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
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
This Government are committed to strengthening rights for parents. In April, we are introducing bereaved partner’s paternity leave and making unpaid parental leave and paternity leave day one rights, bringing more than 1 million parents into scope. Next year, we will further improve protections for pregnant women and those returning from maternity leave, and the parental leave and pay review will conclude, giving us recommendations and informing our next steps.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
The Government are making great strides in improving parental rights at work, but for kinship carers it is still tough. In Aylesbury, I met a wonderful lady who has become the kinship carer for her baby grandson, but she was given only 10 days of paid leave from work. She now has to take unpaid leave to care for him, which is causing serious financial strain. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to all our kinship carers for their remarkable work and outline what discussions she is having across Government to ensure that kinship carers get the support that they deserve?
Kate Dearden
I recognise the enormous contribution that kinship carers such as my hon. Friend’s constituent make to the lives of children. The Government are committed to helping more children grow up in safe, stable and loving homes in their family network, whenever it is in the children’s best interests. I acknowledge the incredible commitment and generosity of kinship carers in opening up their hearts and homes to our most vulnerable children. Kinship carers are absolutely transforming young lives, and we should not underestimate the life-changing difference that they make every single day. Our parental leave and pay review is considering the needs of all working families who do not qualify for existing leave and pay entitlements, including kinship carers.
Sarah Russell
Since 2004, the limit on relief for small employers at which they can reclaim statutory maternity pay has been set at £45,000. Small and medium-sized enterprises want to support working parents, but they need our help to do so. Will the Minister confirm whether that will be looked at as part of the parental leave review?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for her advocacy on this issue. The Government acknowledge that the class 1 national insurance contributions threshold used to determine eligibility for small employers’ relief on statutory parental pay has remained unchanged for several years. Part of the relief is an additional compensation payment, known as small employers’ compensation. Last April, the Government increased the SEC rate from 3% to 8.5%, and we will increase it to 9% from 6 April 2026. The Government keep all eligibility criteria under review while balancing the needs of business and the Exchequer.
Josh Newbury
Many of us on the Labour Benches have long argued for a boost to paternity leave, which is one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government, but one group being let down badly is self-employed dads. Just one in six of them take leave after their children are born, and it is unpaid leave, meaning that they face a drop in income of more than £1,000 just for taking a couple of weeks off. Introducing paid paternity leave for self-employed dads would cost £38 million at most, and possibly as little as £13 million, but it would be a huge win for dads, mums and their babies. Will the Minister consider that as part of the ongoing parental leave review?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning on this issue. As I have mentioned, the Government’s parental leave and pay review is under way and will conclude in early 2027. We know that the parental leave system needs to be improved and recognise that the current system does not do enough to support the many dads and partners who want to be hands-on and actively involved in caring for their children. That is why the review is so important. It will consider all current and upcoming parental leave and pay entitlements, looking at options to improve the support available to British working families and whether the support available meets the needs of working families who do not qualify for the entitlements, such as self-employed parents, as was outlined by my hon. Friend.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for infant feeding and inequalities. One of the key barriers to women returning to the workplace occurs if they continue to breastfeed their children. A lot of workplaces do not provide facilities for expressing and storing breast milk. Will the Minister update the House on what the Department is doing to support women back into the workplace when they are still breastfeeding their children?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Member for raising this important question in the House today. We are committed to ensuring that every parent feels secure at work, particularly breastfeeding mums when they are returning to the workplace. She will know of the different bits of legislation we are introducing through the Employment Rights Act 2025 to help women back into work, whether that is making it more unlawful to dismiss pregnant women and mothers on maternity leave or making it easier for people to work flexibly and for employers to make those provisions in the workplace. I would be keen to hear more about the work that the hon. Member and other Members from across the House are doing on the APPG.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for that very positive answer. There is nobody in this House or further afield who does not welcome the improvement of parental rights at work. I had a chance to speak to the Minister beforehand, so she will know where my question is coming from—I ask it on behalf of the small and medium-sized businesses that may find it difficult to cover those who are on parental leave. Has anything been done to help businesses, especially the small ones, that might find it difficult to put someone in place to cover those people’s jobs when they are off?
Kate Dearden
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that family-friendly workplaces strengthen our workforce and our economy, and are important in reducing the turnover of staff and retaining high-quality staff. That is why it is really important that we are working with businesses, small and large, on our wider parental pay and leave review. In every area of my work, I am very conscious of the need to work closely with businesses in different areas, recognising that we share the same goal of keeping people in work, and especially of supporting parents and making sure that workplaces are much more family-friendly.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
We are supporting private sector investment in Buckingham and Bletchley by working with partners across the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor to find new opportunities for businesses. I acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend in launching the Bletchley investment taskforce, which is bringing together private capital and local partners, using infrastructure such as East West Rail to improve connectivity, and working with OxCam partners so that local businesses benefit from innovation, skills and inward investment.
Callum Anderson
As the Minister says, I launched the Bletchley investment taskforce last year to attract the businesses, investments, jobs and apprenticeships that local people need, and we are developing an investment prospectus to deliver that end. Will the Minister meet me and taskforce members to ensure that the Government are working hand in hand with local partners?
Chris McDonald
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work with the Bletchley investment taskforce. I know that businesses in his constituency, such as Envisics, Carnot and Pulsar, have benefited from the work he has done, and I would be very happy to ensure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
Promoting Scottish industry overseas is one of our prime objectives. Whether it is opening up new markets such as India for Scotch whisky, securing new beef opportunities in the United States of America, securing contracts for Scottish steel in new bridges in Ukraine, or promoting financial services around the world, we are on the case. I have even seen Tunnock’s Caramels in LuLu in Doha.
Frank McNally
With up to £8.2 billion of private investment, the Lanarkshire AI growth zone delivered by this Labour Government represents one of the largest industrial investments in the history of Scotland. At its heart is a partnership between Lanarkshire’s own DataVita and the American cloud computing company CoreWeave. Such partnerships are critical to supporting the industries of the future, so what further steps can my hon. Friend take to promote Scottish companies overseas to secure such high-quality jobs and deliver even stronger growth?
Chris Bryant
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he has done to make sure that the UK Government have delivered in his constituency. I am glad that he has raised the Lanarkshire AI growth zone, because it is really important in trying to make sure that the industries of the future are at the heart of the jobs of the future in Scotland. I look forward to the SNP welcoming this in the next few moments.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, I will always welcome the fact that Scotland punches above its weight, whether it be industries abroad or investment in Scotland. Indeed, under the SNP, foreign direct investment has been higher in Scotland over the last 10 years than anywhere else in the UK outside of London—something I would expect the UK Government to also celebrate. Instead, we learned through a leaked memo this week that the Prime Minister told senior Ministers of the Government to go against the wishes of the Scottish Government when taking decisions. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister? Does he not agree that Scotland makes the best decisions when it is the people of Scotland who make those decisions, which will happen only when it becomes independent?
Chris Bryant
It is like an open goal, isn’t it, Mr Speaker? Sorry—you do not have a view.
I believe that we achieve far more by our common endeavour than by going it alone. That is why I am a passionate supporter of the Union. Of course there are specific things about the Scottish economy that we want to drive forward. For instance, 54% of Scottish exports go into the European Union. If we manage to secure the sanitary and phytosanitary deal that we are trying to negotiate with the EU at the moment, that will pay enormous dividends to Scotland that it would never secure were it entirely on its own. Separatism never works.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
I thank my hon. Friend, who is an advocate and champion of businesses in Lichfield. As I am sure he is aware, we are making sure that the UK is the best place in the world to invest by backing priority sectors through our industrial strategy. The advanced manufacturing sector plan will strengthen UK supply chains in sectors such as automotive, aerospace and clean energy industries, ensuring that businesses in Lichfield, such as its manufacturing and logistics businesses, get the skills, technology and new commercial opportunities that they need.
Dave Robertson
The quantum technology sector is hugely important for the UK. We have world-leading researchers and businesses innovating in healthcare, defence and many more industries, but quantum firms tell me that as they grow, they find it harder and harder to secure the investment that they need to commercialise their exceptional ideas. The risk that we face is that they will take their businesses out of the UK in order to seek that investment. That is why I recently established the all-party parliamentary group on quantum technologies to help Members of both Houses to understand this rapidly evolving sector. What can the Government do to ensure that our quantum businesses get the investment that they need to grow here in the UK?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for his work in establishing the all-party parliamentary group on quantum technologies. He is right to identify these technologies as very important for the future, and to put his finger on the particular problem that we have in the UK: while we are brilliant at innovating and investing in research, we have historically struggled with scale-up. That is not something that this Government are prepared to accept. Just as we are investing in critical minerals and automotive connected mobility technologies, we are investing in this area. The British Business Bank is doubling its annual investments to ensure that we can support scale-up and bring forward at least 10 new-to-market growth-stage funds so that we can leverage pension investments and help British businesses to stay and grow in the UK.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
An increase in private sector investment is being seriously held back by the failure of the Government to publish their defence investment plan. Has the Minister any idea when this much-awaited document will hit the streets?
Chris McDonald
The Government recognise the importance of the defence industrial plan, which will be brought to the House as soon as it can be. On private sector investment, £10 billion of investment came in from the regional summits, and £79 billion of investment was identified in the last industrial strategy quarterly report. Investors are voting with their money, and they are investing in the UK.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
There was a new private sector investor in the Royal Mail last year. As we heard yesterday in the House, the regulator has let the universal service obligation slip, so will the Minister update the House on how his colleague’s meeting with the regulator went yesterday?
Chris McDonald
The Minister responsible for the Post Office and the Royal Mail, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), is sitting beside me. Just yesterday, he spent 90 minutes in the House answering questions from Members who have had problems with the service across the whole of the country; I have seen such problems in my constituency as well. The Government are clearly not happy with the level of service from the Royal Mail, and the shadow Minister will hear a full response to Question 15, when my hon. Friend will stand at the Dispatch Box and tell her everything that she needs to know about that particular meeting.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
The industrial strategy focuses on business investment and creating high-quality jobs. We back our strengths and are unblocking barriers, including through £1.2 billion of skills investment by 2028-29. This Labour Government are investing in skills, in jobs, and in creating wealth and opportunity across the United Kingdom.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Communities like mine in Hendon were let down by 14 years of economic instability and the lack of a strategic approach to driving growth under the Conservative party. Will the Secretary of State set out how our modern industrial strategy will help to accelerate growth in places like Hendon?
Peter Kyle
I absolutely will. First, Hendon has a champion in you—I mean my hon. Friend—and that counts for a lot. It also has a champion in you, Mr Speaker, as you make sure that we get through these questions so swiftly and efficiently. I can assure the House that the industrial strategy has delivered, on average, over £7,900 more in wages in the sectors that we are supporting through it. Over 50,000 jobs have been supported through investment commitments made to the industrial strategy’s eight sectors in the last quarter alone. This Government are attracting investment, spending it wisely and making sure that all communities, including Hendon, benefit from it.
Lloyd Hatton
It is no secret that clean energy is creating the next generation of well-paid jobs, and it is essential that South Dorset gets its fair share of them. The development of offshore wind at Portland, including the exciting Morwind and PortWind projects, would certainly help to create much-needed maritime, engineering and construction jobs for local people. With that in mind, will the Minister work with me, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and the Crown Estate to support the development of offshore wind off the coast of Portland?
Peter Kyle
It would be a pleasure to work with my hon. Friend to unlock more investment in offshore wind in South Dorset. Dorset council and the Crown Estate have already committed up to £1 million to support a feasibility study for a £500 million clean energy port facility adjacent to Portland port that has been proposed by energy developer Morwind. Clean energy industries are expected to support 860,000 jobs across the UK by 2030, including up to 100,000 direct and indirect jobs in offshore wind. Thanks to the work that my hon. Friend is putting in, I am sure that South Dorset will benefit from this incredible and growing British industry.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Of course, there are lots of well-paid jobs in the steel sector. In fact, the taxpayer is now subsidising every job at British Steel to the tune of £110,000. Can the Secretary of State update the House on how his negotiations are going with Jingye, and on when he will finally publish his long-awaited steel strategy?
Peter Kyle
I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. Of course, after 14 years of the Conservatives running the steel industry, we have landed in a place where this Government are having to sort it out. I can reassure her that the negotiations with Jingye are well under way. I will update the House shortly on progress and, of course, on the strategy that I have been working very hard on, with colleagues, on behalf of the steel industry.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Research from the Entrepreneurs Network shows that 54% of Britain’s 100 fastest growing companies have a foreign-born founder or co-founder. International entrepreneurs play a vital role in driving innovation, investment and job creation across the UK, yet this Government are recklessly introducing unworkable visa regulations for those very people. Since the Budget in October 2024, 110,000 jobs have been lost in the hospitality sector and 74,000 in retail, and 700,000 graduates are currently unemployed. Youth unemployment has just hit 16%. What impact assessment have the Government undertaken on the impact of their proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain on job creation, and what conversations has the Minister had with the Home Secretary regarding this damaging disincentive to those looking to build their businesses and create jobs here in the UK?
Peter Kyle
I am afraid that the hon. Lady describes the doom-laden Lib Dem world that she inhabits, not the real world that is inhabited by entrepreneurs and businesses right across the country. The reality is that 381,000 more people are in work since the start of 2025 because of this Labour Government. She may have missed the fact that my Department, under my leadership and this team, has set up the global talent taskforce, accompanied by a global talent visa. Around the world, we are out there hunting down the best talent, attracting people to the UK and aligning this endeavour with investment, making the UK the best place to invest, to grow and to scale a business anywhere in the world.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
We want to build new opportunities for start-ups and scale-ups to export around the world. That is why we are providing tailored market advice, free training through our business academy, export finance and support on the ground in international markets.
Rosie Wrighting
British fashion is recognised globally for its creativity. At the London Fashion Week just gone, designers such as Erdem, Tolu Coker and Simone Rocha showcased the very best of British talent. With international buyers up by 17%, we showed that we have not only the raw talent here, but the business minds to commercialise it internationally. What steps is the Department taking to help emerging British fashion brands translate that creativity into export growth and scale internationally?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a really good point by raising th4e example of London Fashion Week. She is quite right that lots of businesses in Northamptonshire are working in this field. One key thing we do through NEWGEN is to provide support to people—including, in fact, some of those she mentioned, such as Erdem and Simone Rocha—to start finding new export markets overseas. We send people to Paris Fashion Week and to Pitti Uomo, and our creative industries are a really important part of how we intend to build on that in the future. To use the name of another business in her constituency, I think Weetabix is based there—and we want everybody to have three Weetabix for breakfast so we can really export around the world.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
At the recent India AI summit, I was delighted to participate in an event, with the Deputy Prime Minister, highlighting the opportunities for British and Indian growing technology companies to do more in each other’s markets. I am looking forward to another such event in London in the coming weeks. Will the Minister join me in commending both our high commissioners—Their Excellencies Lindy Cameron and Vikram Doraiswami—for their steadfast commitment to strengthening the links between our two fantastic technology sectors?
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman makes a really good point. I noticed that he was commending the Government for securing the free trade agreement with India, which previous Governments were not able to secure, and he did so generously. Mr Speaker, I may have misled the House previously by suggesting that the India free trade agreement would enter into force this summer, because I am very hopeful that it will actually enter into force this spring.
The key thing is not just to have a free trade agreement, but to deploy it and make sure that businesses take advantage of that opportunity. Our two high commissioners—both in India and here—are absolutely essential to making that happen. I look forward to working with the right hon. Gentleman to do that not only in India, but in Ukraine, as I note he has been appointed to help Zelensky’s Government with reconstruction in Ukraine. I am the Minister for Ukraine reconstruction, and I hope we can work together to achieve that, too.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
We all want innovative British companies not just to start up in Britain, but to scale up in Britain, too. I welcome the Minister’s previous comments, and actually his enthusiasm, for our most innovative companies. However, he will know that the Chancellor’s decision to cut venture capital trust rate relief will be very damaging. How does he explain the disconnect between his Department’s words and what the Chancellor is doing?
Chris Bryant
We are trying very much to focus on the key sectors where we know we can really deliver, which is precisely what bringing together the trade strategy, the small business strategy and the industrial strategy is designed to do. I was delighted to be at the security and policing trade event down in Farnborough yesterday, and it was fascinating to see the small companies—SMEs make up a lot of that sector—that have really been supported by different Departments, including the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Treasury, to scale up and take their product to market. I think I was able to persuade the Malaysian Government to secure quite a few contracts with British businesses as well.
Gareth Davies
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but I asked specifically about VCT rate relief. The last time that rate relief was cut, under the last Labour Government, fundraising was cut by two thirds and it took a decade for that to recover in the sector. Specifically on VCT rate relief, which has been cut from 30% to 20%, will he commit to meeting the Venture Capital Trust Association, the industry body, and will he take its concerns to the Chancellor and ask her to reverse course?
Chris Bryant
Of course, I am happy to meet the industry body and listen to its concerns, as we do all the time. However, I just want to make the point that at the moment the DBT is concentrating on taking what we do well in this country and really ensuring we have an opportunity to do it even better. That focus is a key part of what our trade strategy, our small business strategy and our industrial strategy are all about.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Government recognise the central role the hospitality sector plays in supporting jobs, sustaining high streets and strengthening community life. That is why we have significantly increased the hospitality support fund, providing £10 million over three years to help hospitality businesses become more resilient, allowing them to thrive. We have permanently reduced business rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, benefiting 750,000 properties. We are also beginning cross-Government work on a high streets strategy, developed with businesses and representatives, to be published later this year.
David Mundell
Energy costs are obviously a huge issue for hospitality businesses in a large rural constituency such as Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, but they are also an issue for hospitality business customers, because generally people travel to those businesses using their cars. Will the Minister and her colleagues in the Department lobby the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to ensure that the proposed rise in fuel duty does not go ahead in September?
Kate Dearden
I recognise that energy costs remain one of the biggest pressures facing hospitality businesses. I meet them regularly—including just this week—to make sure I am aware of their concerns and experiences on the ground. The real risk to businesses is dependence on volatile international gas markets, which we have, of course, seen; we have been left exposed to global energy shocks. The Government are prioritising on having more of our own power here in Britain. We are focusing on that to tackle the root cause of unstable energy markets. We are working closely with businesses, and across the sector, to understand the pressures, and we will continue to do so in a responsible way.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I am deeply concerned, as I am sure the Minister is, about the rising rate of youth unemployment, which is currently standing at 15%. One of the key employers of young people is the hospitality sector, as well as the retail sector. When I speak to businesses in my constituency of Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, so many of them reference the fact that they have been hit by business rates and the impact of national insurance. That is discouraging investment and reducing job opportunities for young people. What action is the Minister taking to reverse that trend?
Kate Dearden
I agree that hospitality provides first jobs and career pathways for young people—a really important opportunity. As I have said many times in the House, it was my experience into employment, as I am sure it was for many other colleagues. Young people absolutely deserve that opportunity, which is why our focus is on skills and training, and getting young people into work. We will continue to back employers who take on apprentices and provide those opportunities, whether providing full training costs for young apprentices aged 16 to 21, or through employers not being required to pay national insurance contributions for all apprentices under the age of 25.
Under the previous Government, the number of youth apprenticeships was cut by 40%, and they presided over a massive increase in young people not in education, employment and training. I recognise what we are working with, but we want to provide opportunities for young people. We will not leave an entire generation of young people behind. We are looking to our £820 million youth guarantee and so much more to provide that employment support and to give them a guaranteed job, recognising the sector is vital.
Jerome Mayhew
Six hospitality venues are closing every single day under this Government. If the Government actually asked the sector why, businesses would tell them: it is because of the jobs-killing national insurance tax rises—literally a tax on jobs—as well as the red tape and additional costs of the Employment Rights Act 2025. When are the Government finally going to realise that those job losses and business closures are not happening despite the work of the Government, they are happening because of it?
Kate Dearden
The Conservative party left deep economic scars on our economy: weak growth, insecure work and a fragile labour market. This Government are restoring stability and rebuilding opportunity for people. Hospitality in particular is a vital sector for our high streets and for people. It thrives when the economy grows, wages rise, and people have more money to spend. We will always support our hospitality businesses, but do so responsibly and sustainably. They are at the heart of our high streets and community, and that is why we are backing them. We are reforming the broken system of business rates that the Conservatives left and did nothing about, and building a better support system for businesses, so they can thrive and support all employment, particularly for our young people.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Drivers looking for refreshment on the motorway have regular signs to point them to the available hospitality, but it is less easy for drivers of electric vehicles to see where they can get a coffee and a charge because of arcane rules that prevent EV signage on motorways. This is also a problem on A roads—one charge company told me it was quoted £150,000 to put up two signs on an A road. Given that many hospitality businesses have partnerships with EV charge providers, will the Minister work with the Department for Transport to change these mad signage rules and support hospitality and EV charging?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this issue to the House today. We are working closely with industry to promote consumer confidence in electric vehicles and their charging infrastructure. As at the end of February 2026, the Government and industry have supported the installation of more than 118,000 public chargers. In a move to help EV drivers to plug in to the rapidly expanding charging network, the Government are also modernising EV charging signage on major A roads, with changes allowing larger EV charging hubs to be signposted from major A roads, too. We are working with local authorities to make it easier to provide that signage to charging facilities on local roads.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
For almost a year, the constituents of my friend and neighbour, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), have enjoyed the benefits of the guest beer agreement. Given that the Society of Independent Brewers believes that a right to buy a guest beer drives customers into pubs, can the Minister update the House on when she expects to announce the results of the beer market review and the merits of introducing a guest beer agreement in England?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend and I have discussed this matter at length. She champions the pubs in her constituency, and I thank her for it. We recognise the importance of independent breweries and pubs, and remain committed to ensuring that the beer and pub sector remains diverse, competitive and rooted in local communities. We have reviewed the beer market to assess any barriers facing small breweries and will announce the outcome in due course.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
In the Q4 2025 quarterly economic survey, 52% of businesses reported utility costs as a pressure that is driving them to raise prices, and there is a particular impact on the hospitality sector. Recent research by the British Chambers of Commerce shows that more than a quarter of businesses will struggle to pay their energy bills over the next 12 months, and this survey was conducted before the recent escalation in the middle east. Last week’s forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility also did not take into account any potential impact from the jump in oil prices triggered by the strikes in Iran. The fuel duty hike in September is already expected to hit families and small businesses hard, so will the Secretary of State speak to the Chancellor now about scrapping this damaging policy?
Kate Dearden
The hon. Lady will have heard in my earlier remarks that I absolutely recognise those pressures and meet hospitality businesses regularly to hear their concerns; energy costs have, of course, come up as one of the biggest pressures facing them. I recognise the concerns those businesses will have when looking at the Gulf conflict and its possible impacts. As the hon. Lady will have heard in my earlier answer, the real risk to businesses is dependence on the volatile international gas markets, which has left us exposed. She will know the work that we are doing in different Departments to recognise that and to tackle that root cause in order to provide better support for businesses. We are looking at the unstable energy markets that have left us exposed and trying to ensure that we have more power here in Britain; we will work with the sector closely and across Government on that.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
UK-EU collaboration is vital for growth and security, with 46% of the UK’s total trade, after all, with the EU. In recent weeks, I have gone to Brussels and signed a new competition co-operation agreement, furthering the partnership between our two territories in the interests of businesses. I had constructive meetings with Commissioners Ribera, Mînzatu and Virkkunen.
Tom Rutland
After years of the Conservatives and Reform trying their best to ruin our relationship with our nearest neighbours, and damaging business exports, this Labour Government have been working hard to ensure that my constituents feel the benefit of our renewed relationship with the European Union. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the work he is doing to ensure that businesses like Worthing’s very own musical instrument business Hobgoblin Music can benefit from the reset in relations we have had with our European neighbours?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour down in sunny Sussex for that question. The reset relationship with the EU has been fundamental and has delivered for businesses right across Britain, including Hobgoblin in Worthing on the sunny south coast of England. We are tackling the barriers to trade. The dialogue we have with the EU on business mobility and recognition of professional services will unlock opportunities into the future. Where working with the EU delivers for Britain, we will do so enthusiastically.
James Asser
I put on record my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Bulgaria. The APPG recently visited Sofia, where we met businesses that are keen to build their trade relationships with this country, particularly in the energy and tech sectors. We also saw the good work being done by our embassy in partnership with the UK-Bulgarian chamber of commerce. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to look at trading with many of the newer markets in eastern Europe, which are keen to create trade, particularly when we have active business communities from those countries in the UK that are keen to build a partnership that will benefit both our country and theirs?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and his work in this area is incredibly important. Our trade with every one of the newer EU member states has increased over the 12 months to September 2025, and I can give some examples of the kind of work we are engaged in. We are supporting Rolls-Royce, which is planning to build up to six small modular reactor units in the Czech Republic. One of the EU’s fastest growing economies in Europe is, in fact, Poland, and we won Polish Airlines’ first order of 40 Airbus aircrafts, which will benefit the British economy. We have also agreed to start trade policy dialogue with Norway, and we are negotiating a trade agreement with Switzerland to boost trade services. Non-EU countries of course play a vital role in that tapestry as well.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
A sector in need of urgent attention is road haulage—moving not only goods but people across Europe for the purposes of tourism and education but also, importantly, film, TV, sport and music. My constituent Cameron works mainly in the music sector, supporting European tours and festivals. He tells me that the 90/180-day rule is leading to cancelled events and job losses, with some firms only employing dual nationals, using European firms rather than British ones or flying drivers home to swap out on longer journeys to avoid breaching the rules. Although the rules have existed since 2021, as the Secretary of State has told me, they have not been fully enforced. As part of the UK-EU reset, will he look at finding a way to help professional drivers keep the show on the road?
Peter Kyle
The hon. Member points to one of the areas where the Brexit deal negotiated by the Conservative party let down Britain. We are aware of those issues, and they are part of our negotiations. We will see what we can do for the sector into the future.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I have heard from so many businesses in Wokingham that have suffered post Brexit with masses of red tape limiting their exports. Losing key trade relationships in Europe has meant that many local businesses have seen their profits evaporate. What are the Government doing to develop and strengthen trade with Europe, so that businesses in Wokingham can start to grow again? Agreeing a bespoke customs union would be a really good start.
