by enforcement authorities. It would also enable retailers and consumers with the appropriate technology in their smartphones to assure themselves of the authenticity and safety of a product that was available to them, doing so in a way which, unlike QR codes which can be copied, and some of the other coding systems presently used, can be done in a unique token ID system embedded in blockchain, meaning that it would not be able to be removed, copied or circumvented. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that Clause 89 already has the powers necessary to include technology as sophisticated as this. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this group relates to the technology in devices. Government Amendments 130 and 132 are, we understand, designed to future-proof this legislation, particularly to prevent the placing of video games inside vaping devices. We on these Benches welcome the intention and the future-proofing of the legislation. This is of the utmost importance; we see it time and again and are right to expect that the tobacco industry will react to this legislation when it hits the statute book.
This is not abstract—it is based on real-life evidence and real-life vapes that exist. Cigarette companies are now producing vaping devices that incorporate video games, particularly retro video games, and even virtual pets. For some, this might appear as not that important or essential, but nothing could be further from the truth. The linking of nicotine addiction with a gaming addiction, and the linking with different rewards and sensory interactions, are extremely powerful and the motivation is only about increasing profits for Big Tobacco.
Looking at it in more detail so that your Lordships understand, the points that users can get in the games on the vaping devices are linked to the number of puffs they take, how frequently they take them and how often they interact with their vaping device. They can compare scores with their friends, and virtual pets can die if people do not take enough nicotine. This might look playful, but it is about feeding and deepening individual addiction to these devices. They are extremely powerful and harmful, particularly to the young people at whom they are aimed.
One of these new devices has apparently been viewed over 12 million times. British American Tobacco’s latest device, Vuse Ultra, was recently dubbed “the future of vaping”. These devices are available in the UK, and the market will inevitably grow if there are loopholes in the legislation. The devices push the boundaries, so it is important that the Government regulate them.
As we heard, the oversight remains weak, as do trading standards; the devices get into our young people’s hands; they might predominantly be purchased in shops, through friends or even sometimes parents. Online restrictions are not as good as they should be. These are important issues.
We welcome the two government amendments, but is the Minister convinced that the Government really have all the powers they need to future-proof this legislation? Do they feel that they have adequate powers in the Bill and future regulations to prevent vaping devices being linked to any form of online data collection and storage; to prevent the linking of vapes to apps in phones via Bluetooth, QR codes or joining the website; to stop the linking of users’ individual puff counts to games or online collection; and to stop the actual connection between the number and times of puffs taken and access to forms of promotion, discount or VIP passes? This is clearly where the industry would like to go if the guardrails are not provided by the Government.
I also welcome the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Speaking to the words that he used, the hope is that government Amendments 132 and 130 will cover Amendment 131, but it would be good to have the Minister confirm that.
Finally, Amendment 124 is about the technology within the packaging and whether the Government feel that they have the powers they need to put in these near-field tracking devices to make sure that these are genuine products, not fraudulent or unreal. Do the Government need Amendment 124 to feel they can make sure that the products available in the shops are legal and not counterfeit, or are they satisfied with what they have?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, before I respond to the specific amendments, I will touch on two things that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. First, I was previously in the European Parliament and worked on a number of technology regulations, and we can never be absolutely certain that we have legislated for the future or completely future-proofed anything. The only way to do that is to ban everything, frankly. We therefore often find regulation having to keep up with technology when it is far behind it, but we can put certain provisions in place. We can predict certain things but we cannot predict all innovation completely. Secondly, I hope the noble Earl will not mind me gently reminding him that not all vape companies are connected to big tobacco. A number of vape companies have nothing to do with big tobacco, and it is important that we understand that distinction.
My noble friend Lord Howe and I welcome the amendments from my noble friend Lord Lansley. Before the Minister speaks to them, we also very much welcome the two government amendments in this group, which we think respond very helpfully to the issues raised in Committee by my noble friend Lord Lansley. We believe that adding these provisions is a good way of future-proofing the Bill, as much as any Bill can be future-proofed, without necessarily compromising any decisions that Ministers may wish to make in the short term—but also without committing the Government or a future Government to any specific technology solution or to one company’s specific solution. With that in mind, I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, government Amendments 130 and 132 provide a power that would allow the Government to regulate the technological features of vaping products and tobacco-related devices, and the software associated with those features, to address emerging risks and to protect children. While the Bill already provides powers to regulate various device features, such as colour, size and shape, I listened carefully to the points raised in Committee about vape technology and the need to future-proof the Bill in order to respond quickly to new risks. I appreciate the support of both Front Benches on this point, particularly the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about how far one can ever go when future-proofing. I can assure him that we are not planning to ban everything, but I thank him for the interesting suggestion.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke to concerning examples of the emergence of technology being used to make vapes more enticing to young people. As he said, some can now come with gaming functionality and others can be linked to what are called puff leaderboards and reward systems, so the more you inhale, the more credits you build up. Emerging evidence suggests—and it is worrying—that these interactive and gamified vaping features may heighten their appeal to children. This raises serious public health concerns around their potential to escalate dependence on nicotine. Our amendments therefore ensure that such emergent technology features can be appropriately regulated to reduce the appeal to children.
I turn to Amendments 124 and 131 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Let me first reassure him, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with regard to Amendment 124, that the powers in the Bill already enable us to regulate markings, which could include digital markings such as QR codes, to be used as part of a system to authenticate products. On Amendment 131, with reference to the device itself, I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s suggestions and his contributions on how best to future-proof the Bill, including on age-verification technology.
While it is not the Government’s policy to verify age at the point of use, and we have no intention to do so at this time, we recognise that need, as I have said, to be able to regulate technology to protect public health and respond to evidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, acknowledged. It is for this reason that we are introducing the new regulation-making power on technology to which I have just spoken. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
The Minister referred to QR codes on packaging, which are obviously covered by the terminology of the Bill as it stands. But the example I used was smart tags, which effectively incorporate an electronic feature into the packaging of a product for monitoring. I would like to be assured that smart tags, too, are covered by the existing powers in the Bill.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I would be happy to write to confirm that point, but we feel that the Bill covers what we need to cover now. Our amendments talk about future-proofing, which is the key thing, but I would be pleased to write further.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am most grateful to the Minister and for the support from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Kamall. With those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 124.
Baroness Merron
“(iva) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(g) any technological features of a tobacco related device or vaping product.” Member’s explanatory statement
This allows regulations under clause 90 to make provision about the technological features of a tobacco related device (such as a heated tobacco device) or a vaping product.
Baroness Merron
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1)(g) may include provision about software for use in connection with technological features to which the regulations relate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This allows regulations under new subsection (1)(g) about the technological features of a tobacco related device or vaping product to include provision about related software.
Baroness Merron
“(da) filters,”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(da) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(da) filters,” Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(da) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(iva) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(da) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(da) filters;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(da) filters,”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(iva) filters,” Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
“(5) Regulations under this Part creating an offence—(a) may provide for it to be punishable with a term of imprisonment or a fine (or both);(b) may not provide for the maximum term of imprisonment to exceed 2 years.”Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 102 currently requires offences created by regulations under Part 5 to be either way offences with a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment. The amendment allows more flexibility so that summary only offences with lesser maximum penalties can be created.
Baroness Merron
“Enforcement(1) Regulations under this Part may include provision about enforcement.(2) The provision that may be made about enforcement includes—(a) provision conferring functions on the relevant enforcement authorities;(b) provision for the appropriate national authority to—(i) direct, in relation to cases of a particular description or a particular case, that any function conferred on a relevant enforcement authority by virtue of the regulations is to be carried out by the appropriate national authority and not by the relevant enforcement authority;(ii) take over the conduct of any proceedings from a relevant enforcement authority in respect of an offence under this Part.(3) The provision that may be made about enforcement includes—(a) provision conferring on a relevant enforcement authority the power to prohibit a person, for a period of up to 6 months, from supplying a product, if the authority has reasonable grounds to suspect that there has been a breach of regulations under this Part in relation to that product;(b) provision for the forfeiture of products—(i) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, by court order;(ii) in Scotland, by order of a sheriff;(c) provision similar or corresponding to section 88 (HMRC seizure powers). (4) Provision made by virtue of subsection (3)(a) may include—(a) provision for compensation to be payable by a relevant enforcement authority in specified circumstances;(b) provision about the resolution of disputes about compensation.(5) Regulations under this section may include provision conferring jurisdiction on a court or tribunal, including—(a) provision conferring jurisdiction to order a person to reimburse a relevant enforcement authority’s expenditure in specified circumstances;(b) provision about appeals.(6) In this section—“appropriate national authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State,(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers,(c) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers, and(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Department of Health;“relevant enforcement authority” means—(a) in relation to England, a local weights and measures authority,(b) in relation to Wales, a local weights and measures authority,(c) in relation to Scotland, a local weights and measures authority, and(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, a district council;“supplying” includes—(a) agreeing to supply;(b) offering or exposing for supply.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is intended to replace clause 103. Clause 103(2) allows regulations to apply enforcement provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 repeals those provisions. The new clause recasts, and narrows, the powers in a way that avoids referring to the 1987 Act.
Baroness Merron
““filter” means a filter that is intended to be used when smoking a tobacco product or herbal smoking product (including a filter that forms part of, or that is intended to be inserted into, an item such as a cigarette holder or pipe);”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines “filter” for the purposes of my amendments to Part 5 of the Bill.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Lord Udny-Lister
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to exclude vapes and nicotine products from the prohibition regarding advertising.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, while I am on my feet moving Amendment 149, I will also talk about the other amendments in my name. We must prevent an indiscriminate or blanket prohibition without proper scrutiny and consultation. I fear that, without these safeguards and measures, and with the approach being taken, years of success in smoking cessation will be reversed rapidly.
Further still, in the drafting of this Bill it is apparent that advertising is being looked at as merely a commercial persuasion. I would argue that this is wrong. We are forgetting that advertising is a channel of product differentiation and risk communication. We must therefore provide manufacturers with the opportunities to communicate factual and regulated information regarding relative risks and cessation pathways. Otherwise, we will be creating a system in which misinformation will flood the gap.
We must not allow a blanket prohibition on advertising vapes, nicotine pouches and heated tobacco products without consultation. To do so would be an affront to our business community and contrary to the way that things should be done. As already raised in Committee, half of all smokers now wrongly believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking. If communication is prohibited through an advertising ban, how do we correct misinformation such as this? How do we promote public health outcomes?
The impact assessment acknowledges potential unintended consequences for smoking cessation. These unintended consequences must be rooted out and the only way to achieve that at this stage is through wider and effective consultation. The amendments I have put forward all seek to prevent harm reduction being undermined, and on that basis I hope to gain support.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 168 is in my name. I will also speak briefly to my Amendment 196, which is in the next group, but the subject matter is broadly similar. I am very grateful to my noble friends Lord Brady of Altrincham and Lord Naseby and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for signing these amendments.
These amendments, taken together, would serve the purpose of providing safeguards and guarantees for the hospitality sector within the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. I should be clear that they would not tie the hands of government in any way. They would not create carve-outs or specific loopholes, with the exception of a very narrow exemption in Amendment 168. They merely propose a requirement to consult specifically with the hospitality, retail and entertainment industries before making regulations in these areas.
I ask noble Lords, when thinking about these amendments, to consider the broader burdens currently faced by the hospitality industry. It is well known that the sector has been exposed to a number of challenges as a result of government policy in recent months and some aspects of this Bill have the potential to substantially add to these challenges. It is worth looking at the broader context, because the hospitality sector contributes £93 billion to the UK economy each year. It is the third-largest employer, with 3.5 million people employed in the sector. Since the 2024 Budget, over 89,000 jobs have been lost, which accounts for roughly 53% of all job losses in the economy. That is before the impact of the Employment Rights Act, which 49% of business leaders have said will make them less likely to hire new staff.
On business rates reforms, pubs have been granted a limited stay of execution, but, in the wider hospitality sector, the estimate is that it will cost the industry an additional £150 million, or the equivalent of about 12,500 jobs. The beer tax in the 2025 Budget has forced up the price of a pint by effectively eliminating the profit margin on beer through the alcohol hike of 3.55% from last month. That is all before the increases to national insurance, which have driven up operating costs across the board, as well as sky-high energy prices. This is an industry that is under considerable existential pressure.
It is important to reiterate these facts in light of the briefings from many of the public health charities that have been campaigning on this Bill. They claim that these amendments are not necessary. But every single UK hospitality industry association, including UK Hospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association and the Night Time Industries Association, has warned about the damages this Bill could do to the sector. These amendments are therefore needed because the industry has said that it has absolutely no more capacity to absorb additional costs.
While the Government have said that it is not their intention to legislate for smoke-free and vape-free places for the hospitality industry as it is not the right time, that statement carries the clear implication that they might choose to do so in the future. To be clear, these amendments would not stop the Government legislating in this area. They would merely require that they guarantee consultation, with an impact assessment, before doing so. Why the guarantee? It is because too often we see sectors with concerns around this area being dismissed for having vested interests—we have heard many arguments this evening around the same subject—and the Government heeding only the submissions of organisations that tell them what they want to hear. In view of this, we suggest that these amendments and safeguards are extremely important.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the explanation for the amendments has been well made. I have added my name to a number of amendments, including Amendments 149 and 151 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which would exclude vapes and nicotine products from prohibitions regarding advertising, and he has explained why.