Peter Kyle
The area over which we have the most agency is regulation in this country, and this Government are pledging to reduce the burden on business by 25%. We are very aware of the issue of regulation and barriers to trade, and I mentioned it in my meetings with three EU commissioners just in the last fortnight. Part of the reset is aimed at reducing the burdens on business.
It is good to see that Members from many parties in this House have a real interest in engaging in debate about healing our relationship with the EU and creating new opportunities with our biggest trading partner—with the exception of one party opposite, whose Members are all sitting there, silent. I wonder why.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Pubs and micropubs like the ones in my hon. Friend’s constituency are at the heart of all our communities. From April, every pub will receive a 15% reduction on its business rates bill, with bills then frozen in real terms for a further two years. Three quarters of pubs will see their bills stay the same or fall, saving the average pub around £1,650 next year. We are also launching a review of how pubs are valued for business rates and investing £10 million through the hospitality support fund to help pubs diversify and to improve productivity across the sector.
Daniel Francis
I recently visited the Bird & Barrel micropub in Barnehurst, which also operates the Bexley Brewery in Slade Green in my constituency. They informed me that, due to the number of tied tenants in the constituency, they have access to less than 8% of the local pub market across Bexleyheath and Crayford. They are pressing me, and I will be pressing, like my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), to see the pubs code updated to support micropubs and breweries. Will my hon. Friend give some more detail about when we may see some more progress on that matter?
Kate Dearden
What a champion my hon. Friend is for micropubs in his constituency. From Anchor Bay to Bakewell Tart Stout, Bexley Brewery showcases an excellent range of beers, and small brewers and micropubs such as the Bird & Barrel play a vital role in supporting local communities and economies. Alongside the beer market review, the Government are carrying out a statutory review of the pubs code and the Pubs Code Adjudicator, as well as a post-implementation review to assess the code’s impact since 2016. The Government’s report covering that work will be published as soon as practicable.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Government closely monitor business confidence across the hospitality sector and recognise that businesses face real and sustained pressures. That is why we have announced targeted support measures to help the sector remain resilient. They include: permanently lower business rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties; a significant increase to the hospitality support fund; and action to reduce regulatory burdens by pressing ahead with licensing reform for a new national licensing policy framework to provide greater flexibility for pubs and hospitality venues, allowing them to thrive.
John Lamont
Hospitality businesses in the Scottish borders are being squeezed by rising energy costs and wage and supply bills. Does the Minister think that this Labour Government’s jobs tax has helped or hindered the hospitality sector?
Kate Dearden
Business confidence depends on economic stability, and that is exactly what this Government are delivering: a stable economy where businesses can invest in growth. The hon. Member will have heard my commitment to the hospitality sector—both my personal investment and my absolute determination to work closely with the sector so that we can build stronger local economies with stronger high streets and thriving businesses. Businesses will see that stronger demand, especially when working people have more money to spend, and we are focused on building that stability for our local communities and for businesses to benefit too.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
It was worth waiting for. We are clear that Royal Mail’s service performance has not been good enough. I met the sector’s independent regulator Ofcom yesterday to stress the widespread concerns among hon. Members about service standards. My hon. Friend has deep experience in this area, and I welcome his engagement with the main delivery office in Corby, where Royal Mail tells me that it is recruiting nine new postal workers to support the timeliness and quality of its postal services.
Lee Barron
Quality of service in the Royal Mail has been at shocking levels over recent years. Considering that Royal Mail is legally obliged to deliver a universal service and keep our communities connected, will the Minister join me in calling on Royal Mail’s owners to honour their agreement, end the two-tier workforce, and bring new entrants’ terms and conditions up to the same standard as those of substantive Royal Mail employees? Fifty per cent of new entrants are leaving the service within a year, which is leading to a decimation in the quality of service.
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is correct to highlight that the service quality issues are linked directly to workers’ terms and conditions. It is precisely because we take that connection so seriously that the Secretary of State convened the meeting between the unions and the owners of Royal Mail. Ofcom made it clear in our meeting yesterday that it expects the plan for improvements in quality of service to be in place within days of an agreement being reached with the unions, and we will certainly hold Royal Mail to that.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that by being asked to focus on parcels over letters, and having overtime hours for deliveries restricted, many hard-working postal workers will feel that public trust in Royal Mail is being undermined?
Blair McDougall
I discussed the prioritisation of parcels with Ofcom yesterday. It had previously investigated the matter, and it is fair to say that it has heard the widespread concern around the House. If Ofcom continues to be concerned, it will not hesitate to investigate again.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
In the face of global uncertainty, the Government are acting with boldness, creativity and urgency to back British business. We will soon publish our steel strategy to secure an internationally competitive, investible and sustainable future for British-made steel. We are making highly significant interventions on energy. The supercharger discount will increase next month, further cutting costs for around 500 of the most energy-intensive businesses. The British industrial competitiveness scheme will slash electricity bills for 7,000 businesses by up to 25% from 2027.
We are helping businesses to scale and grow, with the British Business Bank making the largest ever equity investments and UK Export Finance working with banks to generate £11 billion-worth of support for small businesses to export. We are opening new markets, with the India free trade arrangement now through both Houses of Parliament. Just last week, I was in Brussels to sign a new competition co-operation agreement. I expect my Department to match the dynamism of the best of British entrepreneurs, and I am proud to report that with this Labour Government, it is.
Jayne Kirkham
Soul Farm, which delivers organic and sustainable food, is an example of a co-operative business in my constituency that benefits its community. I also have the “Save the Stag” campaign in Ponsanooth, which is trying to take over and run the local pub, as has already been done at the Ship Inn at Portloe. Setting up or transitioning to a co-op model can be difficult. Will the Minister update me on what support the Government are providing to help new co-ops to start up and existing businesses to transition to employee ownership?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s important question. She will know that our manifesto committed to double the size of the co-op and mutual sector, and we are well on the way to doing so. She will also know that a consultation on this issue closed very recently. We are analysing the results and we will make further statements very soon.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The Government do not create jobs; business does. With unemployment rising, this is the last chance to ask the Secretary of State a question ahead of the start of April when a tsunami of business rate rises will hit. Shops and restaurants will see a 50% increase on average and the business rates of hotels will double. He and I both represent wonderful Sussex constituencies full of hospitality, high street and tourism businesses, but young people need those jobs. For their sake and for others, will he finally postpone his business rate rise?
Peter Kyle
I enjoy these exchanges with the shadow Secretary of State. I note that Reform’s self-styled shadow Secretary of State—or, as I call him, the shadowy Secretary of State—is not in his place, despite being just next door in the Tea Room a few minutes ago. I think that speaks volumes.
The shadow Secretary of State knows that the private sector has created 380,000 jobs under this Government. We will continue to grow the economy and the number of people in work, and make sure that people benefit from all the rights we are delivering, which are pro-business and pro-worker. He spent 14 years letting down Britain. Now he has spent 18 months talking it down.
Andrew Griffith
The Secretary of State forgets that I have not even been here for 14 years. Some days it feels like that, but I can assure him that it is not the case. There was no answer to that question, so let me try another. Does he agree that there is something pretty badly wrong with employment law in this country when Peter Mandelson, the friend of a convicted paedophile and leaker of classified Government documents, walks away with a £75,000 pay-off? The permanent secretary thinks that is good value for money. Will the Secretary of State review Labour’s policy of uncapping employment tribunal payouts for the highest earners?
Peter Kyle
As is so often the case when we have these exchanges, the shadow Secretary of State spends a lot of his time slagging off his own record in office. The Conservatives had 14 years to reform tribunal rights—they did not even touch it. They had 14 years to update workers’ rights and employment status in this country—they did not do it. The economy moved forward; they failed to move forward.
Turning to the issue of Peter Mandelson, I start by recognising that there are victims at the heart of this debate and the issues surrounding it. Those victims are in my mind today as I answer this question, and they have been all the way through. We will make sure that those victims get the justice they deserve. When it comes to the issues surrounding Peter Mandelson, there are multiple inquiries under way. Thames Valley police is leading on a criminal inquiry, and I will leave it at that.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I thank my hon. Friend for her work in this area. The Government believe that trade unions are absolutely essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. We are providing a legal framework for businesses and unions to negotiate access to the workplace. We recognise that for the framework to effectively facilitate that access, it has to be supported. That is why we are consulting on this. Officials are reviewing those responses, and we will publish a response in due course.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
Fuel duty is currently frozen. The key thing we can do to make sure we deal with this instability in energy prices is de-escalate in the region. I remind the hon. Member that his party has been calling for us to join the war.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Co-operatives create a really important sense of connection at a time when people feel disconnected, but co-ops and mutuals are also more resilient and more productive. That is why we have made the commitment she references. Our call for evidence has closed, and we are working on the proposals that will flow out of that. I really welcome the news this morning that the John Lewis bonus is returning and congratulate it on its results.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Blair McDougall
Our small business strategy sets out the range of measures we are taking to support small businesses. That includes an increase of £4 billion in the finance available to businesses, so that they can invest to take advantage of those opportunities. We will also bring forward the strongest proposals on late payments, to improve cash flow to small businesses, as well as cutting red tape, so that they can take advantage of the opportunities the hon. Member describes.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
I thank my hon. Friend for standing up for the business in her constituency, and she is absolutely right. The Trade Remedies Authority is investigating, as she knows, and I urge industry to participate in that, although I cannot comment on the precise details of the investigation because it might eventually come to my desk. Importantly, we need to make sure that dumping is not acceptable, because it makes it impossible for British businesses to prosper. We will do everything in our power to make sure that we use the remedies available to us to protect British businesses.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Peter Kyle
I am always grateful for invitations to drinks with the right hon. Gentleman. I might well ask him to come to Hove, though; I have been to his constituency a number of times over the years and it is about time he visited mine. When he is there, he will see a thriving hospitality sector, but one that does need support to meet its full potential. We accept that, which is why we have introduced so many support packages since we came into office. What the hospitality sector needs is what every other sector in the economy needs: a stable industrial strategy—
Mr Speaker
Order. Secretary of State, we have a lot of Back-Benchers who are desperate to get in and who want to hear from you.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
For years scotch whisky has faced sky-high import tariffs in India—as high as 150%. The Scotch Whisky Association has described the tariff cuts as “transformational”, and the Scotch whisky industry supports thousands of jobs in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that the increased bilateral trade with India is set to grow the Scottish economy by £190 million a year and is a massive win for the whisky industry, West Dunbartonshire and Scotland?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I commend him for supporting his constituents. Equally importantly, there are many Scottish products in respect of which we need to ensure that British businesses can take the opportunities the India FTA affords, and build on those so that we can build strong British businesses. We also have geographical identification for Scotch whisky in Argentina. We need to build on these gains around the world.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I recently had the pleasure of visiting Ionoptika, a fantastic local employer in Chandler’s Ford. It told me that UK small and medium-sized enterprises are being impacted by export licence turnaround times, which are taking up to six months for non-controlled goods. Will the Minister confirm when we will see a significant improvement in turnaround times?
Chris Bryant
I am happy to meet the hon. Member if she wants to take me through some of the specific issues in her constituency; I have done that for several hon. Members, and we had a roundtable last week to try to get the timelines down. Sometimes it is difficult. The median time in which we sort them out is 14 days, but if the hon. Member has problems, I am happy to tackle them with her.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
From Kingswood accountants to Automated Analytics and our young traders market, Doncaster is home to many businesses run by ambitious entrepreneurs. Will the Minister update the House on how Government support, such as the start-up loan scheme and the growth guarantee scheme, are helping young entrepreneurs and start-ups, and on what more we can do in this policy area?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s advocacy on this issue. Britain is the start-up capital of Europe. We are doubling down to ensure that once businesses are started up, they can scale up, stay and build their innovation here, which is why we are also the unicorn capital of Europe. We will double down and make sure that all that innovation, job creation and wealth creation remain here benefiting Britain, including my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Anchor Sound and Security, based in Kings Langley, explained to me how it is disincentivised to hire more employees due to rising compliance costs and regulatory uncertainty. What is the Minister doing to stop regulations stifling small business growth and destroying the strong relationships between employer and employees?
Peter Kyle
The Government have a commitment to reduce the regulatory burden on business by 25%. My Department led on almost £1 billion of regulatory reform for company reporting in just the first weeks of our taking office. The small business plan and strategy will deliver for small businesses, on top of the industrial strategy, of course, which is getting our economy facing the future and into solid growth for now and the future.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) in calling on the Government to publish the review of market access for small breweries as soon as possible. I was delighted that Moot Brew brewery from Halling in my constituency produced the guest ale for the Strangers’ Bar in the House of Commons before Christmas. Will the Secretary of State support a national guest beer agreement policy, so that more fantastic local brewers such as Moot are represented in my local pubs?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend is a real champion for her local breweries, especially Moot Brew in Halling, which produces excellent beer—I know she visits regularly. We recognise the importance of independent breweries and pubs, and we are of course committed to ensuring that the sector remains diverse, competitive and rooted in local communities. We have reviewed the beer market to assess any barriers, and I will keep my hon. Friend updated.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Small-volume business manufacturers in the automotive sector are having a terrible time at the moment. They rely on exports, and exports to the US are critical. Although I welcome the agreement the Government struck, costs are still four times what they were before President Trump introduced his tariffs, and those businesses are also being squeezed by business rates and national insurance at home. Will the Secretary of State make urgent representations to the Chancellor? The market is very delicate, and something must be done to reduce costs.
Peter Kyle
The right hon. Gentleman raises an issue that is close to my heart. The Government and I care deeply about the future of the automotive sector. Exports are incredibly important to it, but so is the security of supply chains. I have raised this issue not only with our US counterparts and other export markets but with the EU, to protect supply chains. My ministerial colleague chaired the Automotive Council just yesterday; we are listening, gauging and acting on behalf of the sector. Automotive production fell by 50% when the Conservatives were running the country. We are trying to get it back up to where it deserves to be.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
The Select Committee recently flagged that small businesses in our country now face pandemic-level pressures. In April, standing charges for energy are set to rise by 60%, with no price cap protection. Now, soaring oil and gas prices threaten to be the final straw for thousands of SMEs. Will the Secretary of State make an urgent assessment of the risk of soaring energy prices, and give a clear account of how we will keep the SMEs that keep this country running in business?
Blair McDougall
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have taken action through the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which is a downpayment on exactly the sort of support he describes. We are constantly working on ways to cut costs for small businesses, and I am sure we will work with the Select Committee on that.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Last time we were here for Business and Trade questions, I asked about exports of paraquat—the use of which is forbidden here—to other countries, and I live in hope that I will get an answer to that question. To update the ministerial team, Syngenta—the company that makes paraquat—put out a press release on 3 March to say that it would stop production this year. May I therefore expand my previous question to ensure that the response includes the export of pesticides and other products whose use is banned in the UK?
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The UK economy needs more and more critical minerals, and in Cornwall we have loads of them. Private capital has flown into the duchy on the back of the Labour Government’s investments of about £100 million through the national wealth fund and the Kernow industrial growth fund, but will the Minister update the House on Government plans to unlock more private investment in our critical minerals sector to unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
My hon. Friend is right: Cornwall has loads of critical minerals. They will be beneficial in driving not only the UK economy but great businesses and export opportunities. As we have said before, we want companies to scale and grow in the UK, to be headquartered and listed in the UK, and to provide great jobs in the UK. That is why I am working with my hon. Friend and his Cornish Labour colleagues, and with the industry and capital markets in the UK, to corral capital into Cornish critical minerals.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Since part of Grimsby falls in my constituency, I join my Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), in celebrating Great Grimsby Day. I recently attended a meeting with the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) and a group of potential investors in the steel industry, who I know have made approaches to the Secretary of State. Can he give me an assurance that all potential private sector investments in the industry will be given serious consideration?
Peter Kyle
I congratulate the hon. Member on Great Grimsby Day, and I can give him that assurance.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for speaking to me about the poor postal service in Dargavel Village in Bishopton. I know he is working hard to resolve matters and answer questions and had meetings yesterday, and I thank him for that. However, as he will appreciate, this matter is of particular importance in Scotland due to the elections on 7 May, because postal votes will be issued soon. In Scotland we have an NHS with significant waiting lists, and we cannot have people missing medical appointments, so on behalf of residents of Bishopton in particular, may I stress the urgency of this matter?
Blair McDougall
My office manager lives in Dargavel Village, so I have a person incentive to ensure that the service improves in the area my hon. Friend represents. We spoke about it yesterday; we have called in Royal Mail, we have brought together unions and management and we had a meeting yesterday with Ofcom to stress that things have to improve. Specific meetings are taking place on postal votes in Scotland, and we have sought assurances that they will not be impacted by the problems with the quality of service.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Yesterday I met representatives of the British Chambers of Commerce, who relayed the profound concerns of the UK automative industry that it might be excluded from the European Union’s proposed industrial accelerator Act. Nissan and Honda have already broken cover to say that their futures may be uncertain unless they are included in the “made in Europe” rules. What is the Secretary of State doing, with his Front-Bench team and across Government, to ensure that the UK automotive sector is not placed at a competitive disadvantage as a consequence of those measures?
Peter Kyle
The hon. Member’s question is incredibly important. He will know that my ministerial team and I have been very active on this issue. Just a couple of weeks ago in Brussels I raised it directly with Commissioners. He will also know that in the proposed Act, which has not yet been introduced, there are potential challenges for the automotive sector. We are working with our EU colleagues to make sure that voices of the business community are being heard loud and clear and that the automotive sector—in which 86% of the components assembled in this country come from EU countries—is respected, valued, and secure in the future.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The sudden shift in steel import policy has created uncertainty for firms that have invested heavily in expanding their operations based on previously stable trading conditions. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with affected businesses in Scotland, including Central Rebar in Alloa, and provide clarity to prevent further disruption and to ensure that companies vital to the Scottish industrial base are not placed at a competitive disadvantage?
Chris McDonald
The Government are incredibly concerned about the gradual erosion of UK domestic steel production compared with imports. I ask my hon. Friend to wait a very short time until the steel strategy is published, and after that he might like a further discussion with me.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
High streets are a key concern for us all in this House. On the Promenade in Cheltenham we have Cavendish House, which was a cherished retail centre for 200 years. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) remembers it. Now it is empty; Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct left and now we have a big, empty building owned by Canada Life. Does the Minister agree that the big pension and investment companies need to pay more respect to our high streets and bring forward planning applications to redevelop and regenerate as soon as they possibly can? We should not be left waiting for as long as we have been.
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden) mentioned a moment ago that we are working on a new high street strategy, which will seek to deal with some of the issues the hon. Member mentioned. We want investors to step up, but we also have a responsibility, through planning reform, to make it easier to regenerate the types of areas he described.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Given the global energy crisis, manufacturers reliant on gas will struggle with the recent spikes in energy costs. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether his Department is considering a transitional dual fuel discount, alongside the British industrial competitiveness scheme, for industries that will continue to use gas for the foreseeable future?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend will know that the impact of BICS is essential, and it will be fundamental in getting growth into the economy and sustainable businesses into the future. We are looking carefully at how the learning from that can be applied in other areas.
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before we come to business questions, I would like to say something about yesterday evening’s proceedings. The final Division of the day on the Third Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill was subject to intolerable delays in the voting Lobbies. This Parliament is meant to be respected around the world and should set an example of good behaviour. The behaviour in the Lobby last night involving a group of about half a dozen Government Members, including the Chief Whip and the Deputy Chief Whip, was totally unacceptable. I expect better from right hon. and hon. Members. If Members are asked to move swiftly through the Lobbies, they must do so. The fact that it took 22 minutes to get a vote through is beyond the pale.
I cannot believe this behaviour. It is absolutely not going to be accepted. The Serjeant at Arms lost his authority, because MPs said, “I am not moving,” and pretended to be ill—by 7 o’clock they were suddenly well again. Do we think that gives us good standing in the world? It does not. It is appalling. We should be ashamed. I hope that I will be getting letters from the people who were involved in that protest. If the Government cannot manage the business, perhaps they ought to go on a training exercise rather than disrupting the rules of the House.
I expect better from right hon. and hon. Members. If Members are asked to move swiftly, they must do so and respect the Serjeant. There are other ways in which Government Whips can manage the timings of business in the Chamber. To behave as they did was disrespectful to the House, to the occupant of the Chair—the Deputy Speaker was put in an impossible position—and to the office of the Serjeant at Arms. The Members involved should be ashamed.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 16 March will include:
Monday 16 March—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill.
Tuesday 17 March—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill.
Wednesday 18 March—Opposition day (19th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition—subject to be announced.
Thursday 19 March—General debate on progress in tackling climate change, followed by a debate on a motion on online harms. The subjects of these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 20 March—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 23 March includes:
Monday 23 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill.
Jesse Norman
Mr Speaker, let me start by associating myself with your remarks just now from the Chair. It is plain to all Members of the House that the Government Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip have badly mis-stepped. Indeed, there has been scant respect for the House more generally from the Government Whips Office. I cannot believe that such a thing would have happened when the Leader of the House was Chief Whip.
If I may, let me join the Prime Minister yesterday, and I am sure the whole House today, in remembering the dreadful events of 30 years ago in Dunblane and paying tribute to the victims and their families.
On a happier note, last Monday saw the 250th anniversary of Adam Smith’s immortal masterpiece “The Wealth of Nations”.
Jesse Norman
Hon. Members may wish, if they like, to consult works by the shadow Leader of the House on this topic. I doubt whether any other book or any single body of thought has had more effect in improving the lives and livelihoods of people across the world in the intervening 250 years.
We celebrate the service of our armed forces and we rightly treat defence matters, wherever possible, as bound by a united focus on the national interest, but it is precisely that focus on the national interest that requires us now to acknowledge that the past two weeks have been a disaster for this country. Our allies in the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and across the Gulf have criticised this country for its “slow” and “weak” response to date. The Cypriot high commissioner and the President of Cyprus have publicly expressed their disappointment and dissatisfaction. Why? Because we have exposed their people and our people to drone attacks as targets, placed weapons systems on their territories, made solemn undertakings to them over many years and now failed to come to their defence in time.
It did not have to be this way, so we must ask how this can possibly have happened. Let us review the history. It was being publicly reported by 15 January that America was starting to build a carrier strike force around the USS Abraham Lincoln, targeted at Iran. On 26 January, The Washington Post reported that this force had arrived in the middle east. On 31 January, our own Prime Minister told the BBC:
“The aim is that Iran shouldn’t be able to develop nuclear weapons…we support the goal and we are talking to allies about how we get to that goal.”
Those remarks come close to an explicit endorsement of the United States on its operation, as they were doubtless intended to.
The key point is this: all this happened four full weeks before the start of the attack. Last week, at this Dispatch Box, I highlighted the gaps and inconsistencies in the Government’s position, between their supposedly settled legal view and the last-ditch political decision reportedly taken in Cabinet on the Friday before hostilities began, and secondly between the Cabinet and the Prime Minister, whose original instinct was to support the USA but who was overruled.
It is now clear that there has also been a disastrous failure of political leadership. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet knew, or should have known, for a full month that the USA was mustering a vast body of forces to attack Iran, that it could not remain on high readiness indefinitely, and so an attack must surely follow. The Prime Minister himself said last week that the Government had pre-deployed some weapons to the region, yet he failed to give instructions in time to the Navy to prepare HMS Dragon, he failed to notify the Cypriots, and he failed to warn our allies and other friends across the region.
Now that they are engaged, our armed forces are discharging their duties with distinction, but the result of this political incompetence has been a fiasco, which brought shame and dishonour on this country. We have the disgraceful sight now of the Government anonymously trashing the Chief of the Defence Staff, in a desperate attempt to deflect responsibility for their own inadequacies, not just via an anonymous leak in The Spectator, repeated in The Telegraph, but by a quoted, but of course unnamed, official to the Financial Times. I cannot recall that a political hatchet job of this kind has ever been performed on a commanding officer in the course of a military operation. It is deeply dishonourable and itself a further sign of failure in No. 10.
Will the Leader of the House support an inquiry into these leaks and briefings? Will he support an investigation, in due course, as to how this embarrassing fiasco can have been allowed to happen and what can be done to prevent it from ever happening again?
Sir Alan Campbell
May I first respond to your words, Mr Speaker, about the events of yesterday evening? I endorse everything that you have said about the need to respect staff—it is absolutely correct that you should say that and I absolutely endorse your remarks. I assure you and the House that not only have the Government heard your words, but they will be acted upon.
May I also associate myself with the remarks that the shadow Leader of the House made about Dunblane? We remember that tragedy. On a personal level, one of the proudest moments in my career was when I voted for a ban on handguns, because that has made a difference to the safety of our communities.
I will turn to the specific remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman in a moment, but the events unfolding in Iran are deeply concerning, and our thoughts are with British citizens and our brave servicemen and servicewomen in the region. The security and safety of British citizens across the region is the Government’s top priority. The first Government-charted flight landed on Tuesday morning, with the second landing on Wednesday. We will continue to explore all options for helping our citizens to return home as swiftly and safely as possible. Drop-in sessions are being held for MPs with concerns. As I said last week, should Members face issues or be unable to get the support that they need for their constituents, I invite them to speak to my office and my officials—we will help in any way we can.
This week, we have launched the social cohesion action plan, which sets out the steps that the Government are taking to improve social cohesion and protect what matters. We will invest in initiatives that create opportunities for connection across backgrounds, and we will expand the Pride in Place programme, which puts more communities at the heart of decision making in their own neighbourhoods. We will develop new tools and powers to safeguard organisations that spread extremism and hate, and that threaten public safety.
It is correct to reflect that last Sunday was Covid-19 Day of Reflection—an opportunity to come together to remember those who lost their lives and to honour the tireless work and acts of kindness shown by many during the pandemic. The Government remain committed to learning the lessons needed from the covid inquiry to protect and prepare us for the future. As a sign of that commitment, just last year the Government held the largest pandemic exercise in British history.
Let me turn to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House. I agree with his first point; it is incumbent on us in this House that parties work together in times of crisis, which we are facing. I also agree that a bipartisan approach—if we can get one—is the best approach. That is what we did in opposition, even though some of those decisions were very difficult, so I am disappointed in his remarks today. I am particularly disappointed in the leader of his party, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), because she simply does not seem to acknowledge the importance and responsibility that come with her office.
In terms of the story that the shadow Leader of the House has set out, let me say that we sent assets to the region at the beginning of the year, and HMS Dragon has been dispatched. As I just said, we hold the safety and security of British citizens and servicemen and servicewomen very highly indeed.