It is genuinely shocking how many misconceptions there are about vaping and smoking among the public. There is a real job of communication that the Government have an obligation to do. If 50% of adults now believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking, that is not a good thing. If only 30% believe vaping is less harmful, that is not positive.
Conflicting messaging about vaping can discourage smokers from switching to lower-risk products and therefore widen health inequalities—all the things we keep talking about. Misrepresentation is a real problem and I think we have got to tackle it. Banning advertising would reinforce the false perception that vaping is just as harmful as smoking.
As we are coming to the end, I will make my final declaration. As somebody who smoked 40 cigarettes every day for 40 years—can you imagine?—I want to put on record in Hansard that I am grateful to the vaping industry, and particularly to flavoured vapes, because I stopped smoking as a consequence of flavoured vapes. That is what I thought that everybody wanted us smokers to do, only to find that vaping and smoking are being treated as though they are almost the same. I am very keen that we do not do anything that will make vaping less visible or erase it from the public square.
The Government have sort of acknowledged that by allowing public authorities to run mass media campaigns encouraging adults who smoke to “Swap to Stop”. Dare I suggest that official public health adverts, even if they go on TikTok, might be a little bit dry and less appealing than seeing some adverts for vapes in a nightclub? Tens of thousands of people gather for a night out at hospitality venues, so that seems to be something that the Government would want to encourage. Although I know that the amendments do not make the Government do anything, I suggest that it would be very positive if, in venues where you have thousands of adult smokers, they saw adverts for less harmful alternatives to smoking. That is a clever way to encourage switch-and-quit.
That is one of the reasons why I have added my name to Amendment 168 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Brady of Altrincham and Lord Naseby. The emphasis on adverts for vapes and products that do not contain tobacco is well made. It is also important for us to consider the hospitality sector; that has been explained very well. Hospitality venues rely on marketing and sponsorship as part of their income. As I say, it would be a public service, rather than doing anything damaging, to allow them to carry on.
Many of us are worried about the fatal damage that the Bill will do to the retail sector. It seems ridiculous that another industry could be put in jeopardy by the Bill; that would not be good for the Government’s growth strategy. When UKHospitality stresses that the industry has
“absolutely no more capacity to absorb additional costs”,
we should listen. When the CEO of Whitbread, one of the largest hospitality operators in the country, says that the hospitality industry
“finds itself on the receiving end of a series of government interventions which together will significantly hold back our ability to contribute to growth”,
we should listen. We could, rather carelessly, be in a situation where we do not take that into consideration when we bring in some of these advertising restrictions. These amendments are proportionate; they suggest that we should hold back a little and at least organise a consultation.
Another industry that the Bill imperils is the design industry. That is why I have added my name to Amendment 152, which would exempt designers from having committed an offence if they had “reason to suspect” that a design or imagery contains these kinds of products. The problem for designers is that they may be criminalised for designing something that includes products that the Bill is trying to eradicate from the public space. That is a serious attack on artistic freedom. This amendment should be incorporated into the Bill. I do not think that anyone intended for the Bill to criminalise designers—but this is a Bill that will do all sorts of things that were not intended. These amendments are very moderate and allow the Government to hold back the tide of that.
Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)
My Lords, very briefly, I support Amendment 168 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and of other noble Lords, because it seems so reasonable. Surely there is no harm done if the advertisement is in a licensed premises; is not visible, except from inside the venue; is not for a tobacco product; mentions a smoke- or vape-free area; and is age-restricted to adults only. I cannot see what there is to object to, unless we are saying that the age restrictions do not work—in which case, why are we pressing ahead with a generational ban in the first place? Do we really want to get into this overreaching, overregulated situation where the compulsory cure is worse than the voluntary disease—one entered into willingly and knowingly by consenting adults?
I particularly support subsection (3) of the proposed new clause. It asks for further investigation into the effects on the hospitality industry, which is already suffering the devastating consequences of other policies. It would be good to hear what losing these marketing revenue streams will mean for those who have to run a business to make a profit in order to employ people, especially bearing in mind that recent policies have cost nearly 100,000 jobs and are responsible for nearly 50% of all job losses.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will respond to this group on advertising and sponsorship. On these Benches, we feel that it is essential that the Bill strikes the right balance between regulating the advertisement and sponsorship of nicotine products, to ensure that they cannot be marketed in ways that appeal to children, and allowing their promotion to adults who smoke as a way to quit smoking.
I have listened to the speeches that have been made in this group. The initial response in my head is that we are facing an absolute explosion in vaping, particularly among our children and young people. I do not think that the pub industry is going to survive on the back of vape advertising, and I do not particularly feel that we need more advertising for vapes. I listened to the argument on education, but education is not advertising, and I do not trust the industry to do the job of educating because they are interested in one thing, and that is not education but profits.
Responding to this group, I think there is a background problem here. We already have too many loopholes in the system. On the side of TfL buses, it is perfectly possible to see huge adverts for nicotine pouches with the health warnings written in tiny lettering. We already have problems with this. Big tobacco knows that marketing works, and it uses it for one reason. We need to be absolutely clear that the purpose of the Bill is not only to bring about a generational ban. We do not want to replace tobacco with vapes. Vapes are there to help and support people to stop smoking; they are not a whole new revenue stream for big tobacco to enjoy for ever more as a sop for it having to stop selling its products that kill everybody. That is clear.
ASH data on nicotine pouches has shown that, between just 2024 and 2025, awareness of this market has grown from 38% to 43% among young people in Britain, and that nearly 4% of teenagers now report having tried nicotine pouches. This advertising is powerful and it works; that is why these companies use it. We feel that the Bill closes the current regulatory loophole while still allowing nicotine products to be promoted as a cessation device. We feel that this is the right place for the legislation to be. It strikes a considered and appropriate balance to maximise the public health benefits, which is where our concentration needs to be. It does not need to be on promoting vapes or anything else; this Bill is about promoting public health.
Turning to the amendments, Amendment 168 would allow the advertising of non-tobacco products in hospitality areas. This is not appropriate. Hospitality areas are not the right settings. This would give a false impression that these products are for recreational use and not for smoking cessation, and it would potentially create a massive loophole in the middle of the Bill that will be exploited mercilessly by the industry. We have heard about its ever-ready need to put forward legal claims, whether it will win them or not.
I recognise some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made, as I said, and congratulate her on having stopped smoking. I agree with her on the need to have availability of vapes and better education, and I agree with her on the absolute need to maintain the flavours in vaping products for smoking cessation. However, I have to say that there is a greater risk with this amendment that these products would be seen as recreational and not for smoking cessation; to my mind, that is where our concentration needs to be.
On Amendment 152, this issue was discussed in Committee, and I thought that the Minister explained that the provision mirrored the approach taken on existing tobacco advertising and promotions, and we were satisfied with that.
Finally, Amendments 155, 157, 159, 161, 163 and 169 aim to remove the powers to restrict advertisement of nicotine products and heated tobacco unless there is a consultation with business. Again, we do not support this. It is already illegal to advertise heated tobacco under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act, and we just do not support those amendments.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friends Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Sharpe for their amendments in this group. I begin with the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. Many noble Lords have raised concerns about the unintended consequences of this Bill. Just yesterday, HMRC published data showing that legal tobacco sales in the United Kingdom fell by 52% between 2021 and 2025. That statistic will be welcomed by those who want to eradicate smoking, but there is still some way to go in encouraging smoking cessation. My noble friend’s amendments simply ask a question akin to that debated in group 5—namely, how far we should go with regulation of vaping and nicotine products, especially when we are trying to promote them as alternatives to smoking tobacco?
Of course, some regulation is certain to be necessary with products such as vapes, but we have to be careful that we confine them to responsible use. We should also be careful not to use a sledgehammer when a nuanced approach might be a more effective way forward in a particular circumstances and settings. If we overdo the restrictions, we risk driving smokers away from quit aids and alternatives such as vapes towards easily available alternatives—unfortunately, such as illicit tobacco, which we know is still too accessible to some smokers. Many noble Lords have spoken to their own experience in local authorities about trying to tackle illicit tobacco. In the right settings, advertising and displays of vaping products can play a role in encouraging adult smokers to switch from cigarettes to less harmful alternatives, and we know that many are already doing so. It is important for the Government to find the right balance.
I turn to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. There is really little that I can add to the case that he has made so persuasively. The hospitality sector has faced sustained pressure in recent years, including rising energy costs and an increase in the cost of taking on new employees, staff shortages in some areas and increasing regulatory burdens. It is therefore reasonable that when we introduce further restrictions, we carefully consider their cumulative impact on licensed venues.
My noble friend’s amendment is tightly drawn. It would apply only within the curtilage of premises licensed under the Licensing Act 2003; only where advertisements are not visible from outside; only in age-restricted venues with appropriate safeguards; and it explicitly excludes tobacco products. It also provides for regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure, and requires consultation and a full impact assessment, something very much in line with better regulation, in which many noble Lords believe. That framework suggests a helpful attempt to strike a balance, maintaining strong protections for children and the wider public while recognising that adult-only controlled environments may justify a different approach. It seems reasonable to at least explore whether limited, carefully regulated flexibility of this kind could be accommodated without undermining public health objectives. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on such flexibility.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions to this debate. I begin with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny- Lister, Amendments 149, 151, 155, 157, 159, 161, 163 and 169.
Survey data shows that there has been a significant growth in awareness of vaping promotion among young people, with 55% of all children aged 11 to 17 aware of promotion in shops. This figure relates to 2025, and that is up from 37% in 2022. We are therefore delivering on our manifesto commitment to stop vapes from being advertised to children, while still enabling them to be promoted by public health authorities as a means for adult smokers to quit smoking, something that noble Lords have emphasised correctly, once again, in this group.
Tobacco advertising, including for heated tobacco products, is already prohibited under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, and will remain so under the Bill. On Amendment 168 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I can clarify that the advertising provisions do not restrict the use of, or sale of, products, and therefore should not overly impact on the hospitality sector. I will come back to reference to the hospitality sector, following the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, when we get to the final group, which is coming up next.
Evidence for tobacco has found that partial bans, as referred to in this amendment, are not as effective as comprehensive bans in reducing tobacco consumption. I therefore feel that it is extremely reasonable to draw similar conclusions for vape advertising. Under current legislation, there are already strict restrictions for vape advertising. We believe that the promotion of vaping to quit smoking is best led by the appropriate public health authorities, because they can provide tailored advice to the individual with the necessary behavioural support.
In response to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the Bill already includes defences for the limited circumstances in which advertising would be appropriate. As I outlined on the first day of Report, following my prior assurances on public health campaigns, we are introducing a specific defence which will strengthen this capability by allowing businesses, such as pharmacies and GPs—something that noble Lords rightly drew my attention to—to advertise non-branded vapes, if it is part of a campaign agreed with the public authority for public health purposes. We are not considering further exemptions due to the risk of loopholes, the potential for poorly enforced entry rules, and the fact that evidence has shown that comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising have reduced consumption, but partial bans, as I mentioned before, have had no significant effect.
On Amendment 152, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, the language of “has reason to suspect” is standard practice and already included in the existing Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. This wording is specifically designed to avoid loopholes and to ensure that those involved in the design of advertisements cannot evade responsibility by claiming ignorance where there are clear grounds for suspicion. I say again, this is standard legal practice.
Finally, on Amendment 153, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, it is important that we recognise and respect the established criminal law system within each nation of the UK. As noble Lords will know, Scotland has a separate criminal justice system, and 12 months is the maximum penalty on summary conviction for this type of offence and is fixed in line with its criminal justice system. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
I thank the Minister for her explanations and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
“Exceptions for internet service providers (conduits, caching and hosting)(1) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 113, 116, 117 or 118 by—(a) providing access to a communication network, or(b) transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a user, if the provider does not—(i) initiate the transmission,(ii) select the recipient of the transmission, or(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(2) The references in subsection (1) to providing access to, or transmitting information in, a communication network include storing the information transmitted so far as the storage—(a) is automatic, intermediate and transient,(b) is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network, and(c) is for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.(3) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 113, 116, 117 or 118 by storing information provided by a user for transmission in a communication network if—(a) the storage of the information— (i) is automatic, intermediate and temporary, and(ii) is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other users at their request, and(b) the internet service provider—(i) does not modify the information,(ii) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(iii) upon knowing of a matter within subsection (4), promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(4) The matters within this subsection are—(a) that the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network;(b) that access to the information has been disabled;(c) that a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.(5) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 113, 116, 117 or 118(1) by storing information provided by a user who is not acting under the authority or control of the provider if—(a) when the information was provided, the provider did not know that it was or contained a relevant advertisement, and(b) upon knowing that the information is or contains a relevant advertisement, the provider promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(6) In this section—“internet service provider” means a provider of—(a) a service that is made available by means of the internet, or(b) a service that provides access to the internet;“relevant advertisement” means an advertisement whose purpose is, or effect will be, to promote—(a) a tobacco product,(b) a herbal smoking product,(c) cigarette papers,(d) a vaping product, or(e) a nicotine product;“user” , in relation to an internet service provider, means a user of a service provided by the internet service provider.(7) In the definition of “internet service provider” in subsection (6), a reference to the internet includes a combination of the internet and an electronic communications service (as defined by section 32(2) of the Communications Act 2003).”Member’s explanatory statement
This creates exceptions to the advertising offences in relation to mere conduit services, caching services, and hosting services.