On the wider issue that the shadow Leader of the House raises, I simply remind him that his Government left our defences in a shocking state, not least in the diminished surface fleet, with defence expenditure going down. Our task is to rebuild our defences, and we are committed to increasing spending to keep our servicemen and servicewomen safe. In terms of an inquiry, we are in the midst of an international crisis. If such an inquiry is necessary in the future, it should wait until we ensure that our citizens and our servicemen and servicewomen are safe.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Overgrown vegetation is impeding access to footpaths on Stansfeld Avenue and Pritchard Drive in Hawkinge in my constituency. When I made representations on behalf of local residents to the local council, I was informed that the footpaths are not registered with the town council, the district council or the county council, because the developers did not consider their long-term stewardship. Until now, local volunteers have ended up having to keep them clear themselves. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the responsibility of developers to ensure the proper adoption and maintenance of footpaths and other community infrastructure?
Sir Alan Campbell
Unadopted roads and pavements can cause a range of issues for residents, and this Government are currently consulting on the issue of unadopted amenities. I am sure that Members will be updated when that work has concluded, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s comments are brought to the attention of Ministers.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I bring to the House this week a matter that I have raised with the Leader of the House before: fraud. As he knows, fraud is a devastating crime that can destroy people’s life savings and plunge them into debt, and it is now the most frequently experienced crime in Britain. On Monday, the Government released their fraud strategy, but anybody would be forgiven for not noticing, because no Minister came to the Dispatch Box to speak about it, and there was hardly any media coverage.
Given how prevalent this crime is, we have to ask ourselves why no noise was made about this significant strategy. I think the reason is that a key pre-election commitment on fraud was quietly dropped. The Prime Minister himself said that big tech companies need to be held financially accountable for their role in fraud, but when the strategy was released, it did not enforce that commitment; instead, an industry working group emerged, which will talk to the industry and ask them nicely to act. The banks and financial regulators are unhappy about this—of course, the banks are on the hook for paying out compensation to customers when they are victims of fraud. They say that when they try to get big tech companies to act, those companies are far too slow and not responsive, and the only thing that will make them act is if they are also hit in the pocket when fraud takes place. Can the Leader of the House organise for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and explain why that commitment was dropped? Also, I raised this matter with the Leader of the House in October last year, and I still have not received a reply from the Minister.
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman asks why there was not a statement on Monday regarding the launch of the strategy. Monday was particularly busy—there were important statements—and the fact that there was not an oral statement on the strategy is not a reflection on the importance of fraud. However, I will bear in mind what he has said.
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has pointed out that the Government launched their fraud strategy this week. As he says, fraud is distressing and disruptive, and has long-term effects on victims. I am not as pessimistic as he is about our strategy; it sets out how we will use every tool at our disposal to disrupt and dismantle criminal operations, bring fraudsters to justice and strengthen protection and support for victims; £250 million is being invested over the next three years for that fight. However, I note his request for a statement and an update, and I will bring it to the attention of the relevant Minister.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
Ellesmere Port is benefiting from investment in its new market and £20 million from the Pride in Place fund, but the shopping centre is basically being left to rot by its owners, Adhan. The problem we have is that Adhan is a private company. It has made many promises of investment in the past, but has not delivered; shops are left empty, units are not filled, and the heating in the centre does not even work. Adhan is milking the centre dry and leaving a big hole in the town centre. It is a real shame that this is happening when we have so much other investment, so could we please have a debate about what more powers local authorities could have to compel investment in the whole of our town centres?
Sir Alan Campbell
The reality is that when the Conservative party was in government, it hollowed out our high streets. We are giving unprecedented new powers to local communities to seize boarded-up shops and revitalise neglected high streets, but I will share my hon. Friend’s concerns with Ministers. Should he seek a meeting, I will facilitate one, or if he wants to hear directly from Ministers in a debate, I encourage him to apply for one.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, I can advise Members that on Thursday 26 March, there will be debates in the Chamber on transport accessibility for disabled people, and on support for Gurkha veterans. In Westminster Hall next week, there will be a number of debates, including one on productivity and economic growth in the east midlands and another—which I am sure will be particularly popular—on the accessibility of banking services. In the week commencing 23 March, there will be debates on sudden unexplained death in childhood, and on outcomes for patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and cranio-cervical instability. There may possibly be a debate on the merits of mandatory body armour for prison officers, but that one is provisional. As the Leader of the House knows, we have a great deal of outstanding debates needing time, and the weekly plea for more time is coming his way.
Turning to an issue of mine, I have many park home owners in my constituency. As I am sure the Leader of the House will be aware, the Government published research only this week about park home owners. The Backbench Business Committee has a pending debate on this subject; if the Leader of the House was particularly generous with Government time, we could bring that forward and satisfy the many park home owners throughout the country.
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the whole Committee for its work. I note with particular pleasure that a debate is scheduled on access to banking services, an issue that has been raised in business questions many times. I cannot promise him more time at the moment, but I recognise that it is important to get confirmation of time as early as possible, and I will endeavour to do that.
We recognise the long-standing concerns of park home residents about things like commission fees. We have launched a call for evidence, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and everyone else’s, to contribute to it. I remind the House that park home residents are entitled to free independent legal advice about their rights through the Government-funded Leasehold Advisory Service.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and I have often spoken in the House about the appalling audiology service at Doncaster Royal infirmary. It has put an action plan in place, and the situation regarding first-time appointments has improved, but second and third appointments are just not happening, and people are waiting for hearing aid refits and repairs. Will the Leader of the House ask Ministers to set out how they will support trusts to expand capacity for follow-up audiology care, including through the use of high street provision, where that can be provided under the NHS?
Sir Alan Campbell
We know that people are waiting too long for community health services, and we are committed to cutting waiting lists, including for audiology. We are providing capital investment to upgrade audiology facilities in NHS trusts and expand audiology testing capacity through community diagnostic centres. I have raised my hon. Friend’s concerns with Health Ministers, who I believe wrote to him on the matter earlier this week, but I will ensure that the Department hears his latest question.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Manufacturers and distributors of bullets in the UK are extremely concerned about the decision by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ban lead bullets in 2029. The EU was about to make the same decision, but pulled back from it. Can we have an urgent debate about the impact of the decision on UK sovereign capability?
Sir Alan Campbell
I can offer the right hon. Gentleman a meeting with Ministers, if that is what he seeks, and will certainly draw to their attention the point that he raises.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Lots of us in Aylesbury and the villages have watched the Channel 4 drama “Dirty Business”. One resident described it to me as harrowing, powerful and emotive, and they are right. The Government have made some good progress in tackling the crime of sewage in our waterways through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, but will the Leader of the House ensure that further parliamentary time is allocated to debate and advance our long-overdue reforms to the water sector?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a very important matter, and the programme to which she refers has rightly caused concern among people and started a dialogue on these matters, which it is important that we have. The reality is that the previous Government should never have allowed the water sector to get into this state, because the public deserve better. As she says, our Water (Special Measures) Act will introduce tough enforcement measures, the most powerful in a decade. The water White Paper goes further, setting out clear powers for the new water regulator, and a new water reform Bill will create the laws that we need to fundamentally change the system. When that Bill is introduced, there will be plenty of time to debate this matter.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The situation at Zachary Merton hospital in my constituency is causing deep concern locally. Services there were closed on what residents were told was a temporary basis, but that closure has now been made permanent. The evidence behind that decision has not been clearly set out. Communities rightly expect candour when decisions are taken about the future of local healthcare provision. Does the Leader of the House agree that there is a wider issue here about transparency and accountability for NHS service decisions, and will he consider granting a debate in Government time on the future of community healthcare provision?
Sir Alan Campbell
I agree on the need for candour and openness for residents, who are obviously concerned about the matter to which the hon. Lady refers. Should she wish to make her case to the relevant Minister, I will make sure that she has that opportunity.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
Comedy has always been part of the fabric of British society, so I am delighted to be a patron of the newly launched CRAFT, the Comedy Representation and Artform Trust, which has been set up to give the comedy industry the formal recognition that it deserves, and to ensure fair funding and Government and industry support. Comedians range from national treasures and emerging talent to home-grown funny people in our communities, such as Steve Cook in my constituency of South Derbyshire, who runs “I love Swad” on Facebook with Pete Jacob and Dan Brass. Steve never fails to make me laugh. The council decided to turn a roundabout into an “interesting feature”, which he has called “Swadhenge”. Members will find it if they google it, and it features on Tripadvisor. Does the Leader of the House agree that comedy is an art form, not just a genre? Will he join me in thanking Lu Jackson—the founder of CRAFT—Steve Cook, and all those who support comedy in the UK?
Sir Alan Campbell
Comedy, much like me, brings light and laughter to our lives. It is a talent and an art that I am proud to join my hon. Friend in recognising. I thank everyone who supports the incredible UK comedy scene, including Lu Jackson from CRAFT and Steve Cook from her constituency.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It was good that the Government hosted a session on heating oil. In rural constituencies, such as North East Fife, almost 15% of people rely on heating oil, so it is really important that the Government are debating this issue. As the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), has said, red diesel is also an issue. The rural impacts of the conflict in Iran go beyond heating oil; fertiliser is another challenge, with reports of a 40% increase in the cost. Given that food security is becoming even more vital, will the Leader of the House ensure that we have a statement from the Environment Secretary on the rural impacts of the conflict?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do not think we have been shy in bringing forward statements on matters that have arisen from the crisis in Iran, and we will continue to do so. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise concerns about heating oil and other matters. As she knows, the Energy Minister has asked the Competition and Markets Authority to make sure that consumers are treated fairly, and there is the option of an investigation into unfair practices, if that becomes necessary. The Government are very cognisant of energy prices in general, but also of the price of heating oil and fuel. We will keep that under close watch and, when appropriate, update the House on what we intend to do about it.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
This weekend marks the 50th anniversary of the West Ham station attack, in which an IRA bomb exploded on a tube train, injuring nine people. Post Office engineer Peter Chalk was shot and seriously injured, and the tube driver, Joseph Julius Stephen, was shot and killed, as they attempted to stop the attacker escaping. Mr Stephen was posthumously awarded the Queen’s Gallantry medal, and we are marking his sacrifice at the station this week. Will the Leader of the House join me in marking this anniversary, and in sending the House’s best wishes to his widow, Janet? Does he agree that we should always mark significant anniversaries, particularly when they involve public sector workers who stepped up, went above and beyond the call of duty, and sacrificed or risked their life to protect the public?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in sending our best wishes to the friends and family of Mr Stephen, and I thank him for raising this important anniversary. It is important that we remember such events, not least because it underlines the importance of community. I join my hon. Friend in recognising all public servants who have acted in the face of danger to protect us as we go about our daily life.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Last week, I met Toby Hammond, the lead volunteer for West Yorkshire scouts. Astonishingly, the scouts have learned that they could be hit by Labour’s new tourist tax, which is being introduced by the Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin. Because the tax is on overnight stays, it could apply to youth camps, outdoor experiences and sleepovers run by volunteers at scout groups across Keighley and Ilkley, who give up their evenings for the benefit of our young people. The tax will hit thousands of children and young people, who will be negatively impacted. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on this issue, and join me in urging the Mayor of West Yorkshire to scrap this tax once and for all? It is impacting many of our scout groups, which continue to do vital work for our young people.
Sir Alan Campbell
I sincerely hope that the impact is not as the hon. Gentleman has led us to believe. If he wants confirmation about that, I will arrange for a Minister to explain the situation to him. It is absolutely right that mayors are given the choice of whether they introduce a tourist tax. It will be controversial in many ways—we understand that—but let us not forget that there are benefits in what that income can be used for. I join with him in his worry that, if it impacts negatively on scouts, that should be borne in mind because they do a fantastic job.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Bank closures have affected many communities. In Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, we have a banking hub in Abertillery and will shortly have one in Ebbw Vale, so that residents have access to bank services on their high street. These are very popular, and it is great that the Government are committed to delivering 350 banking hubs. May we have a statement to find out how that is going, and to hear about lessons learned and whether access to hubs could be widened in the future?
Sir Alan Campbell
Banking is changing, with many customers benefiting from the convenience of managing their finances remotely, but the Government understand the importance for many people of face-to-face banking and are committed to supporting sufficient access for customers. That is why the financial services industry, with Government support, is committed to rolling out 350 banking hubs. That 350 is not an upper limit on how many there will be. There will be 350 by the end of this Parliament, but there is no reason why the process cannot continue. The Government are working closely with the industry on this commitment, including through regular ministerial engagement. As we assess the roll-out of banking hubs, I am sure Ministers will want to bear in mind the need to update the House when appropriate.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House about the anniversary of Dunblane?
Many of us in this place have pensioner constituents abroad, and the 90% of them who are in the Commonwealth had their pensions frozen from the point at which they left. This is an issue of great concern not just to them, but increasingly to the Governments of Canada and Australia in particular, as it places a heavy burden on them. The annual regulations were recently passed by this House, but that happened without scrutiny because of the way in which they are passed. Is there a way to arrange a meeting with Ministers or a debate in the House so that we can examine this policy and see if there is a way to amend it to make it fairer both for those pensioners and for everyone else affected by it?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do not know the answer to the hon. Lady’s question, except to say that if she seeks a meeting with a Minister, I will help her to facilitate one.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Monday 16 March marks the start of Sign Language Week. Derby has the largest deaf community of any local authority in the country, thanks in large part to the Royal School for the Deaf, which was founded in 1898, and the strong and supportive community that has arisen ever since. Even in Derby, however, too many people find public services inaccessible. Does the Leader of the House agree that, across our public services, everyone should be able to access information and communicate in a way that works for them? Will he join me in wishing everyone who uses British Sign Language in Derby and across the country a very happy Sign Language Week? [In British Sign Language: Happy Sign Language Week.]
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the House, and I absolutely endorse her remarks about more people being able to use and understand sign language, because it is a vital means of communication for many people. I hope that this week raises some much-needed awareness of the importance of British Sign Language, so I take this opportunity, along with the whole House, to wish everyone a happy Sign Language Week.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Farmers in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire have contacted me in recent days about the steep rise in the price of key inputs such as fertilisers and straw. Current events are likely to make these pressures even more acute, with serious implications for farm viability and domestic food production. Could we have a debate in Government time on the rising costs facing British farmers and the long-term resilience of UK food production?
Sir Alan Campbell
It seems longer, but we are 11 days into this particular crisis and, as I said, the Government have not been shy in bringing forward statements where necessary on particular aspects of it. I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers who, I am sure, are watching the situation very carefully. Should the need arise to update the House, I am sure that that is what they will do.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
There are around 430 farmer-owned co-operatives in the UK and around 150,000 farmer members, with a turnover of £10 billion a year. They deliver high quality food produced the highest welfare and environmental standards. With food security being national security and the Government being committed to doubling the size of the co-operative sector, will the Leader of the House grant time for a debate on expanding the agricultural co-operative sector, so that it can play a role in strengthening the UK’s food production?
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to the co-operative movement for the work it does in this regard. It is a very important part of the story of food production. Should my hon. Friend seek a debate on these matters, I am sure there are many Members across the House who would want to join in to discuss what is a very important subject.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May we have an update from a Health Minister on progress in the review of prostate cancer policy and whether it will focus, as it should, on such issues as targeting particularly vulnerable age groups or ethnic groups, such as black males, one quarter of whom will be affected by this disease at some stage in their lives, and speeding up National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approval of relevant drug treatments in England and Wales which are already being prescribed in Northern Ireland and Scotland?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have produced England’s first ever men’s health strategy. We are not just reforming the way things are done; we are putting in the investment as well. On the specific issue he raises, which I agree is an extraordinarily important matter, I will seek an update from a Health Minister for him. Should he seek further detail after that, I will help him to arrange that, too.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I was delighted to see the Eden Project’s recent report, which shone a light on the nearly £7 billion-worth of positive impact it has drawn into the Cornish economy and our community over the past 25 years. Will the Leader of the House work with me and across Departments to ensure that our high street strategy and our local visitor economy strategy work for Cornish businesses, local wealth creation, skills development and our wider communities, just as the Eden Project has done?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate not just for his constituency but for Cornwall, and I commend him for that. As he said, the Eden Project has been an amazing initiative, contributing to the local community and economy, attracting visitors, creating jobs and generating a £6.8 billion boost to the area since it opened. My door is always open to my hon. Friend to discuss what further action can be taken to champion this cause. If he seeks one, I will also get him a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
For decades, local people in Frome have used Packsaddle fields as a valued space for walking, recreation and nature. Plans to build housing on the site were refused twice last year, because of the harm it would cause to the communities who use the land. Despite that, and the fact that it has no live planning application, LiveWest is now taking legal action relating to access to the fields and has forced Somerset council to fence off the area, which simply denies local people the many benefits of being able to enjoy the outdoors. Will the Leader of the House urge the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to consider whether it can be reasonable for land to be fenced off in that way and help me to organise a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss it?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will raise the matter with the relevant Minister and ensure that the hon. Lady gets an update on the important point she raises, but I gently point out, as I do when housing matters are considered, that it is much better if these things are decided locally and communities can go along with them, because we do need more houses. We need more houses for people to live in and to make sure communities are resilient, but I will ensure that she gets a response to the specific point from the relevant Minister.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Silicosis is a particularly nasty, debilitating respiratory disease. Alarmingly, it is on the increase in the UK, predominantly in young people between the ages of 20 and 30, so we really need to look at it. It is a preventable disease. The reason it is escalating is the increase in dry cutting of engineered stone. May we have a debate in Government time on how the Government can intervene to prevent this debilitating disease from becoming the next national tragedy like asbestos?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend, as ever, raises an important issue. The Government are committed to increasing the capacity of respiratory services, and the NHS has specialist centres for diagnosing and managing lung diseases that cause scarring, such as silicosis. I will ensure that the relevant Minister hears my hon. Friend’s concerns. If he wants a meeting with the Minister, I will help to facilitate that too. We should use the experience of people like my hon. Friend on these matters, because he brings a loud, strong voice to them.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
My constituent Kate Szymankiewicz’s daughter, Ruth, tragically died in a mental health in-patient unit. She has been told by the Government that the law as it stands already provides adequate protections to ensure that family contact and visits can happen, but that plainly did not happen in this case, with tragic consequences. Will the Leader of the House facilitate a debate, statement or meeting with the relevant Minister on this matter? When such a tragedy happens, it is not enough to say that the law is satisfactory as it is. My constituents will not rest until the tragic death of their daughter is properly met by Government action.
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise these matters, and I commend him on the way he has raised them today. It is an awful tragedy when these things happen, and I understand the family’s reluctance to accept that the law is strong enough. Should he seek a meeting with the relevant Minister, I will help him to facilitate it.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
March is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. As we know, this Labour Government have created a men’s health strategy in which the men and boys summit later this year will be an essential pillar. Today, the all-party parliamentary group on prostate cancer heard powerful testimony from Movember, Maggie’s, the British Association of Urological Nurses and Alphonso Archer, a survivor who spoke powerfully about the inequities in prostate cancer care provision and the place for music therapy in the recovery process. I welcome the powerful response to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), but will the Leader of the House ensure that a roundtable on prostate cancer is included in the lead-up to the very welcome summit later this year?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend points out, this is the second time this matter has been raised today, which underlines its importance. Should he seek a debate, I am sure that others would join him in raising these important matters. I will certainly look into the idea of a roundtable before the summit.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
Every year, for St George’s day, my local scouts in Romford have a parade and a service at a local church; in fact, there are two parades in Havering, as this also happens in Hornchurch. This year, however, the police have withdrawn support as they are not prepared to marshal the very short parade on the basis of cost. We pay in huge sums of money for the Metropolitan police and, as with any kind of event, I expect them to be there to look after the safety of the young people celebrating the patron saint of scouting. Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the importance of celebrating St George’s day as part of our great English cultural heritage, as well as the failure of the Metropolitan police to ensure that the London borough of Havering is given the police cover that we deserve and pay for?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure that this was not an easy decision for the police, but I can understand the distress that it might cause. Even now, I hope that a local solution can be found. The hon. Gentleman raises the question of whether there will be a debate to commemorate St George’s day—let me see what we can do in that regard. Such a debate would give him and others the opportunity to raise issues like this one.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It has been a really big step forward to see the statutory levy on gambling operators up and running since April last year, with the money raised from it ringfenced for much-needed gambling-related harms research, prevention and treatment. However, with only three weeks until the new financial year, I am concerned that funding allocations have not yet been announced, leaving vital organisations such as GamCare, Gordon Moody and many others uncertain of their future. Will the Leader of the House pass on my concerns to the relevant Health Minister and ask that they update the House on this issue as soon as possible?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are committed to strengthening protections for those at risk and to reducing harmful gambling. Levy commissioners are best placed to make decisions on the future of their work. I will ensure that the relevant Minister has heard my hon. Friend’s concerns and that he gets an update, but it will be a Minister from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, because that is the Department responsible for the implementation and oversight of the gambling levy.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I would like to associate myself with the earlier remarks about the Dunblane tragedy.
Could the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on Government support for egg production in the UK, which is a vital part of the food chain? My constituency has some of the UK’s largest egg producers, such as Glenrath Farms, which is very concerned about a consultation on the phasing out of enriched colony cages. They point out that current UK trade policy allows the tariff-free import of eggs and egg products from lower-welfare systems, including conventional cages, which are still legal in many non-EU countries. A unilateral UK ban on cage egg production without equivalent import restrictions would accelerate imports of shell eggs and egg products from systems that would be illegal domestically and would undermine UK producers and processors who have invested heavily in enriched cages.
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House. I agree that support for the British egg industry is vital. He will know that DEFRA recently held a public consultation on this matter, and the call for views closed last week. We await the outcome of that consultation, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister has heard the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks this morning. Once the outcome of the consultation has been considered, we will help to arrange a statement or debate should one be necessary.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
For my constituents who have been affected by the loan charge, the McCann review is a long-anticipated step towards bringing a year of uncertainty to an end. However, some individuals still feel that cases dating back decades remain unsolved and that enforcement has not been applied evenly between scheme promoters and those who use the arrangements. What analysis has been carried out on how the recommendations of the McCann review will affect individuals and businesses currently engaged with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on loan charge matters?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government understand the strength of feeling about this issue, which is why we accepted all but one of the independent review’s recommendations and at the Budget made the decision to write off £5,000 from the liabilities of everyone affected by the loan charge. I will ensure that Ministers have heard my hon. Friend’s concerns today.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
In my constituency and right across the country, the continuation of the spike in the oil price is having a huge financial impact on families who are reliant on heating oil. Will the Leader of the House please allow a debate in Government time on the plans to help with this issue, and will he ask his colleagues in the Treasury to look at a heating oil price cap?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I said previously, the Minister for Energy has asked the CMA to make sure that consumers are being treated fairly, with the option of investigation into unfair practices should they occur. We will not tolerate companies profiteering from this conflict. Should it be necessary, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary will set out to the House what further action the Government intend to take.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Last summer, I did a tour across my constituency, holding 80 surgeries in four weeks, and the No. 1 issue in west Northumberland was potholes on rural roads. We are unfortunately lumbered with Conservative-run Northumberland county council, which manages to be both incompetent and neglectful of the west of the county to an almost historic degree. I wonder if the Leader of the House will join me on a visit to one of the potholes in my constituency.
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter in the House—he is a strong advocate, not just for his constituency but for the west of the very beautiful county of Northumberland. The Government are investing £24 billion in maintaining and improving motorways and local roads across the country. I join him in urging councils, such as Northumberland county council, to act so that our constituents can reap the benefits of that funding. As for the tempting invitation that he sends me, I will certainly look at my diary.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Liberal Democrat-chaired Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes fire authority has just consulted on closing Stokenchurch and Great Missenden fire stations and removing nearly a quarter of the fire engines from the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes fire authority area. It is no surprise that the consultation responses are in and the public do not want to see those dangerous cuts taking place. Yet the papers for next week’s meeting of the fire authority seem to show that it will ignore the consultation and carry on regardless. May we have a debate in Government time about the duties on public bodies to listen to consultations? Otherwise, the public will just look at these things as token exercises rather than real, meaningful engagement.
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand public concern when issues such as those arise, and whenever possible, of course the authorities need to listen to residents. Should the hon. Gentleman seek a Westminster Hall debate, I am sure that others will seek to join him in that because there are common concerns in other areas of the country.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
A constituent contacted my office to say that their daughter and her partner are caught in a student loans trap, where although they are both working and paying back their loans, they are hardly making any headway in reducing their debts. Apparently, of those with student loans, 76% feel trapped by a student loan balance that keeps growing despite their repayments, 87% do not think that the 6.2% interest rate on plan 2 loans is fair and 81% say that they were not fully informed about the terms of the loan when they took it out. I am aware of the inquiry that has been launched by the Treasury Committee, but will the Leader of the House please agree to a debate in Government time in due course about how we can make student loans fairer, so that our young graduates do not face a life of never-ending, overwhelming debt?
Sir Alan Campbell
We inherited a system of student loans that was effectively broken for many people. We are trying to make changes to the system to make it fairer, and we will continue to look at ways to do that. My hon. Friend refers to the Treasury Committee, which is looking into the matter. Once the Committee has been given time to consider it, hopefully it will be brought to the Floor of the House and will lead to the debate that my hon. Friend seeks.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I have been inundated, as have many in the House, with messages from constituents facing impossible heating oil costs, with one telling me that their 500-litre order has soared from £302 to over £900. At yesterday’s meeting arranged by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Government said that people should apply to their local council for emergency support via the crisis and resilience fund; however, we know that councils are on their knees financially and simply do not have that money. Additionally, the fund is England-only. May we have a debate in the House on the need for the UK Government to take responsibility by providing new crisis support funding for off-grid households in Wales and the other devolved nations?