Baroness Merron
“Advertising defence: public health campaigns(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under any of sections 113 to 118 in relation to an advertisement whose purpose is to promote vaping products or nicotine products in general, or a category of such products, it is a defence for the person to show that they knew or reasonably believed that they were acting in accordance with arrangements made by a public authority. (2) A public authority may only make such arrangements for the purposes of promoting or protecting public health.(3) Where in accordance with subsection (1) it is a defence for a person charged with an offence to show a particular matter, the person is taken to show that matter if—(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.(4) A reference in this section to a “category” of vaping products or nicotine products does not include a brand.”Member’s explanatory statement
This creates a defence to the advertising offences created by the Bill for public health campaigns. The defence is available only where a person knows or reasonably believes that they are acting in accordance with arrangements made by a public authority.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 15.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 162, line 20
“(10) So far as relating to product placement falling within paragraph 4(ba), (bb), (bc), (bd), (bg) or (bh) of Schedule 11A (herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and nicotine products) subsection (2)(fa) does not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before the coming into force of paragraph 8 of Schedule 16 to the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.(11) So far as relating to product placement falling within paragraph 4(be) of Schedule 11A (vaping products), subsection (2)(fa)—(a) does not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before 20 May 2016, and(b) in relation to the product placement of—(i) vaping substances that do not contain nicotine, or(ii) vapes which are intended solely for use with substances that do not contain nicotine,does not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before the coming into force of paragraph 8 of Schedule 16 to the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.(11A) So far as relating to product placement falling within paragraph 4(bf) of Schedule 11A (undertakings whose principal activity is the manufacture or sale of vaping products) subsection (2)(fa)—(a) does not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before 1 November 2020, and(b) in relation to product placement by or on behalf of an undertaking whose principal activity is the manufacture or sale of—(i) vaping substances that do not contain nicotine, or(ii) vapes which are intended solely for use with substances that do not contain nicotine,(or both) does not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before the coming into force of paragraph 8 of Schedule 16 to the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.(11B) In subsections (11) and (11A) “vape” and “vaping substance” have the meaning given by section 111 of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.”Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that changes to the rules about product placement in TV and radio programmes do not apply to programmes the production of which began before those changes are introduced.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 162, line 29
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 162, line 29
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 162, line 29
“(3) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Advertising of vaping products or nicotine products is only permitted in an on-demand programme service if—(a) the advertising relates to those products in general or to a category of those products, but not to a particular brand, and(b) the inclusion of the advertising in the service is in accordance with arrangements made by a public authority.(1B) A public authority may only make such arrangements for the purposes of promoting or protecting public health.””Member’s explanatory statement
This permits the advertising of vaping and nicotine products in on-demand programme services for public health campaigns.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 163, line 15.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 163, line 15.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 163, line 15.
“(bg) it is of nicotine products,(bh) it is by or on behalf of an undertaking whose principal activity is the manufacture or sale of nicotine products, or”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 163, line 15.
“(3) For subsections (15A) and (15B) substitute—“(15A) Subsection (4)(ba), (bb), (bc), (bd), (bg) and (bh) do not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before the coming into force of paragraph 5 of Schedule 16 to the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.(15B) Subsection (4)(be)—(a) does not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before 20 May 2016, and(b) in relation to the product placement of—(i) vaping substances that do not contain nicotine, or(ii) vapes which are intended solely for use with substances that do not contain nicotine, does not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before the coming into force of paragraph 5 of Schedule 16 to the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.(15BA) Subsection (4)(bf)—(a) does not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before 1 November 2020, and(b) in relation to product placement by or on behalf of an undertaking whose principal activity is the manufacture or sale of—(i) vaping substances that do not contain nicotine, or(ii) vapes which are intended solely for use with substances that do not contain nicotine,(or both) does not apply in relation to programmes the production of which began before the coming into force of paragraph 5 of Schedule 16 to the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.(15BB) In subsections (15B) and (15BA) “vape” and “vaping substance” have the meaning given by section 111 of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.””Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that changes to the rules about product placement in on-demand services do not apply to programmes the production of which began before those changes are introduced.
Member’s explanatory statement
This leaves out amendments to section 368Z of the Communications Act 2003 since it has been repealed by the Online Safety Act 2023 and that repeal is now in force.
(a) in paragraph (b), after “tobacco products” insert “(or both)”;Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that the drafting of paragraph 4(b) of Schedule 11A to the Communications Act 2003 is consistent with my amendment to Schedule 16, page 163, line 15.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 162, line 20.
“(bg) of nicotine products;(bh) by or on behalf of an undertaking whose principal activity is the manufacture or sale of nicotine products; or”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 16, page 162, line 20.
Baroness Merron
“(za) a filter that does not form part of a tobacco product or herbal smoking product;”Member’s explanatory statement
This extends the power under the clause to filters.
Baroness Merron
““filter” has the meaning given by section 111;”Member’s explanatory statement
This defines “filter” for the purposes of my amendment to clause 132.
Earl Howe
“(3) Regulations made under this section may not be read as placing any burden on a person to prove to any enforcing authority that smoking is necessary for artistic reasons, and in any proceedings relating to an alleged offence it is for the enforcing authority to establish that the conditions for any exemption do not apply.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify that regulations relating to smoking in theatrical performances do not alter the existing allocation of the burden of proof.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 192A I will speak also to Amendment 194A standing in my name. In Committee, I raised a question relating to Clause 136, which I make no apology for raising with the Minister again. Under the Health Act 2006, Ministers have a regulation-making power to exempt performers and performances from the smoking ban, where doing so is justified by the artistic integrity of the performance. That provision in effect creates a presumption of legality that empowers producers, directors and performers to make a reasoned judgment about whether smoking is intrinsic to the artistic content of the work.
I contend that Clause 136 turns that structure on its head. Instead of a power to permit smoking for artistic reasons, it substitutes a power only to create a defence to the criminal offence in Section 7(2) of the 2006 Act. That offence is clear. It says:
“A person who smokes in a smoke-free place commits an offence”.
In other words, under the current law, you do not commit an offence unless and until you are convicted of it, whereas, under the exercise of the power in the Bill, you have committed an offence unless you can prove in court that you have not. Those, it seems to me, are two very different things. While the Government maintain they are merely rephrasing the current law to create the same legal effect, I have not been persuaded by their explanation. The burden of proof has clearly been reversed.
Let us not forget that we are talking about theatres. Many of them are small and many of them are already operating on narrow margins. Some are fringe venues that are not organisations with legal departments on retainer. Yet, as the Bill stands, a theatre director who permits an actor to smoke on stage is thereby immediately in legal and financial jeopardy, because he has rendered himself liable to arrest for an offence from which he can be absolved only by arguing his artistic case before a judge. That cannot be right. It cannot be right to oblige every director of a Noel Coward play to commission legal advice to protect himself in the event of his subsequent arrest. If Clause 136 remains as it is, I hope the Minister will tell me that its provisions will be the subject of guidance to the enforcement authorities, because that at the very least is what is required.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for introducing those amendments so well and explaining some of the concerns. I am particularly pleased that he brought back the point about artistic freedom because it was very well made.
I will talk more broadly about the amendments in this group, which sum up the dangers of mission creep inherent in the Bill and highlight the pitfalls in allowing the Secretary of State to have such leeway, away from democratic scrutiny, to move the goalposts. Granting Ministers the power to extend smoke-free areas, including outdoors, to include vaping and heated-tobacco use, should not just be nodded through. It would mean the use of secondary legislation to allow the banning of, for example, smoking or vaping outside in the beer garden of a pub and the ring-fencing of whole swathes of outdoor uncovered spaces, such as outside health and social care facilities or education settings.
It is worth remembering that this would mean that for front-line workers, from teachers to care workers, never mind patients or residents, it could be illegal to go and have a vape outside their workplace. Is that reasonable? Is that proportionate? It is one thing for the workplace to designate that they should not, but for the law to intervene is more dangerous. This again, in effect, conflates smoking with vaping, undermining the perception that vaping is relatively safer, as I have endlessly, boringly, repeated.
I want to say something about smokers because, in this relentless bid to banish smoking, there is a danger that we end up demonising smokers—millions of our citizens who can be punished for indulging in a risky but legal habit—and saying that we do not want to see them anywhere in the public sphere. I do not know that this is the kind of society that the Government have in mind. Even Cancer Research UK warns that
“it will be important to consider how to avoid stigma or accidentally risk pushing people into smoking in their homes, which would increase second-hand smoke exposure to those living with them”.
There again are those unintended consequences.
Part of the justification for many of these outdoor bans is the notion of modelling and normalisation theories that are so popular in academia, which say that we need to protect children so that they never see adults smoking or vaping and therefore do not copy them and it is never normalised. I want us to think about what that would mean if that was why we could never have adults vaping outside where children might see them. If we are saying that children might copy adults who vape or smoke, is that not a green light for the state to start seizing children from their parents and leading public health home invasions to rescue children from their vaping parents? I am frightened to say that because it might give the Minister some ideas.
The amendments in this group that I have put my name to are again largely those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, because he tabled some brilliant amendments. They seem to me to be entirely proportionate and sensible, seeking to keep the Bill on track and focused on its stated aims instead of being a vehicle for outlandish overreach that is not evidence-based. The arguments in favour of restricting vaping and smoking outside venues seem to hinge on a prohibitionist personal distaste for the habit rather than evidence-based policy.
That is why the issue around passive vaping and the lack of evidence in relation to it is worth highlighting. Cancer Research UK supports the Bill but keeps putting out warnings in its briefings that you must be careful not to go too far. It says:
“Further research is needed to understand the health effects of vaping, however the current evidence does not suggest that breathing in second hand vapour is harmful. Given that evidence indicates that vaping is far less harmful than smoking, it’s likely that second-hand vapour would be less harmful than second-hand smoke”.
Meanwhile, Dr Sarah Jackson, principal research fellow at UCL’s tobacco and alcohol research group, explains:
“Second-hand exposure also differs: smoke comes both from the burning tip of the cigarette and exhaled smoke, whereas e-cigarettes release aerosol only when exhaled, resulting in far lower bystander exposure. Research led by UCL found that people exposed to second-hand vapour absorb around 84% less nicotine than those exposed to second-hand smoke. While not zero, exposure from vaping is far lower than from smoking, and levels of other toxicants are likely to be lower still”.
They are basically saying, “Hold on, keep a sense of proportion”, and that is all that we are talking about here.
I hope that the Government will seek out such voices in their consultation on smoke-free, heated tobacco-free and vape-free places in England, which was announced on the first day of Recess on Friday 13 February. Of course, these free places will be anything but free, as they will deny individuals personal freedoms and impinge on the freedoms of a great many private and public venues.
I urge the Minister and her department to widely and loudly advertise that consultation so that a diverse group of respondents can be encouraged to feed in beyond the usual suspects, NGOs and lobbyists. I especially hope she will encourage the hospitality industry and individual venues to respond because, as we have already heard, the hospitality industry is under the cosh.
The British Institute of Innkeeping has warned that 62% of its members fear that these kinds of bans will negatively impact their trade and 20% believe it would lead to the closure of their pubs. Sometimes when we discuss issues in the Bill, we view all aspects of society only through the prism of public health. It can be a rather joyless, arid and sanitised version of “The Good Life”, in my opinion. For those unfamiliar with the world of pubs, pub gardens, nightclubs, or eating or music venues, overregulation will kill them off; it will kill off the atmosphere, never mind kill them off financially.
The truth is that if one looks at the research, 49% of regular pub-goers are smokers—shock horror—even though smokers account for less than 15% of the UK population. More and more, of course, are vapers. That is not a crime nor a problem. Funnily enough, a lot of people who go to pubs also like to have a drink. Yet, bizarrely, they are in trouble for that too. Many in hospitality worry that the Bill will be used as a blueprint for alcohol, as well as anything else. Indeed, the Department of Health is considering preventing under-18s from purchasing no-alcohol or alcohol-free drinks in pubs, because they say it would encourage alcohol uptake in the future. Then there is a discussion about adding health warnings and imagery and plain packaging to alcohol bottles.
It is no wonder that all those different hospitality organisations that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, quoted are saying that they are worried about the impact of the Bill and its provisions on trade, customers’ behaviour and operating costs. To be honest, it is no wonder that many publicans have banned Labour MPs from their locals, if one considers everything that has been added on.
Presently, hospitality venues put up their own restrictions. In other words, they ban people they do not want; they have rules. That is because they deal with their clientele with absolute common sense. But there is a fear that such proportionate self-regulation by the sensible people who run the hospitality industry in this country will be trampled on by the Bill.