Sir Alan Campbell
This issue has been raised a number of times this morning and that demonstrates the strength of feeling. I encourage the hon. Lady to seek a debate on these matters to hear from the Minister, or if she wants a meeting with him to explain her concerns, I will help her to facilitate that.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Rochdale’s BASA football club recently returned from its tour of Bangladesh, where members met street children, blind children and autistic children who were helped by the amazing £20,000 that the club had raised for charity. Will the Leader join me in congratulating Doliz Miah, Saj Miah and all the lads at BASA, as well as their sponsors: the Pavilion, Pandora, Panchi, and Amor restaurants?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am delighted to hear about the fundraising success of Rochdale’s Bangladeshi Arts and Sports Association football club. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the whole team and everyone associated with them, including the sponsors who made it possible.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
In the late 1930s, this country’s defence industrial base grew very fast to deal with the mounting threat. The failure to publish the defence industrial plan is not in that tradition, from Spitfires in Trowbridge to the Royal Ordnance factory in Chorley—you will know that very well, Mr Speaker. Can we have a debate in Government time to establish when the defence investment plan, whose delay is holding back our defence industrial base, will be published?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are committed to publishing the plan and we will do so at the first opportunity. We are facing a similar situation to the one that the right hon. Gentleman describes at the end of the 1930s, when defences were run down and the decision had to be made to start to rebuild them. That is why the work at the end of the 1930s had to happen. Of course, we hope that what happened later will not happen now—that is evident—but we are trying to rebuild our defences. We are working on the plan, and we will publish it as soon as we can.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I associate myself with the words of the Leader of the House in support for the armed forces, particularly HMS Dragon, which left Portsmouth’s shores. Residents in Cosham, Paulsgrove, Hilsea and Drayton and Farlington have faced years of dangerous antisocial behaviour along Portsdown Hill. Following what seems to be delays from the Hampshire police and crime commissioner’s office and potentially the council, the average speed cameras promised to the community are still only at tendering stage, and they will not be installed under after the summer. Understandably, my constituents do not want to face another summer of disruptions and unsafe driving. What further steps can I take to expediate action and ensure that these communities finally see the enforcement measures that they were promised?
Sir Alan Campbell
We published our road safety strategy in January, which marks a turning point in the Government’s approach. We are taking decisive action to make our roads safer for everyone, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister has heard my hon. Friend’s contribution. This is also an opportunity to thank everyone involved in getting HMS Dragon ready to embark; I pay tribute to them. I also congratulate the city of Portsmouth, which I understand celebrates its centenary this year.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Criterion Capital has recently embarked on a series of mass no-fault evictions in my borough of Merton, including Emerald House in my constituency. It is a shameless attempt to do so before the practice becomes illegal under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. Section 21 notices have been accompanied by ostensibly fraudulent electrical safety reports issued by a company dissolved at the date of issue, after supposed visits that do not appear to have taken place. The owner of Criterion Capital is Mr Asif Aziz, who has given tens of thousands of pounds to the Labour party and to the Conservatives. Will the Leader of the House assist me in securing a debate in Government time on this rogue landlord? Does he agree that the Labour and Conservative parties should immediately return his donations?
Sir Alan Campbell
That issue was raised earlier this week by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). I understand the concern. It is important that the Government are changing the law in this regard, and the hon. Gentleman is right to call out people who are acting unfairly in the run-up to that change. It is much more important that we protect the people involved, rather than seek to play party politics.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
In Erewash, we are very lucky to have a fantastic community radio station in Erewash Sound. Thanks to the incredible Jeff Martin, Paul Stacey, Emma Duthie and dozens of other volunteers, we have a proper local radio station that focuses on hyper-local matters, promotes our community and has created a media training pipeline through the Erewash Sound Academy, which creates real excellence. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on community radio, so that everyone can hear more about the magic that my community and many others around the country enjoy?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking all those involved in community radio, including Jeff, Paul and Emma at Erewash Sound. I know my hon. Friend was a keen musician in his youth, and that community radio stations such as those in his community are vital for local and grassroots music. I encourage him to apply for a Westminster Hall debate on the topic, because I am sure others would wish to join in and celebrate what is happening in their areas.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
On Monday, my wife asked me what we were doing at work this week, and I said I was trying to support the British pub industry. She looked at me and said, “Trust me, you’re doing your bit already.” We probably will not agree on the reasons why the pub industry is suffering a bit, but does the Leader of the House agree that we would show some leadership in our communities if all 650 Members committed to going to their local pub and buying a drink this weekend?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly encourage Members to visit their local pubs, because they are an important part of local communities, but I also encourage them to be moderate in their actions, because we might save the pub, but we might not save our marriages.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Residents of St John’s Grange in Lichfield have serious concerns about the property management company, Remus, that is running their estate. Some residents have submitted formal complaints and had no reply from the company, and a promised meeting between the company and concerned residents has never materialised. I wrote to Remus in October to ask it to meet me but got no reply. I wrote again in November and got no reply. In February, I escalated it to the CEO. He did get back to me and told me that the regional manager would be in touch. A month later, I have heard nothing. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling on Remus to stop dodging residents’ complaints and meet me as a matter of urgency?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I will. It is important that Members of Parliament raise matters such as these on behalf of their constituents. Remus and other companies should accept that responsibility and respond in an appropriate way.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Developers building in Bosham, Earnley and Bracklesham in my constituency were given planning conditions that did not allow them to move residents on to the new developments until there was sufficient waste water treatment works capacity. Well—surprise, surprise—there is no extra capacity at the waste water treatment works, yet the developers are now going back to the council to ask it to remove from the planning conditions the commitment that got them the planning permission in the first place. Will the Leader of the House arrange for me to meet the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, so that I can talk to them about an infrastructure-first approach to development?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are going to finish this at 12 o’clock. To help each other, we will have to really speed up.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Last year, the Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley demolished the much-loved Parkside community centre in Barnehurst. The council has now said it will allow the centre to be rebuilt if a charity funds the rebuilding. I have conducted a survey of local residents, and 89% believe that the council should rebuild it, rather than a charity. Can time be made available for a debate on the importance of community buildings and the level of support available to voluntary groups who run them?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear about the loss of the much-loved Parkside community centre, because these are places that provide valuable services and, as I have said before, are the golden thread that ties communities together. My hon. Friend may wish to attend next week’s Westminster Hall debate on social enterprises and community ownership to hear more from the Minister directly.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
The Government’s strategic defence review rightly highlighted the important role of reservists across the country. I am very proud that Grantham’s Prince William of Gloucester barracks trains around 70% of all Army reservists in the country. Can we have a debate on the Government’s decision to close down Grantham’s barracks, and not just the impact on the town of Grantham but the wider national security issues it will cause?
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand the concerns the decision might cause locally. Should the hon. Gentleman seek an Adjournment debate, he can put his questions to the Minister directly.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I am proud to support the Government’s ambition to cut violence against women and girls, and a cross-Government approach is essential to delivering that. I am increasingly concerned that the Department for Work and Pensions is not recognising OnlyFans content creation as commercial sexual exploitation, potentially exposing more women to harm. Will the Leader of the House raise that with the relevant Ministers, so that they can bring forward regulations to amend section 2A of the Employment and Training Act 1973 to address this problem?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government committed to cutting violence against women and girls in our VAWG strategy published last year. We recognise that a cross-Government approach is essential and are embedding this mission into every corner of public life, but I will raise my hon. Friend’s concerns with the relevant Minister.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Frimley Park hospital in my constituency is due to be rebuilt as part of the Government’s new hospital programme, but it has recently transpired that the cost of upgrading vital local transport infrastructure has been neither costed nor budgeted for. The National Audit Office shares my concerns about escalating costs and slipping delivery times. I was told that the costs would have to come from a contingency fund for the scheme. Given that the scheme needs to be credible and command public support, can we have an urgent debate on this issue so that errors are not hardcoded into the process?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the investment that the Department of Health and Social Care intends to put into his local community, but he is right that it relates to more than just that Department because there are issues around transport. I will arrange a meeting for him with the relevant Minister, should he seek one, to see whether we can resolve this.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
Reform-led North Northamptonshire council has just announced that it is increasing school transport costs from £795 to £965 a year. That £170 increase—an increase of over 20%—is unaffordable for families. It comes from a council that promised lower costs for families, that failed to have its books signed off and that has received a groundbreaking real-terms increase in its settlement from this Government. Does the Leader of the House agree that North Northamptonshire council should reverse this unacceptable, uninformed and unaffordable decision?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do agree with my hon. Friend. I would contrast the record of Reform-led North Northamptonshire council with what the Government are doing to support families through a whole range of actions. The actions of Reform-led councils are consistently brought to my attention in these sessions every week, and never in a positive light. I hope the council has heard my hon. Friend’s contribution—it is further evidence that Reform over-offers and underdelivers.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House grant Government time to debate the state of our telephone networks? It cannot be only in Tonbridge that we have noticed that connectivity has gone down. While residents may see that they have full bars on 4G, they in fact have no ability to get any data. This problem has been going on for a number of years. Jess in my office, who has been absolutely brilliant at trying to get the different organisations together, has sadly torn out her own hair, and probably most of mine, in frustration at dealing with all these different people who simply fail to connect Tonbridge to the rest of the world.
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s and his residents’ concerns. Should he want an update on what the Government can do to assist this situation, I will seek one for him. If he wants to explain it to the Minister directly, I will seek a meeting for him.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
In Hemlington in my constituency, the ward councillors Nicky Walker and Tom Mohan have been trying to push the social housing provider Thirteen to deal with the set of empty properties around Ellis Gardens and Fonteyn Court, which have been sitting abandoned for months, perhaps even years. Does the Leader of the House agree that Thirteen needs to pull its finger out, stop leaving properties to rot and support people to get into those properties?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter, and I hope that Thirteen has heard his words today. The Government expect social housing landlords to manage their stock efficiently and to ensure that vacant properties are made available wherever possible. These are obviously concerning matters, and I will make sure that the relevant Minister is made aware of them.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Despite relying on public money, the financial accountability and value for money of multi-academy trusts seemingly goes unchallenged, with many leaders earning more than the Prime Minister. Aspirations, which has a school in Poole, spent money on Teslas for its central staff and is now cutting the curriculum to balance the books. Initio is cutting teaching assistants as special educational needs and disabilities increase, blaming reduced pupil numbers, while boosting its exec team. With the current consultation on the White Paper, now is a good time for a debate in Government time on the transparency and accountability of academies, so that we can drive out excess and they can get back to doing what they were supposed to do.
Sir Alan Campbell
When the consultation has ended, I am sure there will be ample opportunity to raise the points that the hon. Lady has mentioned.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
The Labour Government have given Conservative-run West Sussex county council £27 million to get our roads in shape, but across my constituency there are dangerous potholes that the council refuses to fill, and roads in desperate need of resurfacing, including Mansfield Road and Thesiger Road in East Worthing, which I saw at the weekend. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling on the county council to properly fix roads across Adur and Worthing, and will he make time for a debate on renewing our roads?
Sir Alan Campbell
The performance of Conservative-run West Sussex county council on potholes was raised with me only last week. I am sure that the council will have heard my hon. Friend’s contribution, which I hope will spur it into action.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Duncan-Lynch Precision Engineering is a successful specialist manufacturing company established over 60 years ago. It would like to take on a number of new apprenticeships—good, well-paid jobs for local young people—but is struggling to find apprentices and appropriate courses. That is a clear concern for the business and for young people seeking good careers. Can we have a debate in Government time to discuss how to boost the uptake of apprenticeships and improve the courses available to manufacturing and engineering businesses?
Sir Alan Campbell
The tragic record of the previous Government was a fall in apprenticeships. This Government are committed to reversing that decline, which is why we have a £725 million growth and skills levy. Our reforms will help to deliver 50,000 new apprenticeships. In our first year, we helped over 350,000 people into apprenticeships. Should the hon. Gentleman wish to seek a meeting with a Minister to explore what more can be done, I will arrange it.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
This week, there was a mass release of balloons in Birmingham in memory of my friend, Councillor Waseem Zaffar, who passed away suddenly and tragically at the age of 44. There was no prouder Brummie than Waseem: he loved the city, he loved the Villa and he loved representing the people of Lozells. As the cabinet member for transport, he was the driving force behind the city’s clean air zone, and he fought every day against the health inequalities that mean so many Brummies die too young. I will miss Waseem more than I can say. He leaves a hole in the city that will be very difficult to fill. Will the Leader of the House join me in sending deepest condolences to Waseem’s wife Aysha, his four sons and his wider family? Can we have a debate on the health inequalities that Waseem cared so passionately about?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Waseem Zaffar and his work as a local councillor, particularly on the clean air zone in Birmingham. I know that he will be greatly missed, and I extend my heartfelt condolences to his loved ones at this time. Should my hon. Friend seek a Westminster Hall debate, she will be able not only to pay further tribute, but to explore what further action needs to be taken on these important environmental matters.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I am seriously concerned about the lack of progress on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. I served on the Committee in November, and the issue was urgent then. Will the Leader of the House write to me to explain why the Government have not adopted the common-sense and victim-centred amendment 23? Bearing in mind that the Bill is about openness and transparency, it is ironic that Ministers seem completely unable to explain their objections to the amendment. Will he investigate what is blocking progress?
Sir Alan Campbell
Ministers are working hard on what is a sensitive Bill in many ways, and we will bring it forward in due course. If the hon. Lady seeks an update from the relevant Minister, I will get her one.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the recent Valuation Office Agency changes to business rate classifications for flexible and co-working spaces? The agency says that it is just following case law, but the changes could have significant implications for businesses, some of which will face big backdated bills. Flexible working spaces are an important part of regenerating town centres, such as in Chatham in my constituency, because they drive footfall and mean people spend money in local shops. We desperately need a political solution to this problem.
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend: flexible co-working spaces play a vital role in high street regeneration, which is a priority for this Government. I would be happy to help her to arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss that should she wish. If she sought to secure a Westminster Hall debate on these matters, I am sure it would be popular.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Under regional devolution plans, MHCLG has told Gloucestershire to look to the north, with Herefordshire, Worcestershire and maybe Warwickshire, too. Our integrated care board is being merged with Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire. Meanwhile, our police boundaries are being merged with Wiltshire. Does the Leader of the House agree that that makes a mockery of the devolution agenda? If he does, will he arrange for me to meet the appropriate Ministers so that we can sort it out?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do not agree that it makes a mockery of the devolution agenda. It is about getting local decisions made on behalf of local people. It is important that we recognise regional and local identity. Should the hon. Gentleman seek a meeting with a Minister, I will help him to arrange it.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Joff Machell, from a constituency neighbouring mine, was diagnosed with motor neurone disease last October. Since then he has raised over £50,000 for MND research through activities including plunging into frozen Austrian lakes and warm Sri Lankan seas. I should declare an interest: Joff is my oldest and dearest friend. Given the importance of both sustaining research funding into MND and addressing significant patient delays in accessing genetic testing, could the Leader of the House assist me in getting a meeting with the relevant Ministers?
Sir Alan Campbell
I send my best wishes to Joff and congratulate him on the money that he has raised so far. We are investing in MND research across all areas, including causes, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care, but I will assist my hon. Friend in getting the meeting he seeks.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I want to bring to the attention of the Leader of the House the recent visit to the UK by Nigeria’s President Tinubu. There are concerns about the ongoing harassment, persecution and killing of Christians in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians have been killed, abducted or unlawfully detained in Nigeria in the past year alone. Islamic militants operate with impunity in 12 states and enforce Sharia law, leaving Christians as second-class citizens and punishing those who convert from Islam. Leah Sharibu is one of those, in her eighth year of captivity. Could the Leader of the House raise these issues with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and ensure that Leah Sharibu is freed?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely committed to defending freedom of religion and belief for all, and so are this Government. It is our firm belief that every Nigerian should be able to practise their faith or belief in safety, free from fear and persecution. I commend the hon. Gentleman’s dedication in consistently raising these matters in this Chamber. I will share his concern with the Foreign Office after this session.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Last October I sent a number of freedom of information requests to the Nursing and Midwifery Council on sexual harassment and misconduct cases. However, I have still not received a reply. For these bodies to be trusted, they must be accountable. Will the Leader of the House please advise me on what more I can do to get proper accountability under the Freedom of Information Act?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend will know that the FOI Act sets out the requirements for public bodies to release that information, so I am disappointed that he needs to bring this matter to the House today. I will ensure that his concerns are raised with the relevant body.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Five thousand people walked through the door of the Blackpool Winter Gardens the other week for my second annual jobs fair, which I was delighted to open with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. More than 1,000 roles were secured on the spot, 853 of which have already started, and thousands more people were handing out CVs and have interviews on the way. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking my constituency team, the jobcentre staff, Blackpool Tourism Ltd, and every employer and resident who attended, for making it such a huge success?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking everyone associated with the Blackpool jobs fair for making it a success, not least my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic fighter for his constituents. It is incredible to hear that over 1,000 roles were secured on the spot. It was the first ever jobs fair for the youth guarantee, and it is good to see so many local employers choosing to back it. We will keep going further, as my hon. Friend has, to ensure that every young person has the chance to earn or learn.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Having heard that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will soon decide on the next round of Pride in Place funding, I would like to plug my constituency. It is my honour to represent proud communities, but many, like Chadsmoor and the Rugeley Springfields estate, were hit hard by austerity, which tore away support for deprived areas. Does the Leader of the House agree that Cannock Chase would make an excellent candidate for Pride in Place, and may we have a debate on the benefits of local growth funding for communities up and down the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
I commend my hon. Friend for being a fantastic champion for his constituency. The Government are giving constituents investment in the powers they need to deliver the change they want to see in their communities. I wish his constituency good luck, but I also wish other Members of the House good luck in their campaign to get Pride in Place funding and in ensuring that it is a success.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Tomorrow marks the 85th anniversary of the Clydebank blitz, when across the nights of 13 and 14 March 1941, my hometown of Clydebank suffered horrendous losses: 528 people were killed, and of the 12,000 homes, only eight remained undamaged. I will be attending the service of remembrance at Kilbowie St Andrew’s church in Clydebank tomorrow. Will the Leader of the House join me in commemorating this occasion, and does he agree that all wars result in the loss of innocent civilian lives?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for marking this important anniversary. At this time in particular, we must remember all those who serve and have served in our armed forces, and all those who are victims of the devastating impact of war. Anniversaries such as that of the Clydebank blitz remind us of those who have served, those who were wounded and those who were killed.
Mr Speaker
May I say to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) that I attended that memorial event a few years ago? It was very moving.
Defending Democracy Taskforce
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before the Minister makes his statement on the defending democracy taskforce, I would like to make a related statement. Hon. Members will recall that in October 2024 I established a Speaker’s Conference to examine the security of Members, candidates and elections. That cross-party group published two reports: the first in June and the second in October 2025. Together, those reports set out more than 60 recommendations to tackle the serious and wholly unacceptable levels of abuse and intimidation faced by politicians.
The scale of the challenge is clear, and no single body can address it alone. The conference therefore called for action across Government, law enforcement, political parties, traditional and social media, and several other relevant stakeholders. It also recognised Members’ collective responsibility to lead by example in how we treat each other. Responses to both reports have now been published. I notified all Members and Members’ staff of that earlier in the week, so they should have seen them.
I am encouraged by the clear sense of shared purpose and determination to tackle the issues shown by all partners. I thank them for their constructive engagement and positive response to the conference’s work.
Although the conference has concluded its formal work, I remain committed to monitoring progress closely and will continue to press for delivery of its recommendations where necessary. With that, I am pleased to call the Security Minister, who will update the House on the work of the defending democracy taskforce, which includes action that the Government are taking in support of the conference’s recommendations.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Thank you for your statement, Mr Speaker. With permission, I will make a statement on the work the Government are leading to defend our democracy and those who serve within it, particularly as we approach the local and devolved elections taking place in May.
Twice in the last decade, devoted and beloved Members of this House have been lost to abhorrent acts of violence. Each time I enter the Chamber, my eyes are drawn to the shields dedicated to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. They are not simply memorials; they are a daily reminder of the duty we owe to one another and to our democracy to ensure that no one is deterred from public service by fear, intimidation or violence. It is in that spirit that I come to the House to set out the challenges we face, what the Government are doing, and to make clear what we will not tolerate.
The work of elected representatives at every level matters. It shapes millions of lives and our country’s future. That is why those entrusted to serve must be able to do so without fear or favour. Free debate and honest disagreement are the lifeblood of democracy, but let me be clear that harassment, intimidation, abuse and violence are not political expression. Today, the volume, breadth and tempo of threats against elected representatives is unprecedented. Colleagues across the House will recognise the grim reality of assaults, vandalism, stalking, blockading and a blizzard of online abuse. This is not theoretical; it affects hon. Members, councillors and candidates, and it affects our families and our staff.
Women and ethnic minority representatives report the highest volumes of abuse, including overtly sexualised and racially charged threats, which have a chilling effect on who feels able to stand for public office. When fear warps debate, when candidates step back and when fewer people from diverse backgrounds feel able to stand, the damage is deep and lasting. That is why this Government treat harassment and intimidation not as an inevitable occupational hazard, but as a serious threat to our democracy itself.
I know that you share that stance, Mr Speaker, and I pay tribute to your leadership, especially through the work of the Speaker’s Conference. Our response is rooted in the defending democracy taskforce, which I chair, working across Government, law enforcement, Parliament, the Electoral Commission and the intelligence community. The mandate of the taskforce, renewed by this Prime Minister, is clear: to tackle the full spectrum of threats to our democracy. That means preventing and deterring harassment, ensuring real consequences when it occurs, and providing proportionate, effective security for everyone who participates in our democratic process.
This is a year-round task, but the upcoming local elections demand that we intensify our focus and, where necessary, go further. Yesterday, I chaired a meeting of the defending democracy taskforce with Ministers from the devolved nations. It was a constructive discussion on strengthening our collective security posture ahead of May. We reaffirmed our readiness to support colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The police are at the forefront of defending democracy efforts, and I thank officers and staff across the country for their dedication and diligence. Ahead of the May elections, we are working with the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to strengthen guidance for frontline officers responding to incidents involving elected representatives. It is essential that the consistency of police response is improved across all force areas, and I welcome the police’s decision to act on the recommendation of your conference, Mr Speaker.
I am pleased to inform the House that Deputy Chief Constable Chris Balmer, from Cambridgeshire police, has been appointed to the role of the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for defending democracy. I have written to the chair of the NPCC and to DCC Balmer to stress the importance of their work to democracy itself. I emphasised the importance of keeping pace with the evolving threat that abuse poses to democracy, and we will be meeting with both shortly.
Every police force now has a dedicated superintendent co-ordinator for Operation Bridger, which handles the protection of Members beyond the parliamentary estate. Through Operation Ford, force elected official advisers at working level exist to support both Members of Parliament and locally elected representatives. I have extended the Operation Ford offer to cover all elected representatives across England, Scotland and Wales, supported by a full-time network of 66 Home Office-funded force elected official advisers. I am also pleased to announce the creation of a new threat assessment centre. This will support Operation Ford by centralising and co-ordinating intelligence nationally for incidents that target locally elected representatives. This function will be live ahead of the local elections.
Where the law fails to provide adequate protection, we will strengthen it. We have seen protests deliberately targeted at private homes, timed to intimidate families and children, and designed to exert pressure through fear. That is why the Crime and Policing Bill introduces a new offence to restrict protests outside the homes of public office holders. Peaceful protest is a cherished right, but the doorstep of a private home is not an appropriate setting for it. In addition, the Representation of the People Bill will introduce a new aggravating factor, empowering courts to hand down longer sentences to reflect the seriousness of crimes committed against those who serve our democracy, whether elected representatives, candidates, their staff, campaigners or electoral officials.
Many Members across this House and beyond have faced sustained online abuse and intimidation. Some have questioned whether to stand again. That is simply unacceptable. Through the Online Safety Act 2023, the UK has established one of the strongest online safety frameworks in the world. Services now have clear legal duties to identify, remove and prevent illegal content, including threats, incitement and non-consensual intimate images, such as explicit deepfakes. As we approach the May elections, the Government will engage directly with major social media platforms to support and inform their election preparedness.
Countering threats to our democracy is a priority for this Government, but I have always believed that this should be a shared endeavour. Therefore, today I am directly appealing to every Member of this House, and to colleagues across local government and the devolved Governments, to play their part. Where we see harassment or intimidation, we must act. Where we experience it, we must report it. I know it can be time consuming but reporting really does matter. The Parliamentary Security Department works closely with the Home Office and the police to assess threats and put protections in place, but it can only do so with accurate information.
Every report, even if the incident is judged to be below the criminal threshold, helps the authorities build a clearer picture of the threat. I urge colleagues: if there is an immediate danger, of course call 999, reference Operation Bridger and use your SOS fob; for non-emergency incidents, report them via 101 or online, again referencing Op Bridger, and inform your Bridger single point of contact. Metro mayors, local councillors and police and crime commissioners should reference Operation Ford, and this will be picked up by the local force elected official adviser.
Let me be equally clear about our message to those who threaten, intimidate or harass those participating in our democracy—and this applies to individuals and groups alike: anonymity is not safety, no one is beyond reach, and whether the offence occurs online or offline, those responsible should expect to be investigated and prosecuted.
We must challenge at every turn the notion that abuse, threats and intimidation are now an inevitability for those working in politics and public life. Across our society we must never become desensitised to rhetoric about harming those who serve in public life. When we hear it or see in our communities, it should be challenged, not shrugged off as some new normal. All of us in this House must also lead by example. Those entrusted with public office set the tone for our national conversation. If we allow abuse to creep into our exchanges, whether in the House or on the campaign trail, we risk normalising behaviour that undermines democratic debate. By leading with civility, even in moments of sharp disagreement, we demonstrate to the country that principled argument can co-exist with mutual respect.
I can inform the House that an extensive programme of work is well under way to ensure the security of the local and devolved nation elections in May. This includes support for returning officers to keep polling stations and count centres secure, alongside expert guidance on personal security and cyber-security for candidates.
History shows us that our democracy is precious, so today, together we should draw a line, declaring with one voice that we will not be deterred from serving the public, and we will never tolerate abuse, threats and intimidation. Together we will confront unacceptable behaviour, hold perpetrators to account, and defend our democratic way of life. In doing so, we honour the words of Jo Cox, who taught us that we
“have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
Mr Speaker
Can I thank the Minister for his statement and for taking on the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference? I would like to put on record my thanks to those who served on that conference for all the effort that was put in. I think this is when the House is at its best.
I call the shadow Minister.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
There is much to welcome in the Security Minister’s statement. I thank him for advance sight of it and, more broadly, for his update on the work of the defending democracy taskforce, and I join him in remembering our colleagues who lost their lives in service of the public.
As the Minister rightly notes, all of us in this place have a sacred duty to protect and uphold the democracy that has made this country so great for so long. Mr Speaker, I know that few understand that as well as those in the Speaker’s Office, yourself and all three Madam Deputy Speakers, so let me take this opportunity to thank them on behalf of all Members here for everything that they do in public and in private to keep us all safe.
Targeted and serious intimidation of democratically elected politicians, particularly where that intimidation escalates into credible physical threats, is a serious impediment to the functioning of our democracy. It is of course right that criminal behaviour is prosecuted and punished. At the same time, we have a duty to ensure that the policing of genuinely criminal behaviour does not stray into the policing of free speech or free expression. In individual cases, that can be a challenging balance to strike, and I trust that the Minister will approach those cases with the appropriate caution and sensitivity.
While many aspects of the Minister’s statement are encouraging, I am concerned that other members of this Government have failed to approach this issue with the necessary caution or candour. We must be honest about the fact that, while violence against elected politicians can come from a wide variety of groups, the single biggest extremist threat to our country remains the threat of extremist Islamist violence. That threat is intimately tied up with a growing tendency towards sectarian politics in some parts of our country.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said recently, separatism is on the rise in our country, because
“for too long, Britain has been complacent about our culture and too tolerant of those weaponising identity politics for their own gain”.
Yet, in their cohesion strategy published earlier this week, the Government seemed unwilling to deal with the threat head-on. The strategy openly acknowledged the existence of
“communities in the UK living segregated or parallel lives”,
but rather than dealing with that problem directly, the Government have proposed a package that may only make this problem worse: more diversity, equity and inclusion in the public sector and an attempt to smuggle in so-called social engineering under the guise of social cohesion; advisory boards designed to manage tensions, when it was exactly that focus on managing community tensions that allowed rape and grooming gangs to operate unchecked for so long in towns and cities across our country; and a new, rebranded Islamophobia definition to be issued as guidance to public servants, which will have a chilling effect on their behaviour.
The strategy will make it harder to have open, public discussions about subjects like female genital mutilation, grooming and rape gangs, and extremism, including any threats that it may pose to our democracy. We have already seen that creating conditions in which people fear being branded as racist for keeping the public safe can create horrific outcomes. We must never again allow guidance like this to create a culture of fear, which breeds inaction, cover-up and denial. The cohesion strategy is a recipe for further suppression of discussion of the threats that face us today and their root causes. We will not make the truth disappear by discouraging people from talking about it. That has never worked, and it will not work now.
Again, I thank the Minister for his statement and for his work on tackling criminality towards elected officials. Can he assure us that his colleagues in Government are as committed to dealing with this problem at its root as he seems to be?
Dan Jarvis
Let me join the shadow Minister in expressing what I am sure are our collective thanks to Mr Speaker, all the Deputy Speakers and to all the staff in this House for the important work that they do. It is hugely appreciated, and we are very grateful for it.
Let me try to find a point of consensus, difficult though that may be given what we have heard. I very much wanted to take the opportunity today to do this on a cross-party basis; in fact, I intended, and will continue, to take the opportunity to thank the previous Government for the work that they did. In particular, I pay tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who set up the defending democracy taskforce. It did not exist before he was the Security Minister; he set it up. That is a very strong legacy for him. He invested a lot in it, and I hope he will see how seriously we take that work. He passed the baton on to me, and I hope he will see that, having taken that baton gratefully from him, we have sprinted forward with it.
I was particularly pleased this week to chair a meeting of the defending democracy taskforce, which brought the whole system together. It was always the right hon. Gentleman’s intention that it would provide a fulcrum point and bring together the different constituent parts of Government, law enforcement and the Electoral Commission to provide a single version of the truth and ensure that we are properly resourcing all those who work to keep us safe. I think and hope that he is proud of the work that the taskforce is doing.
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that this is not just about periods of electoral activity; this activity takes place the whole year round, and he knows how seriously I take it. I was really grateful to be reminded the other day of the work he did in getting us to where we are now. I hope he will be pleased to acknowledge the progress that we have made in recent times, which I referenced in my introductory remarks, not least the fact that the Government have introduced new legislation to restrict protest outside the homes of public office holders; it is important to bring forward legislation where it is required. I do not think anyone really thinks it is appropriate that MPs and their families should be targeted at home, and we are taking legislative action to prevent that from happening.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the relationship with the police is a very important one. We work very closely with them to ensure that they have the appropriate guidance that they need, particularly for police officers on the frontline, when responding to incidents involving elected representatives.
I am particularly pleased to be joined on the Front Bench by the Minister for Democracy—she has other responsibilities, but that is a very important part of her remit. I am really grateful to her for the important work that she is doing on the Representation of the People Bill, which will introduce new measures to create a very powerful deterrent for those who would seek to those who serve in our democracy.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), raised a point about policing priorities, and I understand why. She will understand, not least from her time previously working in the Home Office, that the police are operationally independent, but it is important that we work closely with them. That is why I took the opportunity this morning to welcome the appointment of a new national lead for defending democracy; I intend to work with them very closely, and they will provide an important focus for policing activity around the country.
I am very sorry that the shadow Minister chose to segue into matters that were not in the scope of this statement. I am genuinely so sorry that she decided to do so, not least because I gave Members on the Opposition Front Bench ample warning of my intention to come forward and bring a statement to the House today. I did so on the clear understanding that this is something around which we can unite as a House. If we cannot co-operate on this, of all occasions—as we stand and sit in the shadow of the shields—what can we co-operate on? I hope that she will reflect on her comments.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I hope that the shadow Minister will get to her feet and correct the record, because there is a far greater threat from the far right than there is from Islam. In this holy month of Ramadan, I am sure that Muslims all over the country will be praying for her soul, whether she deserves it or not.
I sit on the Speaker’s steering group on AI, which is chaired quite expertly by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and every month, I put a “block of the month” on my social media. The threats to our safety are getting worse. A small number of tech firms are deciding what a large number of people see and hear on their social media platforms, with very little oversight or accountability. Eight people, basically, decide what 8 billion people see. I hope the Minister will agree that we cannot put guardrails around the AI industry—it is moving too quickly—so we need to put guardrails around human beings. We need to make sure that our rights, our voice, our image and what we do are protected, so we need to focus on guardrails around the humans. I hope the Minister will consider my human rights Bill, which I will be proposing very shortly.
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for the work she does on the Speaker’s steering group. She is right to raise her concerns in the way that she has. She will understand that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has a very important role in relation to these matters. These are things that we discuss in the forum of the defending democracy taskforce on a very regular basis, but she is right to raise her concerns, which I know will be widely shared across this House.
Perhaps I might just say one other thing to my hon. Friend. I am in awe of the courage that she and other hon. Members bring to their public service. In the face of the extremely unpleasant abuse that she and other hon. Members have to tolerate on a very regular basis, the fact that she continues to step forward to represent her constituents and her country in the way she does is greatly to her credit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I thank the Speaker’s Office for all that Mr Speaker and the Madam Deputy Speakers are doing on this issue. I must say, I was somewhat taken aback by the shadow Minister’s approach; I will try to be constructive, but where I veer away, I hope the Minister will take my points.
The Minister is right to highlight the importance of protecting politicians at every level of our democracy. We must ensure that the horror of what happened to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess never happens again, and that representatives at every level feel secure when they are discharging their democratic duties. Many Members, particularly women and those from minority backgrounds, have received death threats and harassment, and fear for their families. Having experienced threats myself—not from radical Islamists, but from right-wing extremists—I know how important these protections are. As the MP for Cheltenham, I also remember the bravery of Andrew Pennington, who died defending my late friend Nigel Jones in an attack on the Cheltenham Liberal Democrat office.
I welcome the steps that the Minister is taking to ensure that the elections in May are free and fair. Our democracy is precious, and it must be carefully protected by those in power. To that end, we welcome the existence of the taskforce, and the work it is doing. We worry, however, that the taskforce is perhaps not working fast enough to address the threat of foreign interference in our democracy. Hostile states are increasingly using social and traditional media to spread disinformation in order to undermine democracy and our elections, so what steps are Ministers taking to tackle that threat? As the Member of Parliament for Cheltenham, which is home to GCHQ, I know the vital work that our intelligence agencies do to counter those threats, but that work must be matched by political leadership from this House.
We will all remember with disgust the case of Nathan Gill, the Reform politician convicted of working for the Russian Government. That case received remarkably little attention, yet it shows the very real threat to our democracy from within. We are also all scarred by the revelation that there were agents of the Chinese Communist party working in this House for hon. Members, and we were rightly outraged that Peter Mandelson shared market-sensitive information with Epstein, and by many other elements of disgraceful conduct that pose a threat to our democracy. Is it not time for a dedicated crime and corruption unit in Whitehall, and does the Minister agree that it is time for legislation that ensures that all electoral candidates declare any donations or gifts from Russia?
Does the Minister also agree that it is time for rules to be introduced about donations made to political parties via cryptocurrencies? This method obscures the source of donations. That loophole must be closed before it is exploited more widely, to the detriment of our democracy. We will all have noted the recent endorsement of crypto by the leader of the Reform party, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who maintains that he does not “do computers”. There is much work to be done to protect our democracy, and the Minister and the Government have our support to speed up that work, because there is nothing more important for us in this House than protecting those values.
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive tone. I am also very concerned to hear about the threats that he has faced. As he knows, if he thinks any further support is required, I would be very keen to work closely with him. I also join him in remembering his lost colleague.
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the important work that his constituents in Cheltenham do; as he knows, I am a huge supporter of them, and a fairly regular visitor to Cheltenham. He is also right to raise concerns about foreign interference. He will know—I am pretty certain that his party has made a submission to the Rycroft review—that the Government commissioned Philip Rycroft to do an independent piece of work looking at the nature of interference in our democracy. Mr Rycroft is finishing his work and will report to Ministers in the near future, and will do so in a way that will allow the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to incorporate any recommendations that it thinks is appropriate in forthcoming legislation.
The hon. Gentleman cited a number of particularly egregious examples of interference in our democracy, and made a number of entirely reasonable and helpful suggestions. I hope he knows that my door and, I am sure, that of the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), is always open to him, should he wish to discuss these matters further.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I should mention that I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission; its members work very collegiately, cross-party, in support of its important work. I thank the Minister for his statement today.
Like the women who encouraged me, I aim to support any young women in my constituency—particularly those from black, Asian and minority backgrounds—who put themselves forward to represent their communities in local government, but unfortunately, the increased harassment, abuse and intimidation of councillors and candidates, particularly in recent years, has been a huge deterrent. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that we increase support and protection for all those putting themselves forward, but particularly women, so that we can encourage women from all backgrounds to step forward and represent their communities?
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the important work she does on the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, and for the points she has raised. She is absolutely right about the threat that women elected representatives and candidates face around the country. I hope she sees the determination of the Government to work with her and colleagues across this House to put in place the protections and support that are required. That is why I referenced the creation of the new threat assessment, which will provide greater granularity on operational intelligence that we think will deliver real benefits at a local level.
My hon. Friend is also absolutely right to highlight concern about the threats, intimidation and harassment directed at those participating in public life, both online and in person—there have been some particularly egregious examples of that in recent times. We have to do everything we can to support those women who want to step forward. I am particularly concerned about the chilling effect that some of these threats and this intimidation have on extremely talented women who might want to step forward in public life, but will look at the circumstances that they might have to deal with and think, “Why would I want to expose myself to that?” We should all collectively be very concerned about that, and should redouble our efforts against this problem. That is precisely why I made the point—hopefully clearly—that wherever we encounter this kind of activity, we must report it.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I thank my friend the Minister for his kind words. I also extend praise to Lord Case, who was so important in setting this taskforce up as Cabinet Secretary. The Minister was absolutely right to mention Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, both of whom were in my mind at various different points when the taskforce was set up, and I am indeed extremely impressed with what he has done in taking forward the defending democracy taskforce.
However, may I—perhaps unfairly—challenge the Minister to go a little further, and to answer some of the questions that I did not answer when I was in his place? I hope he may be able to answer them, now that things have progressed a bit. The first is to do with foreign influence. When we look at what China has done in our democracy, not just in this House but online—at the threats that organisations like TikTok pose, through disinformation, and through the way that they actively promote stories that encourage division—we can see that the nature of the threat has changed. Yesterday, I had the good fortune to meet the director general of Taiwan’s Ministry of Justice investigation bureau. As the Minister knows, I was the first Cabinet Minister to meet a Cabinet Minister from Taiwan in a non-trade capacity. Taiwan has a lot to teach us about the way in which China tries to influence our democracy. Has the Minister considered any of those lessons yet?
Another area on which I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts—it is another area that I did not get to, when I was in his position, although I would have liked to—is the protection of journalists. It is of course important to protect the freedom to speak about elected members of any organisation, whether local or national, and to protect journalists’ freedom to speak. Recently, I was made aware of a very unpleasant threat against Konstantin Kisin relating to the attack on Charlie Kirk, who was murdered only a few months ago. This threat happened to come from a left-wing extremist, but as we know, there are extremists of various colours and creeds in our community, and of various political opinions. Has the Minister looked at how the need to protect journalists could be brought into the work of the defending democracy taskforce?
Dan Jarvis
I thank the right hon. Member again for the work that he did. He is right to raise the important contribution that the then Cabinet Secretary, now Lord Case, made in setting up the defending democracy taskforce.
I genuinely welcome the points that the right hon. Member makes. He has been very good about providing helpful bits of information and intelligence over the past 18 months or so, and I always really appreciate that, because it is it is well meant and well received. I understand why he raises the concerns about China, which have been very well debated in this House. I believe that he understands how seriously I take those threats. A huge amount of activity is taking place across Government. For reasons that he will know very well, we do not often get into the detail of all that, but I hope that he will understand that that activity is under way, and a crucial part of it is, as he described, working with our allies. We do that very regularly.
The right hon. Member is right to raise the important role that journalists play. He will remember from his time in the Home Office, working with colleagues across Government, that a lot of resource and time is invested in our protective security regime. We do not tend to say much about it, but I assure him of the seriousness with which we take these issues, and I agree with him about the importance of free speech and the role that journalists have to play. It is completely unacceptable for anyone in this country to be intimidated by any foreign power, and the Government will always stand against that activity.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I put on record my personal thanks to the Minister for the support that he has given to many Members of this House, including newly elected Members like me, and I welcome a newly elected female Member, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer), to the House today. Will the Minister elaborate on the work of the defending democracy taskforce, and talk about any time spent looking into the algorithms that reward rage-baiting and extremist opinions? I feel that they are degrading our public debate, outside and inside this place.
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is a great constituency MP, and it is profoundly concerning to me, and I am sure to other Members who have been in this place for a number of years, to hear about the threats, harassment and intimidation that newer Members have had to face in recent times. It is completely unacceptable, and I pay tribute to their resilience in standing against it, but we want to work very closely with them to make sure that they feel properly supported.
My hon. Friend is right to raise concerns about algorithms. I assure her that the subject has been discussed on a number of occasions by the defending democracy taskforce. She will understand that DSIT is the lead Department on that activity, but I heard this comparison made the other day: in days gone by, people would go into a library and choose the book that they wanted to read, but people’s content online is now often directed by forces way beyond their control. I think we should all be very concerned about that. I certainly am, and it is a matter on which I work very closely with colleagues in DSIT.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, and entirely concur with him on the domestic elements of protecting our democracy that he announced, but returning to the issue of foreign influence, those countries that mean our democracy harm of course do not recognise the value of democracy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) mentioned China, and we have debated Russia at length in this House. The Minister was in his place yesterday when I questioned the Home Secretary on Iran’s influence on this country; there are a lot of fears, and a lot of reporting, that entities including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are using shell companies and proxies to operate on our shores. Given the heightened tensions in the middle east, and the focus on the Iranian regime, I ask the Minister to ensure that all loopholes are closed down, so that we stop the regime—no matter our views on the war, I think the whole House condemns the regime—being able to influence our democracy.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member makes some really important points, and I pay tribute to the extraordinary work conducted by our intelligence services and counter-terrorism police. By its nature, the work that they do is almost always done in the shadows, and often they do not get the praise that they deserve. There are some extraordinary people working round the clock to keep our country safe, and we owe them a debt of gratitude.
The hon. Member is right to raise concerns about the situation in the middle east, and to ask questions about the Government’s response to it. There is often a temptation to reach for the tool of proscription, and sometimes that is the right response. We talk a lot in Government about toolkits. There is quite a lot in our toolkit, and I assure the House that I will use everything in the toolkit to stand against the threats that we face.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
We have heard today from Members across the House about two twin evils that are driving online abuse: the social media giants’ algorithms, which are promoting content that makes people feel angry or afraid; and the influence of hostile states that deliberately sow disinformation designed to undermine our democracies. I heard the Minister say that it is primarily DSIT’s role to deal with that, but please will he ensure that Ministers keep us all updated on the work that is going on to address it? Unless we all work together, across parties and across Departments, this issue will continue to proliferate and there will not be a democracy left for us to defend.
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right to make that point. While of course there is an important role for DSIT, I assure him that lots of other Departments are actively involved in that work as well, including the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office. He is right to raise concerns, but I assure him that we are doing everything we can to stand against those particular threats.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his statement; it stood in very stark contrast to the response from the Opposition, which was chilling. Many Members have referenced the horrific online abuse that we see on a daily basis, which often originates, as has been said already, from foreign states. What steps are the Minister and the taskforce taking to protect our democracy from foreign interference, which is often subversive, especially following the recent arrests based on allegations of spying for China?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for the approach that he has taken. I assure him that through the defending democracy taskforce, and working with the intelligence services, Counter Terrorism Policing and law enforcement more generally, we are doing everything we can to stand against the nature of the threats that he describes. The world is a dangerous, challenging place at the moment, and a range of different state actors will take every opportunity to sow mis- and disinformation and undermine the basis of our democracy. It is a very important role of Government to stand against all of that, but there is also a really important role for this House. That is why I approached the statement in the way that I have. I want to work with Members right across the political divide, and I am grateful to him for his support of that approach.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I put on record my sincere thanks to the Minister for reaching out after the incident involving me that occurred in Blackpool a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, since becoming a Member of this House I have received a barrage of constant threats, including death threats, from the far-right in my constituency, and that seems to be growing, which is a real concern. I know from my discussions with the Minister how seriously he takes the security of Members of this House and the councillors who serve in our town halls. Will he outline how we can support him in defending our democracy in the right way, which unfortunately is in stark contrast to what we heard in the Opposition’s response to the statement?
Dan Jarvis
I was very concerned to hear about that recent incident. Under those very difficult circumstances, my hon. Friend did exactly the right thing, but he should not have had to deal with that situation. That is why it is incredibly important that we make sure that our response is as organised and resourced as it needs to be. He asks what more we can do collectively as parliamentarians. To echo the remarks that I made earlier, we can report it. I know that we are all busy people, and our staff are busy too, but we must not let anything slide. We must take every opportunity, even if they fall below a legal threshold, to report matters to the police, so they have an evidence base that we can use.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It was an honour to serve on the Speaker’s Conference and, in all the work that I have done on security, I have tried to be a voice for the smaller parties, and particularly for people who are further away from Parliament. One of the biggest strengths of the Speaker’s Conference was the extent to which it listened to Members’ experiences. I appreciate the huge amount of work that has been done to improve data gathering, and the fact that we are much better at pooling together our understanding of the threat, but will the Minister reassure us that Members’ experiences will be listened to, in addition to looking at the data, so that we can build on the strengths of the Speaker’s Conference?
Dan Jarvis
I had a very constructive meeting with colleagues from the Scottish Government yesterday, and I appreciate their attendance at the meeting. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise concerns about people’s experiences, and I will always make myself available to speak to any Member of this House about what has happened to them.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Much of the intimidation that candidates now face is not on the doorstep, but from anonymous or fake online accounts. Having experienced that myself, I welcome the work of this Government, the police, the defending democracy taskforce, and the offices of Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers. What action is being taken to stop online anonymity being used as a shield for harassment and intimidation in our democracy, and how will candidates in Portsmouth’s May election receive advice, support, protection and the enforcement they need to stand safely for public office?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right to raise her concerns in the way that she has done. Hopefully, she will have heard my earlier remarks, which respond to her specific point. We are working very closely with law enforcement, and we are seeking to work more closely with the tech companies, to make sure that we have all the right protections in place for the elections. If there is more that she thinks we should be doing, I would be very grateful to discuss it with her.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and everybody’s commitment to keep us all as safe as possible. Just a few months ago, the Housing Secretary called the Russian interference within the Reform party
“a stain on our democracy”.—[Official Report, 16 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 776.]
Since then, members of the Welsh Labour party have been investigated for their connections with the Chinese state. With the Senedd Cymru election a mere two months away, what assurances can the Minister give that the defending democracy taskforce will help to defend our elections in Wales from foreign influence and interference?
Dan Jarvis
I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that she seeks, and I am grateful to Welsh colleagues for their attendance at the defending democracy taskforce yesterday. She is right to raise the threats and challenges that we face. We are making sure that our response to them is proportionate.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
I am pleased to hear about the Minister’s positive dialogue with Scottish Ministers ahead of the vital elections in May. On the collective responsibility of political parties to ensure fair and safe debate, does he agree that there should be no repeat of the racist advert published by Reform last year, which attacked Anas Sarwar for his family heritage? It was widely published and seen hundreds of thousands of times on social media.
Dan Jarvis
I agree with my hon. Friend. I can tell him that the director general of MI5 and I recently met the chief executives of political parties to discuss these matters.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
In 2019, an attempt was made to physically attack me during the general election campaign, when a beer glass was thrown at my head. That was intimidating, but I recognise that it was nothing compared with the experience of those who are commemorated on the walls of this House, or of many of the women who sit in this Chamber. I am very sorry to say that, less than 12 hours ago, the Conservative party put out social media posts that placed the Prime Minister’s face on the body of a slug, a worm or a snake on a £5 note. Several months ago, the Conservative party in Surrey Heath put out a tweet about me that suggested that I somehow supported rape gangs because I could not support the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Does the Security Minister think that those social media acts elevate our politics and conform to the values that we are speaking about today?
Dan Jarvis
I am concerned to hear about what happened to the hon. Gentleman back in 2019. He makes an important and reasonable case, and I think the majority of the Members of this House will agree with him. It is something that we need to keep a very close eye on.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I welcome the statement, and I am particularly delighted to read the part that says, “Where the law fails to provide adequate protection, we will strengthen it.” As someone who had a case thrown out by the Crown Prosecution Service for being an MP, and who was told that I should just have thicker skin, that is welcome news—and I do have thick skin. Does the Minister share my concern that Members of this House are benefiting from engagement with platforms such as X and taking a significant income? They are essentially benefiting from angry engagement, and the money goes directly into their pockets.
Dan Jarvis
I am very sorry to hear about what happened to my hon. Friend. She is right to refer to the work that we are doing. We are strengthening the law in order to provide additional protections for Members and elected representatives. She makes a good point and poses a good challenge, and I know it will have been heard and agreed with across the House.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and the Speaker’s Conference for bringing forward recommendations—they are really important. Operation Ford, which is mentioned on page 2 of the statement, will cover England, Scotland and Wales. Will he clarify why Northern Ireland is not included? Perhaps something else is in place, but I want to check.
During election campaigns, Members and their staff are often required to undertake extensive public-facing activities, including constituency events, door-to-door canvassing and campaigning, which can expose them to additional harassment or intimidation. What assessment has been made of the adequacy of the security arrangements and guidance to Members and their staff during election periods, and what role will the taskforce play in co-ordinating measures to mitigate the risks?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I always am, and I am also grateful to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland for their attendance at the taskforce yesterday. With regard to Operation Ford, the devolved arrangements are slightly different in Northern Ireland, but I gave an assurance at yesterday’s meeting that where we can provide additional support to Northern Ireland, we would be happy to do so.
International Women’s Day
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered International Women’s Day 2026.
It is an honour to open this International Women’s Day debate, which is being held in Government time for the first time since 2020. International Women’s Day was forged in the labour strikes of the early 20th century as women came together to call for better pay, shorter working hours and voting rights. It has become an important milestone that celebrates the achievement of women, promotes gender equality and acts as a call to action.
In this debate, I have no doubt that we will hear about pioneering pathfinders, including women who smashed the glass ceiling in Parliament and paved the way for us today, such as Constance Markievicz, the first woman elected; Nancy Astor, the first to take her seat; and Margaret Bondfield, the first woman Cabinet Minister—I recommend her new biography by Nan Sloane, who is a driving force behind the Labour Women’s Network. I am sure that hon. Members will mention the first woman Prime Minister, who took office in 1979. Labour has had the first female Chief Whip, the first female Chancellor and the first black woman MP, the inspirational right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). We have also had Barbara Castle, Ellen Wilkinson, Jennie Lee and, of course, Baroness Harman in the other place. That is not to forget you, Madam Deputy Speaker—the first non-white Deputy Speaker and the first female Muslim Minister.
I have many greats and firsts sitting behind me—and probably in front of me—including my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), who was the first black female Minister and the first black woman to speak from the Dispatch Box. I am proud that many of those were also Fabian women, and that we are marking 21 years of the Fabian Women’s Network this year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Talking of strong women, there is my mum, my wife, my three daughters-in-law and my three grandchildren. Those three wee girls are at a very young age, but I tell you what: they have the potential to be leaders as well. They are fierce women and they are strong, and I am very pleased to see that.
Ever mindful that today we are celebrating International Women’s Day across Northern Ireland, the Minister will know that another lady was killed there last week. Of the women murdered in the whole United Kingdom, the highest proportion has been in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister share my concern that while we celebrate women, we also have to protect women? Our society must do that.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and wish all the women in his family a very happy International Women’s Day. Let the message ring out from this House that every girl is a leader. He is absolutely right that we must look at where women come under threats online or through violence, and do everything to protect women and girls across the UK and around the world.
We speak today about the agenda of women’s progress, but we must remind ourselves that although we have made progress, men and women are still not equal—not equal at home and not equal abroad. Indeed, we face the new challenge of a misogynistic insurgency that is determined to roll back women’s rights. When we look at the level of online abuse, sexual harassment and intimidation, it is horrifying to see products that appear designed to make money out of the sexual harassment of women.