Finally, sadly, trusting small SMEs in hospitality to act responsibly is not a feature of Amendment 199 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley. It seems apt to note, in my final speech on this Bill, how shocked I am—shocked, I tell you—that the Liberal Democrat Benches are neither liberal nor democratic on this issue. Through Amendment 199, they want to inveigle local councils into compliance by using this law to issue future pavement licences only as smoke-free. So much for localism, encouraging a thriving high street or cafe society, or supporting local autonomy. It is a step too far; I think a few things are, but that really is the limit. I hope the Minister can reassure me that the Government are not as illiberal as the Liberal Democrats. I will not necessarily hold my breath.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, it is really hard to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, when she gives a speech like that. Amendments 193, 194, 197 and 198 hope to address the powers to designate vape-free and heated tobacco-free places. The argument, really, is that it is all a bit over the top. There is limited evidence of harm from passive vaping compared with that of inhaling second-hand smoke. It is my fear that, as currently drafted, the Bill could inadvertently force ex-smokers to have relapses if they are using alternatives alongside smokers. That is what is going to happen. They are all going to be pushed into the same area, and that, I suggest, is the worst of all outcomes.
I further push the point that age-gated venues should be able to retain the discretion that they already have. Our hospitality and pub sectors need these safeguards.
Of course I agree with everybody that we must protect children but, in doing so, we must not inadvertently drive adults back to cigarettes and destroy our pubs in the process. That, I am afraid, is exactly what we run the risk of doing.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I shall be super-brief, because I spoke broadly on my Amendment 196 in the previous group when I made the case—it is not hyperbole—that the hospitality sector faces an existential issue. I agree with all my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s words on this.
My Amendment 196 is extremely straightforward: it insists on a consultation if any regulations are made under Clauses 135 to 138 in relation to designating a place smoke-free or vape-free. Please consider the interests of the hospitality sector, which, as I highlighted in the previous group, is responsible for so much activity and employment in our economy.
I just finish by saying that I am shocked beyond compare that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—she and I have been in this House for the same time—has only just noticed that the Liberals are illiberal.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, despite the comments of the previous two speakers, I will speak to Amendment 199, the purpose of which is simple: to make every future and renewed pavement licence issued by local authorities smoke-free.
Your Lordships will recall that pavement licences first appeared during the pandemic, when indoor hospitality was restricted. They gave cafés, pubs and restaurants a lifeline. It seemed obvious that these spaces should follow the same rules as indoors: no smoking. The LGA supported this, saying that
“it sets a level playing field for hospitality venues across the country and has a public health benefit of protecting people from unwanted second-hand smoke”.
It welcomed this national policy because it stopped the stupid situation of allowing people to smoke in a pub pavement area on one side of the road but not on the other if a local authority boundary ran down the middle of the road and they had different policies. Since then, pavement licences have become a permanent fixture. However, after some lobbying from some parts of the hospitality industry, the requirement for smoke-free was removed without proper consultation of health authorities.
In 2021, this House supported an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, noting the missed opportunity to make all licences smoke-free. Amendment 199 seeks to honour that vote and ensure that this health-protecting measure is applied consistently.
There is currently a requirement for some seating to be smoke-free, but the distinction means very little when you talk about a very small bit of pavement. More than 10 councils have made smoke-free a condition of obtaining a pavement licence, including Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Northumberland County Council and Durham—not outstandingly liberal authorities, as far as I can tell. Feedback shows that customers and businesses welcome the change. In Liverpool, a survey of premises found that 74% of those asked expressed support for the scheme, including many smokers. Councils also aim to reduce cigarette litter with this initiative, which would make outdoor seating areas cleaner, more welcoming environments.
Second-hand smoke is harmful at any level. It worsens asthma and other respiratory conditions, and contributes to heart disease, stroke and lung cancer. Smoke-free spaces are also popular with the public. Polling from ASH shows that 59% of people support banning smoking in outdoor areas of pubs, cafés and restaurants; indeed, 40% said that they would be more likely to visit these venues if smoking were banned outside. That is more than double the number of people who say that they would go less often, debunking the idea that smoke-free means customer-free. Making outdoor areas smoke-free is not only sensible but what the public want.
I regret that this issue is not covered by the recent consultation on smoke-free places. It is a shame that the Government felt that they were not able to include hospitality in that consultation at all and that they fell into this false narrative that smoke-free is somehow an economic threat to hospitality.
Less than 12% of the population smoke, so the financial viability of the hospitality industry is clearly not dependent on the continued consumption of tobacco, including outdoors. Indoor smoke-free legislation was a far more drastic intervention, and we heard many of these arguments from those opposed then. However, a survey in 2012 of nearly 5,000 pub customers reported that more than one in five visited the pub more often than before smoke-free legislation. I do hope that the Minister will, in future, consider looking at the pilots for smoke-free pavement licences to assess the economic relationship between the hospitality sector and smoking. As prevalence continues to fall, we must be at a tipping point soon, where these spaces will naturally become smoke-free.
This brings me to Amendment 196, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I think we may disagree on the potential impact any restrictions will have on hospitality, but in any case, the Government would consult on any use of smoke-free powers as they are doing currently.
Moving on, I welcome Amendment 194A from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. There is no doubt that the public are keen to see more places where smoking and vaping are prohibited. However, this policy must be pursued not merely to cater to the things that people dislike, but also to ensure that it is addressing matters that are harmful to the public. Clearly, reducing children’s exposure to second-hand smoke passes that test. While the evidence of exposure to second-hand vapour remains unclear, I think we can agree that reducing any possible risks around children must be prioritised, following careful consultation.
In that respect, I do not support Amendments 194 and 195 from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which would remove these powers altogether. However, there is a challenge in all of this. Given the high level of public misunderstanding about the difference in harms between vaping and smoking, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has said—and she is quite right —how do we ensure that in creating vape-free places we do not exacerbate those misconceptions? I talked to a young man the other day who asked me, “What are you doing in the House of Lords?” I explained about this Bill, and he said, “Oh, all my friends vape”. He said, “I think it is just as harmful as smoking, isn’t it?” QED. Of course it is not.
I welcome the commitment in the published consultation to treat vaping differently from smoking where it is providing support to smokers to quit. I am on the same side as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on that score. Will the Minister say more about how this policy will be communicated to improve public understanding that vaping is less harmful than smoking? How will any exemptions to indoor vaping regulations be used to best effect to encourage more smokers to see vaping as quitting aids?
It is disappointing to see only council-run playgrounds included in the ban on smoking in playgrounds. Why should children playing in settings not run by councils not be similarly protected? There are also other places, such as transport hubs, where the public and workers are regularly exposed to other people’s smoke, so are the Government planning to commit to look at these too?
Amendment 192A from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is very interesting, but we do not think actors should have to smoke at work. I think it was pointed out in Committee that there are alternative products that can depict smoking for artistic purposes; in particular, I believe that the National Theatre has such a device. If it is good enough for that theatre, it is good enough for me. Moreover, Wales does not have this exemption in place, and it has not harmed Welsh theatres.