Today, I want to make three main arguments: that women are still not equal, that we must be uncompromising in resisting the backlash against women’s rights, and that in these fragmented times women must work with women around the world.
In a world where inequality persists in society, in the economy and in power, I am proud that Labour, led by a Cabinet that is 46% women, is putting the progress of women at the heart of its missions. That is not a coincidence. Women’s representation in politics drives new conversations and puts wider issues on the agenda. Of the 695 women ever elected to the House of Commons, 405, or 58%, were first elected as Labour MPs and 182, or 26%, as Conservative MPs.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I am proud to have joined this Parliament as part of a record number of women elected for Plaid Cymru in 2024, and part of the record 40% of women elected in that same year. We are clearly on our way towards a gender-equal Parliament. With that historic milestone in sight, would the Minister commit her Government to Centenary Action’s call to commence section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, which would require political parties to publish diversity data on candidates, to increase transparency?
Seema Malhotra
On the hon. Lady’s comment about women making up 40% of the House of Commons today, that is an important milestone, but we are not yet at 50%. I am proud that the Labour party has got close to it, and in fact pretty much reached that level. It is important that we continue to look to the centenary, as she said, with a range of measures to push forward the progress of women’s representation and political parties’ role in that, but also to look forward to the progress of women in every part of society and of our economy.
I recognise that this is about the choices we make. Labour’s manifesto committed to action to tackle gender inequality, from strengthening rights for women in work and reducing the gender pay gap to halving violence against women and girls. Our groundbreaking violence against women and girls strategy begins a decade-long, whole-of-Government and whole-of-society effort to halve violence against women and girls, backed by over £1 billion of funding. I know that every Member of this House will want to get behind that goal.
I want to acknowledge the incredible efforts of my friend and colleague the Minister for Safeguarding—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)—who I am proud to stand alongside in today’s debate. [Hon. Members: “More.”] Exactly!
We are not just acting at home: we have made tackling violence against women and girls a priority in our foreign policy, too. Recently, the Foreign Secretary launched All In, a new international coalition to scale up action to end violence against women and girls. It brings together global leaders, experts and campaigners, and focuses on preventing violence before it happens.
Labour is working to prioritise women’s health, with a refreshed women’s health strategy to be published soon. Our plans to make work pay are putting in stronger protections for pregnant women and new mothers at work, and tackling maternity inequality. We are reviewing parental leave and making flexible working more easily available. With two consecutive years of minimum wage rises, we are putting more money in the pockets of working women.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
The Minister is making a brilliant speech that lots of us will be feeling very emotional about. Does she agree with me and Members across the House that although increasing the minimum wage is really important, as it disproportionately affects female workers, we also need to restructure how we value women’s work and the workforce predominantly made up of women?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. That debate continues, and I will touch on some relevant issues later in my speech.
Last week, alongside the Minister for Women and Equalities, I was proud to launch our voluntary action plans. Under the Employment Rights Act 2025, employers with over 250 employees will be asked to submit action plans showing how they will reduce their gender pay gaps and support employees going through the menopause. We are working with business leaders, civil society organisations and trade unions, because we cannot reach workplace equality without the support and commitment of all.
The removal of the two-child limit will lift 450,000 children out of relative poverty in the final year of this Parliament. As we know, poverty impacts women, whom the Women’s Budget Group describe as the “shock absorbers of poverty”.
On business, the Chancellor has backed the Invest in Women taskforce, launching a funding pool of over £600 million, including £130 million from the British Business Bank, to be invested in women-led businesses. It is the largest fund of its kind globally, addressing the enormous barriers to access to finance that exist for women.
Alongside that, the Government are supporting more women in the UK’s tech sector. Every year, the economy loses an estimated £2 billion to £3.5 billion because women leave the tech sector or change sectors due to barriers that should not exist. Men outnumber women by four to one in computer science degrees, which is a subject I studied. Women are less likely to enter tech, stay in the sector or rise to leadership roles.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Will the Minister talk about not just the tech sector, but how there is such a glass ceiling in engineering—there is a huge number of engineering jobs in my constituency—that women rarely manage to get through it? There is also a similar race equality issue in the higher tiers of engineering.
Seema Malhotra
Never a truer word was spoken. To building on the hon. Lady’s comment, it is worth the House knowing that, at the current pace, it will take 283 years for women to achieve equal representation in tech. That is why I am proud that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has launched the Women in Tech taskforce to champion diversity in the UK tech sector, with a pipeline strengthened by stronger engagement with tech in the classroom. There are spaces in which our economy is going to grow, and we need a plan for women to be part of that.
Throughout history, women have consistently been the backbone of our communities, giving their power, time, ideas and more. They have done this in our classrooms, in our offices, in our hospitals, in our military and in the home. History has taught us that despite giving so much, women do not always gain equally to men. Every day, women and girls across the UK challenge the stereotypes so often thrown upon them, but they are our scientists, our teachers, our business leaders, our astronauts, our athletes and so much more. There is nowhere that women and girls should not be able to reach.
But while this Government have women’s equality firmly on the agenda, the battle is not yet won. Increasingly loud voices attempt to dismiss the necessary protections for an inclusive culture at work. Some argue that our existing equality framework has gone too far—that it hinders progress. Let us be clear: these protections embody the British values that women should be treated equally with men, and that people should be treated equally regardless of their race. That is a core British value. It was fought for.
In a Westminster Hall debate last September, a now Reform MP described the Equality Act 2010 as fuelling “a corrosive culture” of grievance. He then called for it to be abolished. It is not a grievance to recognise that a woman who is made redundant for being pregnant, or who leaves work because her employer does not make reasonable adjustments for the menopause, leaves us poorer as individuals, as an economy and as a society.
In this battle, these voices are taking up space online, too. When we see the level of online abuse and intimidation, we must tackle the misogynistic insurgency that threatens to roll back women’s rights and that is having a huge impact on the wellbeing and aspiration of women and girls across our country. The online abuse of women athletes is set to be discussed at the next women’s sports taskforce meeting. I am proud that the offence of creating intimate images without consent was signed into force last month, and that our female Secretary of State announced that it will be made a priority offence under the Online Safety Act 2023, delivering for users the strongest protections from such content.
But this happens against a backdrop of changing social attitudes that we are only just beginning to address. New research from Ipsos MORI and the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at King’s College business school shows that 31% of gen Z men—born between 1997 and 2012—agree that a wife should always obey her husband, and one third, or 33%, say that a husband should have the final word on important decisions, according to a new global study of 23,000 people in 29 countries. We are in a renewed battle of ideas and new conversations about progress and rights. We also see pressures and influence through online social influencers. This demands our engagement. It is through conversation, legislation, education and campaigning that this Government are determined to keep us moving forward.
With the challenge to women’s inequality now being international, so must our response be. In the year 2000, we led the first UN Security Council resolution on women, peace and security. It was a simple but transformative idea: that peace is more durable when women help to shape it. UN statistics show that when women meaningfully participate in peace processes, the resulting agreement is 64% less likely to fail and 35% more likely to last at least 15 years. Women and girls are disproportionately affected by conflict and more likely to see their rights curtailed. Some 60% of preventable maternal deaths and 53% of deaths of under-fives take place in settings of conflict and displacement.
We continue to use our voice at the United Nations to push for women to be embedded in peace processes, resolutions and humanitarian responses. Indeed, this week Baroness Smith of Malvern and the UK special envoy for women and girls, Harriet Harman, are leading our delegation in New York at the Commission on the Status of Women, because this Government stand in solidarity with women and girls not just in the UK but around the world.
International Women’s Day marks the beginning not only of a month-long celebration of women’s history, but also, I hope, a year of progress and action. The theme for this year’s International Women’s Day is “Give to Gain”, the aim of which is to emphasise the power of reciprocity and support, whether through advocacy, education, mentoring or time, to help to create a more supportive and interconnected world, building new networks in our communities to bring hope, leadership and change, and renewing our determination. Connecting with our sisters at home and abroad will give us a renewed frontline to resist the roll back of our rights and push forward for the progress of women and girls for generations to come.
But this month is about more than reflection; it is about maintaining momentum. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg said:
“Women belong in all places where decisions are being made.”
That is not an observation; it is a directive. It is for us to hold the light up to highlight progress, and to keep fighting for a better world for women and girls everywhere.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a privilege to respond to the International Women’s Day debate and to follow the Minister for Equalities. It is wonderful to hear her talk about her passion for fighting inequality, fighting for rights and fighting the gender pay gap. I hope very soon to see her in shadow Cabinet—[Interruption.] Yes, I mean the real Cabinet, not with us. That would be terrible for you; you wouldn’t like that! [Laughter.]
This topic is what unites us today in the Chamber: we may have differences of opinion on every topic and come at issues from every ideological point of view, but we are united in our ability to exercise that right to debate and to stand up for women. I am so grateful to be a part of this country and to have those rights that so many women no longer have across the world.
I would like to pay tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and not only for your amazing work here in the Chamber keeping us all under control—a full-time job for anyone. I want to highlight the incredible work that you have done to champion Uyghur women and girls. When everyone was turning their back on Uyghur women and girls, you led the campaign. You tirelessly campaigned across the world to make sure their story was heard and their voice was heard. You worked cross-party on that, so from everyone across the House: thank you for your incredible work. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am incredibly grateful. It is why I was then sanctioned by the Chinese Communist party—but there are a lot of very powerful women in this room who will not be deterred, regardless of any sanctions.
Joy Morrissey
I feel that if one has received sanctions, it is a badge of honour.
First, to honour the international scope of the debate, I would like to take this moment to think about the women of Afghanistan, who have suffered under the Taliban. The life of all human beings is intrinsically valuable and should always be remembered. Afghan women, whose rights have been systematically dismantled with 100 decrees to restrict their freedom of movement, education, work and expression, to visit a doctor or to have financial freedom. There is no protection there against violence, beatings and forced child marriage. May we remember them today and how quickly the rights we take for granted can disappear.
Across the House and throughout our great country, women have shaped our communities, strengthened our institutions—throughout the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth—and led with courage, determination and resilience. Women are leaders in business, education, science, the armed forces, charities and voluntary organisations, and, of course, here in Parliament.
We must also recognise the women who contribute but who are often not recognised: the carers who support their families every day, with no thanks and no recognition; the volunteers who hold our communities together; the mothers, daughters, sisters and friends who provide strength and stability in the times we need it most. I have often spoken in this House about the importance of service, both to our communities and to our country. That spirit of sacrifice and service is embodied by countless women across the United Kingdom who quietly make an extraordinary difference in the lives of others. May we recognise their contributions today.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking and celebrating the fantastic women of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, who do exactly what she has just described in businesses, in our local democracy, in our third sector and in shaping the futures of our girls in community groups and schools?
Joy Morrissey
I wholeheartedly agree about praising the unpraised volunteers—the community organisers and those who make our towns and villages what they are. It is so important that we highlight their contributions today.
In my constituency of Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages, I see inspiring and dedicated women every single day. I see carers fighting for their disabled children, like Hazel, who is fighting for the Burnham day centre to remain open. I see healthcare professionals at Wexham Park hospital. I see entrepreneurs like Ally and Lissie Mackintosh, who are now global presenters for F1 and leading the way in lifestyle influencing—I wish I had their social media talents. I see volunteers dedicating their time to strengthening our communities. Their contributions should remind us that leadership is not confined to these corridors of power, but exists in every town, village and neighbourhood across the nation.
I pay tribute to the Taplow and Hitcham women’s institute for its tireless service to our community and for its wonderful 100th anniversary celebration of the branch and its building, which was opened 100 years ago by Lady Astor. We owe a great debt to the women who went before us, and none more so than Nancy Astor, who was a pioneer for women in Parliament—and, with her early pioneering, brought early exposure to the American accent in this place. It has taken this place 100 years to recover, and it will probably take another 100 years to recover from mine, but we live in hope!
Nancy Astor was a pioneer in other ways, too. She fought for children and, more importantly, the vulnerable; supported initiatives to protect children, including raising the age of consent; and fought to tackle children living in appalling conditions, helping countless women and girls. In Nancy Astor, we saw a female leader prepared to confront the uncomfortable and to endure hostility and carry on, including when many opposed her campaigns—even Churchill. It is wonderful to follow in her footsteps. That leadership and determination to fight for the voiceless lives on in many outstanding women today.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The hon. Lady raises Nancy Astor, of whom there is a statue in Plymouth. There are 11 statues for people to view in my constituency, but none are of women. Does she agree that it is important that women throughout history are also represented in statue form? Would she therefore join my campaign to erect a statue outside Chichester cathedral of the amazing suffragist, Ethel Margaret Turner—known affectionately as Madge Turner? She was our own suffragette in Chichester, and this campaign has been launched by Chichester Women’s History. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should all get behind it?
Joy Morrissey
I absolutely agree. I support the hon. Member in pursuing this wonderful statue for Madge and lend my full support to that campaign.
It is fitting that the UN’s theme for this year’s International Women’s Day is “Rights. Justice. Action. For ALL Women and Girls”. Those are three important words—rights, justice, action—that matter to women and girls. It is fitting because there are many areas where rights, justice and the call to action have been pursued by inspirational women in the face of hostility not dissimilar to what Nancy Astor faced in her time. Many Members across the House have also faced similar challenges. No matter what party they are from, I must respect the courage of many women who have gone before me, blazing the trail by coming to this Chamber and fighting for our rights, including the right to be heard. It is thanks to their contributions and sacrifice that we are allowed to debate today.
I would like to mention a Member of this House who has battled for safe spaces for women and sex-based rights, which is the foundation from which true protection for women and girls needs to start. None has fought that battle with more energy, resilience and determination than the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield). She has fought tirelessly to protect children and women and girls, and deserves our thanks and respect for all she has done. In the other place, my noble Friends Baroness Jenkin of Kennington and Baroness Davies of Devonport led the way in protecting women and girls; they too faced much hostility, but were never deterred from doing what they believed to be right.
A champion of women-only spaces and the defence of biological sex outside of this House is J. K. Rowling, a woman who has been nothing short of inspirational. She has faced down personal threats to her safety, determined to ensure that the rights of women are heard. The Leader of the Opposition has also firmly taken a stance to protect women and girls for years when very few joined her to stand up for those safe spaces. It is for that reason that we must also be clear that, as a society, we have failed many young girls for far too long.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I would like to make the point that there are many people with different views across this House, many of which I agree with. The hon. Lady makes a very good point in naming some individuals, but there are also many other women who stand up for sex-based rights. I would like to say that on the Floor of the House. I thank her for her words.
Joy Morrissey
I thank the hon. Member for that point. Many women from all kinds of different ideological perspectives have contributed to this debate, and I thank them.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
We should also recognise that some people have also been transphobic. We must be mindful that a lot of trans people feel very vulnerable at this time; some have committed suicide. Can we also hold them in our thoughts in this debate?
Joy Morrissey
I thank the hon. Member for that very nuanced contribution. I also thank her for being the first female of colour at the Dispatch Box, leading the way, and Chairman of a Select Committee. She is someone who all Members of this House, from every party, respect and admire; I thank her for everything she does.
As we try to protect young women and girls, there has been no clearer or more scandalous a failure than the rape gangs scandal that we are confronting now. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) who have raised this matter in Parliament, along with Alex Stafford, who is no longer in this place, and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson)—a cross-party effort—who have raised this issue time and again, while very few other Members of this House did. I commend them for being brave enough to do so. [Interruption.] Yes, there are so many I am not able to thank today, but I want to recognise them as best as I can. Baroness Casey has said that too many shied away from the issue of ethnicity in the rape gangs scandal. Those hon. Members did not, and that shows real leadership by Members in a cross-party way to protect women and girls.
This International Women’s Day, let us unite in clear determination. Where Nancy Astor led in confronting injustice for the voiceless, the parliamentarians of today will follow. We will speak up for the right of women to women-only spaces. We will make sure that, no matter the community, ethnicity or religion involved, we will never again let a scandal like the rape gangs go unchallenged. As someone who has fought for years for women and girls and fought against sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation, I think that every Member of the House should look at how we can protect women and girls, no matter who or where they are. I believe that is something we can all agree on.
For International Women’s Day to matter, it must be more than symbolic. It must combine celebration with action. It must be a further catalyst for rights, justice and action for women and girls. It must harden our resolve to ensure safety for all women and girls. It must set in clear focus our collective determination that this will be a country in which women and girls from every race, religion and creed are able to contribute their talents, with the certainty that we will keep them safe. For rights, justice and action, our women and girls deserve nothing less.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I thank the inspirational speakers we have heard so far. International Women’s Day feels particularly poignant to me this year, and there are two reasons for that. The first is watching the women in Iran. The reason why this has particularly affected me is because of the six-year fight to bring back my constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, which many Members, including you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will remember. During that time, I encountered the brutality of the Iranian regime whenever we tried to negotiate her return to our country. The way that they treated her was like she was nothing, in all honesty—they attached a worthlessness to her identity.
Now we are watching women fighting just for education and the right to dress the way they want—just for the right to live. Bombing primary schools full of little girls is something that is really hard to fathom. Every morning, no matter what happens, we can wake up feeling very lucky because we know that we can walk to work or get on the tube and we will be safe. Our thoughts today are with the people in Iran who are fighting for justice, especially the women.
The second reason that International Women’s Day feels particularly poignant to me is because of the case I am dealing with of Bright Horizons nursery in my constituency, which some Members will have heard me speak about. Vincent Chan operated for seven years undetected, preying on little girls, toddlers and babies, inflicting pain on them and conducting sexual abuse— something that he had already done in previous workplace. He went undetected and was given a job in a place where parents entrusted staff to look after their children while they were at work.
Parents only found out about the abuse because he had been reported by a brave whistleblower for acts of cruelty towards children—for bullying, not for sexual abuse. It was only when police decided to seize his devices, including nursery iPads, that he was discovered. He had filmed himself committing acts of sexual violence against little girls in the nursery itself, and he had used the iPads to airdrop the images to his own devices. This makes us realise that the fight is not over and that there is so much more work we have to do to combat violence against women and girls. I am pleased to be here today, surrounded by women who have been fighting that fight, and I hope that people like Vincent Chan get justice and end up behind bars.
I want to pay tribute to all the mothers of the children who were affected in the nursery. They have made sure that this will never happen again. They are the ones who are fighting for mandatory CCTV. They are the ones who are fighting to make sure that there is a “two person per child” rule in every room in every nursery. They are the ones who are now fighting for a flare system so that whistleblowing can be done properly and without fear and nurseries are not able to mark their own homework.
However, every time I speak about this case, I make sure that I say that for all the cases of sexual abuse in nurseries and early years settings that have happened, there are hundreds of thousands of other babysitters and nursery staff who look after children day in, day out and make sure that they are loved and protected. We must not tar everyone with the same brush, but we do need to take this seriously, and something does need to be done.
Today I want to talk mainly about my brave constituent Sanju Pal, who is in the Gallery. The focus of the UN for this International Women’s Day is, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) said, rights, justice and action. Across the world, women and girls have just 64% of the rights that men have. That is why I want to concentrate on Sanju’s case. Some Members will have heard me mention Sanju before. After six years of fighting a legal battle against her former employer—a management consultancy firm— for unfair dismissal, she won a landmark case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London. Her case sets a legal precedent for endometriosis to be considered a disability under the Equality Act 2010.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will indulge me while I talk about Sanju Pal’s case, because I feel that everyone in this Chamber, and everyone in the world, should listen to what she had to go through. In 2018 Sanju was diagnosed with severe endometriosis, and had large fluid-filled cysts on both her ovaries, requiring an immediate operation. She returned to work a month later in severe pain. She was bleeding and could hardly walk, because she had been pushing herself too much for a promotion to senior manager. She told HR in explicit detail how much pain she was in.
Three months after her phased return to work ended, and without any warning, Sanju was sacked. She was told to leave the building immediately and not to contact anyone. She was told, “Do not contact any of the colleagues you have been working with for 10 years now; just get out and leave the building quietly.” She had worked there for 10 years, and she told me that her entire life was based around her work and making sure that she looked after people she was serving at Accenture.
Sanju was sacked for not being ready for promotion within a required timeframe. This is known as the “up or out” policy, used by many corporates, where employees can be dismissed if their manager believes that they cannot be promoted. The termination letter—which, by the way, she received minutes after that meeting—did not state any actual reason for her dismissal. It also did not inform her of her right to appeal, and nor did it refer to the policy that was being followed.
As a Camden girl through and through, who went to Camden School for Girls, Sanju decided not to take this lying down. She took it to an internal tribunal, and the High Court later found that this panel had completely disregarded what she had written in her impact statement. When she then took it to tribunal, the panel ruled that she had not proved that her illness had an ongoing substantial effect on her daily life, and stated that many women with endometriosis had mild symptoms or none at all. The tribunal rejected her claim for disability discrimination and lacked any understanding of the physical impact of her health condition on her own body. She appealed that decision, and the High Court eventually ruled that she was unfairly dismissed from her job without her employer following a fair capability procedure or providing any reasonable adjustments after she was disabled because of her health condition.
I am so proud of Sanju for her tireless campaigning since her unfair dismissal in 2019. Employers must now follow this judgment on considering endometriosis as a disability and providing reasonable adjustments. More needs to be done to ensure that this does not happen to other women who are left physically disabled by endometriosis and other gynaecological conditions. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) has done some brilliant work in this area for years now, but we need a collective voice. We need everyone in the Chamber to stand up and speak about this, because it has been a taboo for too long now.
It is shocking, if the Minister is listening, that not a single gynaecological condition was introduced into the disability guidance of the Equality Act. That basic change could have saved Sanju her job, as well as so much time, money and anxiety, as she spent six years fighting for this unfair dismissal. It could also have made a huge difference for countless other women whom we have not heard about and who are facing the same discrimination in the workplace across the country. One in 10 women suffer from endometriosis, and 69% of sufferers say that they face discrimination at work. Such cases are far too common, leaving one in six women with endometriosis unemployed because of their condition.
Women should not be forced to go to a tribunal just to get the rights that they deserve. That is why I believe that women with endometriosis should be given specific workplace adjustments and the right to reasonable adjustments for their condition. Alongside that, endometriosis should be listed under reoccurring and fluctuating impairments in the guidance for the Equality Act, so that employers actually understand their legal duty to provide reasonable adjustments to women who are suffering because of the condition.
Dawn Butler
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. You may be coming to this, but it is an incredible—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I do not wish to correct any one of our fantastic female parliamentarians, but “you” means me. One more time: Dawn Butler.
Dawn Butler
Thank you, and you are amazing, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend may be coming to this, but my friend Elaine Banton was the lawyer in the case she refers to. I want to put that on record alongside my hon. Friend’s excellent remarks about her constituent.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank my hon. Friend. Elaine Banton definitely deserves a mention in the workplace as well.
There is a lot more I would like to say about this important case, but I am conscious that many women want to speak. However, I just want to mention that when I was growing up—I grew up in a Muslim Asian household—I did not hear anything about endometriosis. I never heard the word “menopause” when growing up. If I was ever on my period, I was told to quickly move away, listen and change, and make sure that my brother did not hear anything. There is a point at which we need to change that.
My mother was very forward in other ways. Growing up in a Muslim household, on Friday nights we always had dinner with our Jewish neighbours. She was very clear about the fact that in our house we could celebrate Christmas, Eid, Durga Puja and Hanukkah—we could do whatever we wanted because we were citizens of the world. But we were simply not allowed to mention our period, menopause or endometriosis. For Sanju’s case, but also for all the South-Asian mothers who are listening out there, this is the time when we need to break the taboo. We need to talk about conditions that affect women, particularly when they affect young girls as well, so that, if they are affected by those conditions in the workplace, they do not feel ashamed and like they have to hide.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful point. However, if we are really going to change things, we need fathers to speak to their daughters. I recall making a deliberate point when my daughter started menstruating. I was standing in the supermarket trying to assess and understand what I was faced with, with the wall of things, with people coming up to me and asking, “Do you want some help?”, and me saying, “No, I need to work my way through this.” We need men to advocate and understand these things as well.
Tulip Siddiq
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who is a staunch feminist—one of the reasons why he will speak in this debate.
I will finish by saying that the justice served to Sanju is a victory not just for her, but for the countless women across the country who have fought so hard to get reasonable adjustments in the workplace. I hope that the Minister will consider this case and that legislation will follow from the Labour Government to ensure that women never again have to face discrimination in the workplace.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. These are really fantastic speeches. So that I do not have to interrupt them, let me say that “you” and “your”, unless you are referring to the Chair, should not be said at all. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
This year’s theme, as we have heard, is “Give to Gain”. That prompted me to think about feminism on a global scale, and how interconnected we truly all are. Our globalised world is far from being made up of isolated countries, bounded by iron borders; we exist in the physical space and online. Our geopolitical landscape is shifting constantly, and feminism must move with it.
The experiences of women are shaped by overlapping factors of race, class, disability, migration status, sexuality, faith and geography. Feminism policy cannot be effective if it only reflects the lives of the most privileged. Some of the gravest injustices faced by women globally include physical violence, forced marriage and economic exclusion, and they fall hardest on those who are at multiple intersections of disadvantage. Progress for women is never a zero-sum game. When we lift up the most marginalised, we all rise. That is why “Give to Gain” is such an important theme. It has made me reflect that we as a country and a society must give overseas aid if we are to help build a more progressive, fair and stable world.
Today, I want to raise one of the most difficult and taboo subjects in the area of violence against women and girls, but one that we must confront: female genital mutilation, commonly known as FGM or cutting. It is a sensitive and distressing topic, but to break taboos, we must start to articulate the problem. Female genital mutilation comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or injury to the female genital organs for any non-medical reasons. It is steeped in misguided ideas of a woman’s virtue—ideas that are pervasive, and that manifest in all cultures in different ways, of which FGM is, I believe, one of the most insidious and violent.
In January, I travelled to The Gambia as part of a delegation from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. FGM was made illegal in The Gambia in 2015, yet the practice continues. In fact, to avoid detection, cutting is now carried out on increasingly younger girls, and sometimes even on babies, with devastating and sometimes fatal consequences. The practice has no health benefits and causes lifelong problems, including severe bleeding, incontinence, infections, long-term pain, menstrual problems, complications in childbirth and an increased risk of newborn deaths. Beyond that clear physical trauma, many women live with depression, flashbacks and lifelong psychological scars. It is a form of torture.
FGM is a serious violation of human rights and bodily autonomy, not a cultural inevitability, and more than 4 million girls are at risk every single year, yet in The Gambia, I also saw hope. I saw the profound impact of not-for-profit and grassroots organisations, who work creatively and sensitively in communities to remove economic and cultural barriers to change. Data gathering is difficult in a country with such severe poverty, but initial estimates suggest that the prevalence of FGM has fallen: it has gone from affecting around 76% of girls to around 51%.
Non-governmental organisations and grassroots women’s organisations are uniquely effective, because they are trusted by families and embedded in communities. Those organisations are part-funded by British overseas aid, which this Government are now reducing. Those organisations’ funding runs out this year, just as the message is starting to get through. The reduction in aid tears holes in the safety net for the world’s most vulnerable communities, and leaves young girls more exposed. The Government’s decision to reduce the United Kingdom’s official development assistance from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income will have real-world consequences. It represents the lowest United Kingdom aid contribution as a share of gross national income since 1999 and diminishes our long-standing reputation as a global leader in humanitarian assistance.
In our report on FGM, the Women and Equalities Committee was clear: the Government must protect funding for programmes that prevent FGM and set out their plans for future investment in that vital work. Instead, in their response, the Government confirmed that their flagship programme to end FGM will finish in October 2026, and that there are no plans at all for what comes next. That is not just disappointing; it is deeply irresponsible.
When Britain invests in the freedom and wellbeing of girls globally, we gain a safer, fairer and more stable world. That is why, when the Liberal Democrats were in government, we secured a commitment of 0.7% of gross national income for overseas aid. FGM is, of course, illegal here too, but in today’s global society, British girls are being taken abroad to undergo cutting in areas with fewer protections. In the last decade, more than 41,000 women and girls have had FGM identified at an NHS appointment in this country, yet in the five-year period between 2019 and 2024, there was just one conviction under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. Protection must not stop at the border. Intervention must happen before a child boards a plane and after she lands. Frontline non-governmental organisations in source countries are often best placed to prevent FGM.
The practice of FGM is rooted in gender inequality, control of girls’ bodies and forced silence. True solidarity means recognising that their struggle is our struggle. By supporting global efforts to end FGM through aid and diplomacy, the UK helps to meet its international commitments and reduces the chance of FGM happening to people who live here. The Government must not be complicit in halting the progress on preventing such violence against girls, no matter where they are born. Understanding intersectionality is vital to feminism today, and I call on the Government to recognise that, in our interconnected world, solving violent crime against women and girls everywhere is everyone’s responsibility.
Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in this International Women’s Day debate. We reflect on the women who created International Women’s Day, and the women who have left a mark every day since then—women across the worlds of politics, trade unionism, business, science and the arts, who are making strides forward in the face of ignorance and misogyny, and who are taking a sledgehammer to the glass ceiling, smashing through the barriers and making space for those who have followed.
I reflect on the women who have lit the pathway to my place in Parliament. The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the Mother of the House, is an inspiration to so many of us. I am also thinking of Baroness Harman and Baroness Amos in the other place, and of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, the Minister for Equalities and the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls—you have such a long title. [Hon. Members: “She!”] She has such a long title. I also reflect on all the women I have met in my years leading the Labour Women’s Network. These are the giants on whose shoulders we stand. They lift us up, and we, in turn, must lift others in Parliament, in our communities and globally.
We have heard about the status of women globally. Across the globe, women are denied basic rights—the right to go to school, have a job, and be paid equally—equal legal rights, and basic freedoms. For example, in Afghanistan, 2.2 million girls are banned from secondary school by the Taliban. Only a quarter of women have jobs. It is particularly cruel that Afghan women are barred from entering the medical professions, but the Taliban ban women from being treated by men, so women are denied basic medical care. In Iran, women hold only 64% of the legal rights enjoyed by men. They require permission from their husband to get a passport or travel abroad. Girls as young as 13 can be married if a male judge decrees it. There are no criminal offences of rape within marriage or violence in the home. It is women who are leading the resistance to the ayatollahs in Iran, risking everything for justice and liberation.
We should take inspiration from the women standing up for their rights around the world and here at home. I am proud that we have passed the Employment Rights Act 2025, because it is women who will benefit the most, especially low-paid women, women of colour and working-class women. Workers will have a right to guaranteed hours for the first time, which means clarity about how much they will earn, and the stability to plan childcare and family expenditure. That will be life-changing for millions of families.
None of these steps forward comes from a clear blue sky. They come from decades of struggle, argument, reversals and defeats, and steps forward and progress. They are the result of suffragettes campaigning for political rights, and the likes of Barbara Castle campaigning for economic rights. Yes, we have seen progress on social, political and economic fronts, but equality is still a distant dream. The Minister mentioned pay. According to the Office for National Statistics, median weekly earnings for female employees working full time were £710 in April 2025, compared with £815 for male full-time employees.
Equal pay remains some way off, as does healthcare. The harsh truth is that women continue to get a raw deal in the healthcare system. We do not enjoy true equality in the NHS. We have a system shaped and largely run by men—a system in which women’s health is a secondary concern. There is still a “male by default” culture in healthcare. I have been campaigning for faster treatment for endometriosis and fibroids. One in 10 women suffer from these painful and incurable conditions, yet the average time that women wait for diagnosis has gone up from eight years to nearly 10—to nine years and four months. For women of colour, who face the double whammy of racism and sexism, the time has gone up to 11 years.
Women are waiting in pain for years. Their concerns are dismissed and their pains are ignored. I have said it before, and I will say it again: no offence, but if one in 10 men suffered from a painful, incurable disease, there would be faster treatment, research into cures, time off work, and a systematic and sympathetic hearing from society. As it is, women face ignorance, discrimination and stigma when they present with crippling, blinding pain and heavy bleeding.
In this debate on International Women’s Day, I pay tribute to Georgie Wileman for creating her brilliant film “This is Endometriosis”. I was delighted to see it win best short film at the BAFTAs this year; it is truly well-deserved recognition. I also commend the work of the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan). I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), who has been supporting a constituent who was dismissed after working in her organisation for 10 years because of her endometriosis condition. Sanju Pal, you are an inspiration to us all. Thank you for the work you have done with your MP to make sure that this hits us nationally.
I have argued that the solutions must include enhanced training for GPs to speed up diagnosis, and improving the education of young people and women on the menstrual cycle. I look forward to the new women’s health strategy, which I hope places women front and centre in the striving for equality for women in the NHS. I welcome the shifts towards greater use of technology, local diagnosis hubs and greater awareness about women’s health conditions, but of course, we have far further to march.
I take enormous inspiration from the women and girls I meet in my constituency—fearless, driven and dedicated women who want to live out their potential. I want to take this opportunity to name a few. Chiamaka Muoneke is a dedicated wife, mother and community champion in Thamesmead who supports others through healthy cooking workshops. Jattinder Rai is the CEO of Bexley Voluntary Service Council, and she supports charities, communities and local people in my constituency and beyond. Shantel Morris, who I met in one of my constituency surgeries, shared her experience of homelessness and spoke about her aim to provide support to local people and families facing eviction or living in temporary accommodation. I was delighted to see her organisation hit the ground when I attended last October’s launch of the Morris Mission in Erith, where she now provides training and support for local people.
Jo Dunkley at Off The Ropes has done an incredible job of bringing this brilliant charity to life through her passion for boxing, shared by so many. The charity supports local adults facing mental health challenges to build confidence, resilience and lasting connections through sport. I was delighted to cut the ribbon at its new gym in Abbey Wood last November. Since then, it has gone from strength to strength, and I give huge credit to Jo for making that happen.
I also pay tribute to the staff at the Community Hospice, of which I am a patron—in particular, Aneta Saunders, who is stepping into the CEO role, having been director of income generation, and Dr Lesley Bull, the medical director, who is helping to steady the team through their leadership transition. Finally, although I have mentioned her in previous speeches on International Women’s Day, I want to mention once again the brilliant Kate Heaps. Kate has been the chief executive of Community Hospice for nearly two decades. She has grown the hospice’s work and fought hard to improve hospice care locally and nationally. I pay tribute to her and wish her the best of luck in her next steps.
In this International Women’s Day debate, I want to highlight that I am proud of what this Government have achieved so far towards a fairer, more equal society and economy. I am lifted up by my sisters in Parliament and the amazing women I meet on a day-to-day basis in politics and around this place. Even in the darkest times, amid all the uncertainty, we support each other, we uphold our convictions and our passions, and we uplift each other in representing those in our constituencies and beyond and campaigning on issues that are important to our constituents.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
In this International Women’s Day debate, I rise to say a few words about the women and girls in Afghanistan, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Afghan women and girls. I note that the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) also referred to their experiences.
I saw comments in the Telegraph at the weekend saying that the fact International Women’s Day is marked in Afghanistan shows that the day is meaningless. I beg to differ, particularly given the number of us who are here on a Thursday afternoon. Factually, it is not listed as a holiday in Afghanistan, and we are not seeing celebrations, protests, debates or marketing based on the day itself there, simply because that is not possible for women and girls in Afghanistan. Afghanistan remains a member of the UN, which marks the day, but we do not need to formally ban something to effectively do so—not when women cannot gather and cannot speak, even in their own homes if they can be heard outside them. None the less, there is value to International Women’s Day, and I believe that even in the darkest of circumstances, there is still value in this day to the women of Afghanistan.
As we are hearing in this debate, International Women’s Day is about so many struggles but also celebrations. The women of Afghanistan’s struggles and the celebration of their resilience have equal value today. When they cannot speak for themselves, those of us with voices internationally can do so. Indeed, elevating the voices of Afghan women is what the APPG was set up to do.
There is no sugarcoating it: it is bleak in Afghanistan. A new penal code was introduced in January that has effectively legalised domestic violence, including sexual assault within marriages. Husbands are explicitly authorised to discipline their wives for non-specified transgressions. The only crime on the books is a husband beating his wife with a stick, causing severe injury such as a broken bone. The burden of proof for that offence lies on the woman, and the punishment if proven is just 15 days in prison. Injuring animals carries a greater penalty in Afghanistan. I doubt we will ever see a prosecution under that law, given that gathering the proof would require the husband who has committed the assault chaperoning his wife to hospital to get the evidential X-ray required.
On the other hand, if a woman tries to leave a marriage by visiting her father or relatives and does so without her husband’s consent or refuses to return—we can imagine circumstances where somebody would look to do that, to escape domestic violence in their house—she can go to prison for three months. If a woman is found to have abandoned Islam—and I believe we are talking here about the Taliban’s interpretation of the faith, which many disagree with—she can be jailed indefinitely, with 10 lashes daily until she chooses to return to the religion.
There are severe restrictions on working, to which the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead referred. Some organisations in some areas have negotiated the right for women to keep their jobs. Women can still provide healthcare, though increasingly women are being denied the right to have healthcare training, and we can easily see what that means for the future of maternal and female care in Afghanistan. We are certainly a long way away from there being freedom to work, and financial autonomy is simply not a reality.
The future for the next generation is even bleaker. Girls are growing up without completing their education, and with women being unable to have medical training, there will come a point when there are no women left to provide healthcare. The reality is that in a country at war, at the forefront of the climate crisis, where 17 million people faced acute hunger this winter, and with millions of displaced people returning from its neighbours, including Iran, it is women who are bearing the brunt of the desolation.
I am aware that in setting out this reality, I am not elevating the experiences, feelings or voices of any one woman. There are 25 million women in Afghanistan, and each and every one of them should have the right to speak, to live freely and, indeed, to live at all. Prior to 2021, they were able to do so. On this International Women’s Day, I would like to see commitments from the Government to the women and girls of Afghanistan.
I do not agree with the Government’s decision to close the door on the safe and legal routes for refuge or to study or work. I was told on Monday in the Chamber by the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, who was responding to the urgent question on the Government’s immigration policy, that this is about ensuring that universities are not making the decisions on who gets to stay here. But if there are no other ways for people to seek safe refuge here, it is not surprising that they take that opportunity, and if they no longer have that opportunity, it will not be surprising if they revert to irregular routes, by which I mean the small boats that we all say we want to prevent.
Having made that decision, the Government must do more in Afghanistan—much more. In opening the debate, the Minister talked about the work the Government do overseas, but I beg to differ on that assessment. Afghanistan is not one of the countries the Government have ringfenced as they look to cut official development assistance spending, but Afghanistan is apparently a priority. I would like to understand what that means.
It is important that we recognise the strength of Afghan women. The APPG has had the privilege of hearing from several Afghan women in the last year, as well as NGOs and academics who have spent time on the ground. We have heard a lot, unsurprisingly, about the loss of hope, but we have also heard about the unbelievable resilience. Afghan women live in unthinkable circumstances for any of us here, but they keep on. While this is a speech setting out terrible things, I am not asking people to pity women and girls in Afghanistan; in talking about them, I am asking for action. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were previously a member of the APPG in the last Parliament and know how supportive you were and continue to be.
To end, I want to share the remarks that the APPG heard last year from a female medical practitioner on the ground. She said that she spoke to us as parliamentarians
“as a witness to the quiet suffering and untold strength of Afghan women. These stories are not just tragic, they are powerful. And they must inform policy decisions and humanitarian priorities moving forward.”
I urge the Government to heed those words.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is my absolute pleasure to speak in this year’s debate to mark International Women’s Day. This important day gives us an opportunity not only to reflect on how far women have come—and, disappointingly, how far we have yet to go—but to recognise the women who continue to shape and strengthen our communities every single day. I want to use my time to celebrate some of the remarkable women across South Derbyshire who make a real difference. Making people feel seen in this place is my absolute favourite thing to do.
First, Kalila Storey is my right-hand woman in the constituency. She runs my office, and I honestly do not know what I would do without her. I am sure that many of us across the House share that experience, with incredible women in their teams. I would like to give a shout-out to Lib Orme and correct a mistake I made in business questions this morning when I did not recognise her as being the founder of “I love Swad”, a Facebook page with almost 46,500 members—an incredible achievement. I also want to mention Lesley Aspey. I hope that she feels seen by me for the woman she is, both in the constituency as her MP and in this place—she will know why I have mentioned her name.
In Melbourne, Sharon Brown is the driving force behind the wonderfully vibrant Melbourne festival of arts and architecture, which last year celebrated its 20th year. She also manages the Creative Melbourne gallery. Through her work, she has brought art, culture and creativity to the heart of her community, creating opportunities for artists and inspiring residents and visitors alike. Also using creativity as a force for good is Julie Batten, director of People Express. Julie has led the organisation since 1992, and under her leadership it has used the arts as a powerful tool for engagement, working with a diverse range of people across our community and enabling them to become writers, filmmakers and artists of their own stories. Her work helps ensure that creativity is truly accessible to everyone.
Supporting local enterprise is Keelie Briggs, a marketing expert who provides networking opportunities for businesses across South Derbyshire, particularly in Swadlincote. She is a passionate champion of small businesses and organises the annual small business showcase, giving local entrepreneurs a platform to grow and succeed. Entrepreneurship is also embodied by Elaine Penhaul, the founder of Lemon and Lime Interiors, whose business has grown into a highly successful company supporting homeowners and property professionals alike. Supporting that growth with her is Katie Lavis, who started her own business and now works with Lemon and Lime as it continues to expand. Another fantastic local entrepreneur is Tracey Payne, who exemplifies the work, determination and creativity of women running small businesses in our community.
Public service is another area where women across South Derbyshire make an enormous contribution. Angela Archer, chair of South Derbyshire district council, is a passionate advocate for children with special educational needs and disabilities. As a parent of SEND children herself, she co-founded the charity Shout to support families navigating the challenges that SEND can bring. Keddie Bailey quietly supports families of SEND children, demonstrating the compassion and commitment that empower families at times of significant challenge.
In the voluntary sector, I want to recognise the work of Hollie Benton, chief executive of South Derbyshire Community Voluntary Support, and Petra Parker, who manages its food hub. Together they support local people to access food parcels and befriending services, and provide help to return home after a hospital stay, as well as a wide range of support, ensuring that no one in our community feels alone when they need help the most. Ingrid van der Weide, editor of the local publication SwadStyle, keeps residents informed about what is happening across Swadlincote and the surrounding area. She also leads the wonderful Swadlincote festival of words taking place this month, which celebrates literature, storytelling and creativity for all ages.
Our cultural heritage is also being preserved thanks to Becca King, the museum manager at Sharpe’s pottery museum, who works tirelessly to ensure that our local history is accessible, engaging and celebrated. I also recognise Peggy Moore, whose dedication to remembrance in our community is truly extraordinary. Peggy has spent countless hours knitting poppies, creating a life-size knitted Tommy soldier and collecting donations for the Royal British Legion poppy appeal. Her dedication ensures that the sacrifices of those who served are never forgotten.
I also want to recognise Maria Hanson MBE, founder of the charity Me & Dee. Since founding the charity in 2006, Maria has dedicated herself to supporting families facing life-changing and life-limiting conditions. Her vision, compassion and determination have helped thousands of families across the UK, and this remarkable work has been recognised with the charity being awarded the King’s award for voluntary service.
In my constituency, there are women whose leadership continues to inspire long after they have left public office. One such person is Edwina Currie, the first female MP for South Derbyshire. To this day, residents still speak fondly of her to me as a dedicated constituency MP who worked tirelessly on their behalf. I would like to give a special mention to Margaret Garner, an absolute gem in our community—Repton in particular. Margaret, now in her 80s, is an incredibly loyal and supportive friend, a volunteer for many activities in Repton, and swears like a trooper. She is the kind of person who lifts those around her, brings humour and honesty wherever she goes, and reminds us all of the strength and spirit that run through so many women in our communities.
Of course, none of us would be here today without the women who came before us and fought to open the doors of democracy. One such woman from my constituency is Hannah Mitchell, a suffragette who lived in Newhall in the early 1900s. She was an activist and rebel, and one of the many women who challenged inequality and fought for women’s right to take part in public life.
The women I have mentioned come from many different walks of life, from business, the arts, public service, charity work and community leadership. What unites them is their determination to make the places where they live better for others. There are, of course, so many incredible women across South Derbyshire. Giving a few shout-outs today inevitably means that I will have missed someone, but I hope this speech goes some way towards recognising the extraordinary contribution that women make across our communities every single day.
Mr Speaker
We now have a maiden speech. I remind everyone that there are no interventions during maiden speeches. I call Hannah Spencer.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
Four weeks ago today, I was in college, a plumber learning how to plaster, and today I am in Parliament as an MP. Being here is the honour of my life, but I do not want this to be unusual or exceptional. I truly believe that anyone doing a job like mine should get a seat on these Benches.
Where I am from, we are taught to look after each other, to look out for each other, to stick up for each other and to stick together—to see each other as human. I am so proud of that humanity and that people in Gorton, Denton, Burnage, Levenshulme, Longsight and Abbey Hey feel that way too. It is in our blood and in our bones—we see each other as human.
Where I am from, we give a nod to the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst. We remember the farm worker and seamstress Hannah Mitchell, the trade unionist Mary Quaile and the mill worker Annie Kenney—and, of course, Elsie Plant, who is from just down the road from me and who I named one of my beautiful greyhounds after. I think of these brilliant women a lot, and especially today as we debate International Women’s Day.
I think of many others, too, from pits, slums and factories; the women who changed the system so that I could be here; the women of colour whose names we will never know because history did not bother to recognise or remember them. But we do today, because without their struggle, their fight and their determination to stick together, none of this could be possible. It is bittersweet to recognise these brilliant people but to be reminded that we still need to try to be them.
The constituency that elected me is the 15th most deprived in the country. It has suffered decades of neglect and broken promises. We see that every day right in front of us, in the litter and fly-tipping, the state of housing, the struggle for a job you can build a life on, the filthy and polluted air, and the reduced life chances—the sheer unfairness of it all.
My constituency has been hit hard by the ongoing cost of living crisis. None of this is fair, none of it is right and none of it happens by accident. So I very much share my predecessor’s strong commitment to tackling health inequalities and putting local people and all our communities at the heart of decision making. That is how we begin to turn things around, to give people agency and a genuine chance of a better today and a better tomorrow.
To the girls I saw photos of, going to school on International Women’s Day dressed as Hannah the Plumber, with their overalls and spanners, and the trademark hair. To the 10-year-old boy at HideOut who rock-climbed an incredibly high wall with me, saw me become suddenly very terrified of how far up I was, and said, “Don’t ever give up. And if it’s scary looking down then just look at what’s in front of you.”
To the women in my life who have had my back and fought for equality alongside me. To the men I work with—especially the lads on my plastering course, who dealt very well with my new-found spotlight in the middle of our training. To those men who will suffer the effects of this unequal society through their mental health. To the veterans I know who were willing to risk everything, and came home and found that society was turning its back on them.
To the white working classes, who are always lumped into one group and never appreciated. To everyone who will have nowhere to sleep tonight, or will barely exist in a cold, damp and insecure home. To my trans siblings who get blamed for everything. To the Muslims everywhere, who are constantly, and often violently, scapegoated. To the disabled people who cannot access the world because of structural inequality that is completely fixable. To the people of colour, who have to work harder at everything.
I do not always get it, and I will not say that I always understand it, but what I do know is what it feels like to be looked down on, to be let down and left behind, to be less worthy because of something about me. Our struggles may be different, but our humanity is the same. We always stick together, we always fight for each other, and that is what I want us to take forward from International Women’s Day, and to do that every single day.
The cleaners, bus drivers, nursery workers, foster carers, home carers, unpaid carers, teaching assistants, bin collectors, warehouse workers, delivery drivers, school dinner staff, lollipop wardens, supermarket workers, posties, library staff, kitchen porters, farm workers, mechanics, ground workers, scaffolders, electricians, plasterers and plumbers—we deserve to be here; every single one of us. And I will make space for you to come and join me, to get to have your say.
From the bustle of Longsight market, the many Irish pubs in Levy, Sue’s chippy, and Tony at California Wines in Gorton, to the amazing young people at HideOut, the best hash brown butty at Cafe Plus in Denton, and the women-led social enterprise at Dahlia Café on Burnage Lane—you are the best of our brilliant communities. I want to put Gorton and Denton on the map by championing the positives about our community: the spirit, the warmth, the grit, and the way we help each other out every single day. Whether it is our neighbours where we live, or our siblings in places like Afghanistan, Gaza, Sudan and Iran—wherever we are, we deserve to live freely as the human beings that we all are.
We do things differently in Manchester, and it makes me proud every single day. Now I want to make Abbey Hey, Levenshulme, Burnage, Longsight, Gorton and Denton proud of me. Thank you so much for putting your faith in this plumber and newly qualified plasterer. Together, we can make hope normal again, and we will look after each other, whoever we are, because where I am from, that is just what we do.
Mr Speaker
At least the hon. Lady can cross the football political divide by being a Bolton Wanderers supporter.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) on her first speech, and welcome her to this place. I do not know whether she has noticed, but the Palace of Westminster is in need of some maintenance, so it is entirely possible that both her plastering and plumbing skills will come in useful in the very near future.
I rise to speak in my first International Women’s Day debate. I have followed these debates since before I was elected, so it is a true privilege to take part today. I have to say, if the composition of the Chamber were like this more often—by which I mean the number of men and women relative to each other—we might have different kinds of debates.
Today, we celebrate women in our communities, across the country and throughout our world. We celebrate extraordinary women who achieve incredible things for the good of humanity. In that context, it is a great but sad honour to sit opposite the coat of arms of my late dear friend Jo Cox, with whom I served on the board of the Labour Women’s Network. I think of her every time I come to this place and see her coat of arms. We miss her and her contributions dearly.
I have previously mentioned Jennie Lee, a proud Fifer who grew up in Cowdenbeath in my constituency and served two spells as a Labour MP. As well as having been the first ever UK Minister for the Arts, and the creator of the Open University, it is less known that Jennie served in the Ministry of Aircraft Production during world war two, keeping aircraft factories running during the blitz. She was called on to do so because of her no-nonsense attitude and ability to get things done. I take inspiration from that.
I am proud to follow Jennie as the 595th woman—among many thousands of men—elected to this Parliament, together with an unprecedented number of women MPs. Our Labour Government have important plans to advance women’s equality, from halving violence against women and girls to transforming women’s experiences of maternity care—a subject I discussed with the right hon. Baroness Amos just this week.
Beyond the women who are recognised for extraordinary achievements, we must be clear that the unseen work that women across the world do every day does not receive the recognition it deserves. According to the UN, women and girls do 16,000,000,000 hours of unpaid care work every single day. Their work is the very glue of families, communities and economies—countries could not function without it—yet it remains largely invisible, undervalued and unequally distributed.
Today, I want to sound a warning. We know that violent struggles are being fought for global power, but around the world, and increasingly at home, the struggle for power is being expressed as a struggle for control over women and our bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) and I have written about that together this week. There are many shocking examples of the battle to control women’s bodies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) mentioned, the oppressive regime in Iran has been desperate to prevent women from dressing in the way they want to, despite the incredibly brave protestations of amazing women there in the wake of Mahsa Amini’s death.
As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said so eloquently, in Afghanistan, the Taliban have tested the limits of whether the world will stop them enforcing gender apartheid, by forcing women out of schools and workplaces and into the home. They looked for, and found, the answer they wanted: that the world does not care enough to stop them.
In Sudan, which is suffering the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, rape and sexual violence is routinely used as a weapon of war. At the recent Munich security conference, which I attended, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke powerfully about her visit to Sudanese refugee camps and the horrific accounts that she heard there, including of the systematic rape of girls as young as eight. I am proud to be a former chair of The Circle, the global feminist organisation founded by Annie Lennox. Only this morning it shared with me data showing that sexual violence in conflicts worldwide has increased by 25% in the last year.
In conversations about a shift in the global order, there is an increasing subtext of the need to control women’s bodies. We see that in some of the attacks on the legitimacy and funding of the United Nations. I worked with the UN in my previous work. Let us make no mistake: the UN would benefit from many reforms, but starving its institutions of funding to do work that no one else will do, for people no one else will help, is a grave error. That work includes providing contraception to women in war zones and refugee camps, so that they have some basic control over their bodies in situations where they have control over almost nothing else. In the context of domestic cuts to our own aid budget—a source of concern to many of us—we must do everything possible to preserve support for women and girls. I know that the Foreign Secretary is doing important work on that.