We do not think that Amendment 193 is appropriate either: most venues are vape- free anyway, and the law is just really catching up.
On Amendments 197 and 198, I do not think that heated tobacco should have special exemptions at all. Only 1% of the population use it and it is not recommended by NICE for cessation. However, I do have a couple of questions for the Minister about heated tobacco devices, because I have had a letter expressing some concern that the law is not terribly clear. The advertising offence in the Bill applies to any advert,
“whose purpose or effect is to promote … a tobacco product”.
So can the Minister confirm that heated tobacco devices—not just sticks—will be caught under this definition, as advertisement of the device might constitute promotion of the tobacco product?
I see that in Clause 132 the Government explicitly take the power to extend provisions in Part 6 to tobacco- related devices. I understand that this is to future-proof the advertising restrictions against any innovation in this space, as we know the tobacco industry is likely to use any loopholes. I ask the Minister: why are heated tobacco devices explicitly included in Clause 132? Is it because of the difficulties they have had recently with two big supermarkets advertising heated tobacco products? Is it just the devices they are advertising, or are they simply breaking the law about advertising the tobacco sticks themselves? A little clarification would be most welcome if the Minister could provide it, please.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions on this last group of amendments. It may be helpful if I remind your Lordships’ House that, on 13 February, the Government published their consultation on free-from places. We are consulting on making outdoor public places, including children’s playgrounds, hospitals and schools, smoke-free and heated tobacco-free. Additionally, we are consulting on making outside playgrounds and schools vape-free.
With regard to indoor spaces that are currently smoke-free, we are consulting on also making these heated tobacco-free and vape-free. I want to emphasise—and I hear different opinions on this within your Lordships’ House—that the consultation does not consider extending these proposals to outdoor hospitality. I hope that this addresses the concerns raised under Amendments 194 and 197, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, as well as Amendment 196 from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe.
With regard to Amendment 193 from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, the vast majority of people—around 90% of those over 16—do not currently vape. Just because someone is present in an over-18 setting does not mean that they are content to be exposed to second-hand harms. This would be of particular concern to those who are medically vulnerable, whose conditions may not always be visible.
Additionally, under the proposals put forward in the consultation, those who wish to vape would still be able to do so in outdoor hospitality settings. I should say that we have been pleased to meet various stakeholders, including UKHospitality and the British Beer and Pub Association, and we have welcomed their input.
Furthermore, a number of establishments, as I am sure we are all aware, have already introduced their own policies restricting vaping indoors. These proposals provide consistency and clarity for the public and businesses, and that is crucial if we are thinking about legislation.
I turn to the evidence. Amendments 195 and 198 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, question the need for the vape-free places and heated tobacco-free places clauses. I also refer to Amendment 194A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall.
We have already published a draft impact assessment alongside the consultation on free-from places. To the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, this sets out the evidence base for the proposed policies. I encourage noble Lords to review the document, which is thorough, if they have not had the chance to do so already. I can say that we will reassess the evidence after the consultation is closed, and we will consider any additional evidence identified before deciding on final policy positions and publishing a final stage impact assessment alongside regulations.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I welcome what the Minister had to say on my Amendment 192A. It seems that the key must be for clear guidance to be issued to enforcement authorities to ensure that the heavy hand of the law is not laid inappropriately on those in our entertainment industry. From what the Minister said, I am at least reasonably confident that that will not be a consequence.
I welcome the fact that the Government recognise the importance of acting on the basis of evidence. Where powers exist to designate spaces as vape-free, it is right that they are exercised proportionately and on the strength of clear and published evidence of risk. I was glad to hear the Minister’s response to the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Sharp and Lord Udny-Lister, especially in relation to hospitality settings.
I also hope that as the Government consider how these powers may apply more widely, there will be full and proper consultation with those sectors potentially affected. Once again, I think in particular of theatres and performance venues where there may be specific artistic or practical considerations. It is important that such institutions are consulted appropriately and that we do not create unnecessary burdens or unintended consequences for them without good reason.
As we conclude this Report stage, I express my appreciation to the Minister and her officials for their willingness throughout the passage of the Bill to engage with us and other noble Lords on its provisions, and for the changes and undertakings that the Minister has been prepared to make in response to concerns put forward at various stages. The Bill is a better Bill as a result. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 192A.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the person responsible for displaying signs about heated tobacco-free premises in Scotland is the same as the person responsible for displaying no-smoking signs and no vaping signs.
Baroness Merron
“Review of Act(1) The Secretary of State must—(a) carry out a review of the operation of this Act during the relevant period, and(b) prepare and lay before Parliament a report setting out the conclusions of that review.(2) In carrying out the review the Secretary of State must, in particular—(a) consider any evidence as to the economic or health impacts of the Act, and(b) consult—(i) the Welsh Ministers,(ii) the Scottish Ministers, and(iii) the Department of Health in Northern Ireland.(3) In this section “the relevant period” means such period as the Secretary of State considers appropriate being a period of not less than 4 years, nor more than 7 years, beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This requires the Secretary of State to review the operation of the Bill and lay a report before Parliament setting out the conclusions of that review.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This and my other amendments to clause 165 reflect changes made by the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025, which introduces the concept of a Welsh statutory instrument and makes related provision about procedure. There are no significant substantive changes to the procedure for regulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my first amendment to clause 165, page 119, line 2.
“(2A) Regulations or orders made by the Welsh ministers under this Act are to be made by Welsh statutory instrument.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my first amendment to clause 165, page 119, line 2.
“(b) if made by the Welsh Ministers, are subject to the Senedd approval procedure (see Part 2A of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4));”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my first amendment to clause 165, page 119, line 2.
“(b) if made by the Welsh Ministers, are subject to the Senedd annulment procedure (see Part 2A of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4));”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my first amendment to clause 165, page 119, line 2.
Member’s explanatory statement
This excludes Welsh statutory instruments and Scottish statutory instruments from the provision about combining instruments that are subject to different procedures since there is general provision for the combination of such instruments under the legislation mentioned in my amendment to clause 165, page 119, line 41.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to clause 165, page 119, line 39.
“(7) See also—(a) section 33 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (combining Scottish subordinate legislation subject to different procedures);(b) section 37G of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (combining Welsh subordinate legislation subject to different procedures).”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 165, page 119, line 39.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This provides for clause 63 (alignment of definition of “tobacco product” in Scottish legislation) to come into force on the day on which the Bill is passed. The Bill currently provides for it to come into force 2 months later.
Baroness Merron
“(za) section 131 comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed;” Member’s explanatory statement
This provides for clause 131 (alignment of definition of “tobacco product” in old legislation) to come into force on the day on which the Bill is passed. The Bill currently provides for it to come into force 2 months later.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my other amendment to clause 168.