We must not content ourselves by believing that such misogyny only exists abroad. Matt Goodwin, the Reform candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election, said that women who do not have children should be taxed more, and that young women need an education in fertility—as if “The Handmaid’s Tale” was something we should aspire to. He seems to believe that women who choose not to have children, or who cannot, are somehow failing in their duties. Reform has said that, were they in government, the Equality Act—the basis for much of the progress we have made on women’s rights in the UK—would be repealed. Shame on them.
Online, British women are stripped of the agency we have over our own bodies, exemplified by Grok weaponising women’s bodies through nudification. Our Labour Government are right to crack down on such apps. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) had the truly awful experience of someone using that technology to make a fake video of her being chloroformed and “prepared for rape”. That makes the comments by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), in the previous statement all the more unacceptable. The intended humiliation of women online is not simply cruel or misogynistic, although it is certainly both. It is intended to instil fear, to signal that some violent men believe that they are entitled to dominate women and to normalise such abhorrent behaviour.
Last week, ahead of International Women’s Day, I met members of the Fife violence against women partnership. We discussed the more than 5,000 incidents of domestic abuse and the more than 1,100 crimes of indecency reported to the Fife police last year. We know that many more will have gone unreported. They also shared with me their concerns about social media and the misogyny spread online by so-called male influencers. I heard shocking reports about some of the things that local schoolboys have said to female teachers—comments that they have learned online. They included female teachers being told by boys that they teach, “You’re so ugly, I wouldn’t even rape you.”
Male influencers online also seek to spread the idea that the role of the tradwife is what girls and young women should aspire to in life. This is the idea that women belong only in the home, and that we should all take our fulfilment simply from cooking meals for our husbands and rearing children. This online misogyny is spread by the likes of Andrew Tate, the late Charlie Kirk and far too many others, and it is aided by harmful algorithms. Perhaps it should not surprise us that a new global survey has found that younger men increasingly believe that a wife should obey her husband, and that men are expected to do too much to support equality. That is not an accident; transnational organisation is making that happen.
The European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights has found that $1.18 billion was pumped into European movements dedicated to rolling back women’s rights between 2019 and 2023. That funding came from 275 different actors, including church-run non-governmental organisations and far-right populist parties. Russia was the biggest source of donations, and the United States the second biggest—especially from American Christian nationalists. That American funding is now accompanied by financial help from the US Government, who have set aside $200 million to support MAGA-friendly think-tanks in Europe. Let us be clear: this is designed to spread their ideology, including here in the UK. When we, the decent majority, both in this House and outside it, confront the grassroots arm of the far-right—local groups acting in our communities—we must be clear that they are not just isolated local groupings of people; they are the grassroots arm of a well-organised international effort to reverse women’s rights.
Our Government are doing a huge amount to drive forward women’s equality on closing the pay gap on childcare, on tackling violence against women and girls, and so much more. I am proud of that work. But we face a dark threat to the fabric of our society from the organised misogyny that I have described. We must defeat it, and we have much to do.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Let me start by paying huge tribute to the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) for her maiden speech. She spoke with grace, poise and purpose, and her constituents are very lucky to have her representing them here, whether they voted for her or not. Members on the Conservative Benches will know that I am not overly competitive—I just have to win everything—so I was rather devastated that she made a far better maiden speech than my own meagre offering after the 2024 general election.
The hon. Lady said she wanted to put Gorton and Denton on the map, and she certainly put it on my radar. As she was listing the distinguished people from her constituency, I wondered whether she would get around to mentioning Ethel “Sunny” Lowry, who was born in Gorton, and was the first British woman to swim the English channel in 1933. I know what hon. Members are thinking: surely I have some neat segue to other women doing water-based heroics from my own Spelthorne constituency. I would not like to disappoint them.
In 1903, at 111 White Hart Lane in Barnes, young Amy Gentry was born to a Cockney father who had worked his way up and become a publisher. They bought a camping plot on Hamhaugh island, which is the southernmost point of the River Thames, and also the southernmost point of my constituency. She went there from the age of one—her dad got a boat and they used to love messing around in it. Before she was 10 years old, the people on Hamhaugh island had gymkhanas, and she was entered into a dinghy racing contest, which I think she won, and which clearly gave her a taste for competition.
The war then intervened in Amy’s growing up, and hon. Members will be only too aware that in 1918 we passed in this place the Representation of the People Act. The tide was turning in respect of votes for women, women’s individuality and women expressing themselves. In 1920, Weybridge rowing club decided that they would form a women’s section—considerably revolutionary at the time. They got a group of young ladies together and trained them in how to row properly, and the women’s rowing movement began.
In 1925, young Amy Gentry went over to the charity regatta in the Netherlands, where she competed against France, Belgium and Holland. By 1927 the sport had developed that much further that there was an eights competition on the Oxford and Cambridge course between Putney and Mortlake. She wrote at the time that she felt like she was rowing backwards at times—obviously, literally she was rowing backwards, but she did not feel like she was going anywhere—so dreadful were the conditions.
In 1932, her father went to a boat builder and asked, “If you build my daughter a boat, will she win?” The boat builder said, “She will,” and indeed she did. She carried all before her from 1932 to 1934. She became the secretary of Weybridge rowing club, and by 1939 she was its chair. She was the driving force in women’s rowing in the country.
One of the clubs that had been useful and had adopted women’s rowing with some enthusiasm was the Vesta rowing club, which set up the first women’s regatta. At the time, a gentleman from the club said:
“While I do not approve of rowing for women, as they will do it anyway the best thing I can do will be to help them do it properly.”
We can see what the attitudes were at the time. Nevertheless, Amy was fantastic at it. She retired from the highest level of the sport in the late 1930s.
Obviously, the second world war came around, and in 1939 she became the secretary to Barnes Wallis. For hon. Members who are not familiar with the dam busters raid, Barnes Wallis was instrumental in developing the bouncing bomb. He and Amy Gentry would go to Silvermere lake, where he would fire various projectiles from a catapult across the lake—sort of a high-grade stone skimming competition—and then he and Amy would row out to collect them to see how they fared. Barnes Wallis was a pretty serious guy, but when that they were rowing out to one of the projectiles, Amy pointed out, “Wallis, you may be in charge, but I am in charge in this boat. Sit down.”
After the war, rowing went from strength to strength. We were represented in the European championships in 1952 and in 1954, carrying all before us at the national and international levels. As a slight aside, at the 1954 European games Amy Gentry handed out some prizes to one of the crews, including to a young lady called Bette Shubrook, a member of the London rowing club. She had met her soon-to-be husband at the London rowing club on regatta on Boxing day. His name was Graham Hill. She went on to be Bette Hill, and she became the only person to be married to and the mother of a Formula 1 world racing champion.
Amy was instrumental in bringing the European championships here in 1960, and she was awarded the OBE in 1969. She died in June 1976 in Stanwell in my constituency. The significance of that date is a sad irony: she did not quite live to see the moment one month later when women were allowed to compete in rowing in the Olympic games, in Montreal.
In the Oxford and Cambridge boat race, when the women’s crews go under Barnes bridge in the latter stages of the race, they pass a huge pub on the south bank of the River Thames called the White Hart, which is at the end of White Hart Lane, where Amy Gentry was born. If hon. Members happen to be watching in a month’s time and see that moment, perhaps they will join me in raising a glass to the remarkable woman, Amy Gentry.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I thank the Government for holding this debate in Government time. I had applied for a Backbench Business debate as a back-up, as I normally do, but now that we have a Labour Government I can probably stop doing that.
I need to apologise for my voice. I was going to blame it on a cold, but actually I was at the Trans Mission concert yesterday at Wembley arena, where I was shouting quite loudly that trans rights are human rights and singing along to Beverley Knight’s “Everything’s Gonna Be Alright.” It reminded me of the saying that everything will be all right in the end; and if it is not all right, it is not the end. Right now, things are not all right for women.
As the Minister stated in her excellent opening speech, women globally are currently at our most vulnerable. It feels worse than it has been in a long time. With the influencers, the brain rot of social media, the increasing lack of legislation around bodily autonomy and, as we have heard many times, men influencing boys on what a perfect woman should be, with detailed instructions on how to abuse women and girls, we as women are in serious danger, and we need protection. International Women’s Day is the day to tell some truths.
For many of us, progress has not been made by us being welcomed in the room; progress has been made by us taking up room. Progress has been made by us taking up space. I thank all the women in my constituency in Brent who have taken up space, even when as women we have been told, “You don’t belong here,” or “They’re letting anyone in nowadays,” which was once said to me by an MP on the Terrace.
That is not the only thing that has been said to me as an MP. I have been told that I am too serious, and that I am not serious enough. I have been told that I need to dress up, and that I need to dress down. I have been told that I should smile more, or that I smile too much; that I am too confident, or I am not confident enough; that I talk about black issues too much, and that I do not talk about black issues enough; and that I talk about women’s issues all the time but do not talk about men’s issues. The reality is, I have been here for all the International Men’s Day debates, when there has been nobody on the Conservative Benches. Nobody can accuse me of not being an equal opportunity debater. The truth is this: you cannot win, and you will never win if you are trying to fit into anyone else’s expectations. Some people try to make you feel so small; they try to strip away who you are, so that you no longer recognise yourself. The hallmark of those people is that they are unhappy in their own life—they often have a small appendix—so they will try to put others down. The worst thing that we can do to ourselves is allow that to happen, because in life, we women need all the strength we can get, just to survive.
After my cancer diagnosis and while writing my book, “A Purposeful Life”, I recall deciding that I wanted to be mayor of London. There were many positive responses to that, for which I am eternally grateful—I will be tapping those people up for the campaign—but they were mixed with responses like, “Oh, there’s never been a black mayor”, “Oh, there’s never been a female mayor”, and, “What makes you think you can do it? What have you done? What have you delivered? It’s a man’s job, isn’t it?”. People said that I should stay in my lane. The truth is, my lane is wherever I say it is. I will slay in my lane, and I will achieve my ambitions.
I have learned something important on my political journey: when we give our voices, our time and our courage, we do not lose; we learn, and we gain. I have gained so much: I have gained friends, knowledge, and the power to change things for the better. I have made it my mission to pave the way for others. I do not always succeed, and sometimes people let you down—that is just life—but sometimes I do succeed. I gave two female MPs in this place their first job in Parliament: my hon. Friend, and dear friend, the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes)—two women who are now doing a phenomenal job for their constituents. That is what can happen when you give; you and others gain.
I know what it feels like not to be taken seriously, and to have my experiences dismissed and my views belittled, and what it is like when people do not recognise the struggle or your greatness, so in this International Women’s Day debate it is time to tell the truth. I have been in many rooms where I have not fitted in, so I have come to accept that, and I have come to embrace standing out. I will wear my bright clothes—the outfit I am wearing today is from Dabra, Madam Deputy Speaker—I smile when I am happy, and I will act confident, even at times when I do not feel confident.
The truth is that when women rise, the system gets better. Women are failed by the system and by some men—and women—time and again, whether it is the courts system or whether it is in Iran, Gaza, Afghanistan, Sudan, the UK or America. Women and girls’ lives are in danger all over the globe. I find it strange that although misogynistic men are part of the biggest, wealthiest paedophile gang that we have ever seen, no one is in prison. Even though the evidence is there in the Epstein files, hardly anyone has been arrested, and where they have been arrested, it is not for raping little girls and teenagers. We should ask ourselves, why is that? How is it that people will protest outside hotels, but not outside the Sandringham estate?
No matter the colour of a person’s skin, or how much money they have in the bank, if they abuse and rape little girls, teenagers or young women, and are part of a grooming gang, large or small, they should be punished, and should be in prison. It is our duty in this place to speak up, and to ensure that paedophiles are punished, without fear or favour. I do not care who they are; I do not care who they are friends with; I do not care if they are royalty; and I do not care if they are influential people. It is time for people to tell the truth, rather than pretending, selectively, that they care about women and girls.
A woman is killed every three days in the UK and every 10 minutes globally. A woman is raped every eight minutes in the UK and every few seconds globally. I want women and girls to be safe, not just in the UK but all around the world. This International Women’s Day, I would love for people to give comfort to the women who are struggling everywhere, whether it is at war or in the workplace. There is no hierarchy of women —none of us is free until we are all free, and none of us is safe until we are all safe. No one knows how strong they are until that is the only thing that they have left, but they should not need to be strong—they should just be safe. It is also true that women of colour are expected to be strong all the time, and we are tired—tired of not being supported, tired of being overlooked, and tired of our pain not being recognised, whether in the UK or globally. As we pour unprecedented amounts of money into artificial intelligence systems that make women’s lives less safe, let us refocus our efforts on protecting women and girls. If our starting point is to protect the most vulnerable women, then the outcomes will be better, stronger, fairer, more equitable and safer for all.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is always difficult to follow the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler)—I am genuinely in awe of her speeches, including the one she just gave. I was also in awe of the speech made by the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer). Like the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), I wish I had delivered a maiden speech that was anywhere close to as good as hers. Her passion for and her understanding of her constituents were very clear. So many MPs in this place do not understand their constituents or their constituency when they are first elected, but it is clear that the new hon. Member for Gorton and Denton is one of her people, and she really understands how people in her patch feel. Her constituents are very lucky to have such a representative.
I thought about how best to approach this speech. Would I make a political speech, raging about all the injustices, or would I talk about all the unseen women—those who are doing all the heavy lifting, but whom we do not talk about and do not notice? I thought about how best to put across what I thought, but honestly, I have had the busiest week in Parliament that I have ever had, so I am going to try to give a speech in which I do not cry. That is my bar for today. If I do that, I will have won.
A member of my team, Alma, is one of the most wonderful humans I have ever met. She was born in Denmark and spent a lot of time there. She was telling me that in Denmark, International Women’s Day is called Kvindernes Kampdag, which I have probably pronounced wrong. That means “women’s struggle day” or “women’s fight day”. It is about recognising the fight and the struggle that women face, but it is also about fighting and struggling for women. I thought that was such a good thing for all of us to think about, because that fight and struggle is ongoing; it has not been won.
As the hon. Member for Brent East said, things are not in a good way. Things are less safe than they have been for a very long time. We need to continue to support, recognise and fight for the unseen women. We talk about unseen work sometimes, and about the fact that there are women doing jobs that nobody notices. Let me tell Members: we would notice very quickly if those women were not doing them, because things would not work.
We are all here today, able to have this debate, because of a member of the House staff who ensures that these debates happen. It is her birthday today. I am not going to say her name, because she would probably kill me, but I want to recognise that she is one of the many unseen women in this place who ensure that we can do what we do, and that we have the time and space to make speeches. She has made the time this Thursday for us to speak about the issues affecting our constituents and women around the world.
A number of people have spoken about oppressive states, and what is happening in the many countries around the world where the situation, systemically and because of how things are run by the state, is becoming worse for women. Some of that is because of various religions’ extreme interpretation of religious texts, which requires women to behave in a certain way, but some of it is not. Some of it is just because we continue to have patriarchal societies throughout the world. Men are historically bigger and stronger than us and are able to keep that patriarchy in place.
There are hugely gendered expectations on young women growing up. That is made worse by the fact that they are on the internet. We see those gendered expectations not just in classrooms and on the television shows that young women see; they are in the games that they play online, and in the online spaces that they inhabit. They are everywhere that women are expected to be subservient to men.
A number of us have spoken about women having to be better than men to get to the same position. I have spoken a lot about the phrase “hard-working families”. Sometimes, when people say “hard-working families”, they mean middle-class families; they mean people earning £40,000 or £50,000 a year. They do not mean people working as carers. They do not mean people trying to get four kids out the door in the morning, with the right shoes on the right feet. They do not mean the people doing the everyday jobs that we desperately need done. They do not mean the bus drivers, or the people working to ensure that all our lives run smoothly.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) mentioned the way that we look at society, and the value that we give to rules. I have been thinking for a long time that we should really tip this issue on its head. We should think, “Which jobs do we need people to do?” We need people to be carers. We need people to look after children in nurseries. We need people to be teachers, nurses and doctors. We need people to do all the public-sector roles that we desperately need. However, we do not value those roles. We do not pay those people more than the living wage, in a lot of cases. Those are the people whose jobs we desperately need or society would fall apart, yet for some reason, we continue to think it is okay that they continue to be at the bottom of the pile. These jobs are overwhelmingly jobs that women are in, and we need to think about the gendered expectation that women will continue to do all of the hard work and we will pay them very little for doing so. Imagine if they did not—imagine if women went on strike. Imagine if every woman we know who is working in every job we know went on strike. How quickly society would fall apart if the women stopped doing all of that work that we do not see!
That is why we need to fight for all of those unseen women doing those unseen jobs. We need to fight so that we can ensure it is not just women who are filling those roles; we need equal opportunities at the top of the pile and at the bottom of the pile. We need to be able to lift women out of some of those roles, but we also need to ensure that men can take up some of those roles. Perhaps we would get more pay for carers if more men were carers—there are some, but I think that would tip things in a good direction.
I have a couple more things to say in relation to Parliament. I thought it was really interesting that the statement on the defending democracy taskforce took place just before this debate. I struggle more than I ever have to tell young women to come to Parliament and become an elected representative. It is harder than it has ever been. Part of that is because of social media and the toxic climate that there can be, particularly out in the world where there is so much polarisation and ideological position-taking, which results in the abuse that women and Members from ethnic minority backgrounds face. Standing in front of a class of young women and people from a variety of different ethnic backgrounds, it is very hard to say to them, “This is a great job—you should do it.” What I find myself saying to them is, “This is a really hard job. This is a job where you will face abuse, but it is worth it to make a difference.” I think that, across the parties, we are genuinely all working together to try to ensure that democracy is defended and that younger people—or older people—thinking about going into politics can truly consider doing so, and can take on those roles without fear that they will be abused.
Again, the hon. Member for Brent East talked about the expectations on women. I remember doing BBC TV—I think it was the Queen’s Speech. I was sitting there, and the journalist turned to me when Theresa May got out of the car and said, “What do you think of Theresa May’s outfit?” I was like, “Um, she looks very resolute?” He said, “Okay, you’re right, I shouldn’t have asked you that. I’ll ask the man on the panel instead—what do you think of Theresa May’s outfit?” That’s not the point. It is not about what Theresa May is wearing; it is about what she is doing and the importance of this moment. Whether I agreed or disagreed with the Conservative Prime Minister, she was stepping out of that car as Prime Minister. It was really important, and talking about what she was wearing was not the right thing to do in that moment.
The hon. Member for Brent East talked about those expectations—about being too smiley or not smiley enough—and the fact that we simply cannot win. No matter what abuse is thrown at me, I guarantee that I have said worse to myself. I am my own greatest critic, as are many of the women who I meet and know across Parliament. I am the SNP’s only woman MP right now, because of being wiped out by you guys, frankly. It is not that we did not stand lots of women—we did—it was just bad electoral luck on our part and losing lots of seats. As the only woman MP in the SNP, finding that fellowship and support across the House is really difficult right now, so I have been happy to support and work with people who are organising the women’s caucus and trying to get it off the ground, for the sake of people like me and women in other parties—particularly small parties—who do not have those natural relationships within our parties. We cannot find those people unless we happen to bump into each other in the Tea Room; we do not get that at group meetings. It is really important that we push forward with the women’s caucus, so that women can have that place where we get support; I commend all the Members who have worked really hard in trying to bring it forward.
The last thing I want to touch on is menopause, because Members are right: it is not talked about enough. It is not something that I ever heard discussed in my home when I was a child. It is not something that I knew existed. I am sure I knew that periods stopped at some point, but I did not know much beyond that. The more groups of women who are past their 30s I speak to, the more I learn about menopause. I just want to say, how unfair is it that itchy ears are a symptom of menopause? These women have everything else to deal with; they are dealing with so much rubbish. For anyone who did not know, itchy ears are a symptom of menopause—I think that is my public service announcement for the day—so if you hear women in your life talking about having itchy ears, be kind to them and give them a bit of support.
It is really important that we hold each other up, support one another and work on a cross-party basis to further the rights of women, and ensure that those unseen women are supported and that we pay an awful lot more money to people working in roles that, traditionally, have mostly been held by women, in order to recognise their contribution.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
It gives me great pleasure and pride to contribute to the debate. I have only been here 18 months, but this is one of my favourite debates in the Chamber because it gives us the privilege of listening to experiences from across the House and recognising women who make a difference in everybody’s local communities and globally. It is always inspiring.
It also gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). In a conversation that we had earlier this week, I uttered the phrase, “In this place, we cross paths more often than we cross swords”—proverbial, verbal, swords, not physical ones; I will leave those to the Serjeant at Arms. While we are here as women, and this is the most diverse Parliament that there has ever been, we are not homogeneous. We all bring different things to this place, including different perspectives, and this Parliament is stronger for it. That is why I also feel really privileged to have heard the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer). I welcome what she brings to this place, and welcome her to her place.
As has been said, the theme of this year’s International Women’s Day is “Give to Gain”, but there is also the UN theme: “Rights. Justice. Action. For ALL Women”. It reminds us that we must never accept that the work is done. We must never forget that what advances we have made can still be lost. There are still far too many women and girls across the world who do not have rights, cannot access justice and are denied education, healthcare and financial independence.
In the short time available to me, I want to highlight some of the women in my constituency of Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch who embody that theme—women who work every day for the rights, wellbeing and opportunities of others; women like Linda, Lorna, Christine and all the women at Tony’s Safe Place, an organisation that was founded four years ago today to provide support for those affected by suicide, bereavement and mental health issues. A group of women turning personal tragedy into compassion and practical help for others is an extraordinary act of strength in itself.
Anne Miller of Kilsyth Senior Citizens and the Old Library Management Group is a real force of nature in the community, working tirelessly to ensure that older people remain connected, active and supported. She has been known to chase me down when I have been doing my surgeries, and she is somebody I always love to see. Isobel Hughes and the welcome group at St Patrick’s in Kilsyth provide support, respite and friendship for people living with memory loss, and for their families. The woman’s name “GRACE” stands for the Group Recovery Aftercare Community Enterprise in East Dunbartonshire, where Lynnie and Yvette support adults who are in recovery from life trauma. The organisation provides therapy, recovery support and aftercare, and is rooted in lived experience and a fundamental belief that the need for aftercare never stops. GRACE is a powerful force for good for those rebuilding their lives.
Those women, and so many others across Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, give their time, energy and compassion to support others. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said earlier, that work happens quietly, without recognition, but its impact is profound. Such women strengthen communities, lift people up, and remind us all of the power of kindness and solidarity. That is why International Women’s Day matters. It allows us to celebrate those contributions while remembering that progress has never been inevitable. Every right that women enjoy today has been hard won by those who came before us. As we celebrate their achievements, we must also recognise the work that is still to be done, including tackling violence against women and girls, closing the gender pay gap, and ensuring that every girl has the right and the opportunity to lead, learn and thrive.
Today I place on the record my sincere thanks to the women across Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch who give so much of themselves in service to others. Their work reminds us that progress is not just delivered by Government; it is built every day in our communities by the people who choose to care, to support and to stand up for others. If we truly want a world where women and girls gain equality, justice and opportunity, we must continue to match their commitment with our action.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) on her maiden speech. It was an eloquent speech that made us think that she has been here for several years. I really enjoyed her description of her constituency, and of the people and organisations she now represents. I hope that the hon. Member does not get involved in fixing the plumbing and the plastering in this place. Her place is in this Chamber, and I am sure that she will make a name for herself and be a really good champion for her constituents.
This debate is an opportunity to mark the progress that we have made in improving gender equality and empowering women in all areas of life. It is important that we monitor that progress and assess where there is much work to do. The gender equality index is a helpful tool that looks at gender equality across all UK authorities. Wokingham scores in the top 10% of local authorities for women’s outcomes, meaning that women in Wokingham generally have better equality in pay, life expectancy, job progression and skills compared with women nationally. However, there is still a significant gap between women and men in pay, job progression and participation in civil society. That needs to change. It is, of course, very welcome that women are doing well in Wokingham, but that counts for little if their outcomes are still far behind those for men. That is why so much work still needs to be done to ensure that the gender balance is improved and strengthened for this generation and for many generations to come.
A very serious issue is when a lack of gender equality plays out in shocking and violent ways. Through casework, I have seen how many women in Wokingham are victims of abuse and violence, which is often linked to an imbalance in financial and physical power. It is a great shame that many women who are victims of domestic abuse feel unsupported and neglected by the police, the courts and other services, and are often left relying on charities.
The Government must ensure that survivors of violence against women and girls are properly supported in the criminal justice system, with mandatory training for police and prosecutors on the impact of trauma. The Government must also ensure sustainable funding for services that support domestic abuse survivors. On that point, I must highlight the vital work done by Vickie Robertson and her charity Kaleidoscopic UK, based in Wokingham, which helps women who have experienced domestic abuse across the Thames Valley.
I have also seen through casework that so much of homelessness stems from domestic abuse, because a financial imbalance means women often have to care for their children, and the accommodation offered is unsuitable for families. The Government must take action to ensure that victims are not forced to return to perpetrators due to inadequate temporary accommodation. It is clear that although some progress to close the gender gap has been made, there is still so much more to do to make our communities safer for women and to level the playing field.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
It is a real privilege to speak in this debate marking International Women’s Day. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) for her maiden speech. I remember that when I made my maiden speech nearly nine years ago—time flies—in the Gallery above me were my mum, my younger brother and my son, aged just 13 at the time. I do not know who the hon. Lady has with her today, but I would like to pay tribute to our family members. We lost my mother last September. I want to say that if it was not for other women supporting women, and their brothers and sisters and children, we would not be able to stand here to do our job. I wish the hon. Lady all the very best in her career.
There have been many advances in the fight for women’s equality in recent decades, and indeed the very welcome and much-needed action on male violence against women and girls since this Labour Government came into office. There has, however, been a frustrating stasis on some issues, meaning they have worsened.
Sexual exploitation has shown a clear and sustained rise in the United Kingdom, with an increasing number of women being identified as victims. We are seeing more UK-national victims of sexual exploitation, and at a younger age, yet the women and girls exploited in the sex trade remain among the most neglected in our policy discussions and reforms. I want to talk about them today, because these women matter and the harms they experience are extreme.
Technological change has reshaped our world, but it has also created new opportunities for sexual exploitation to proliferate on a scale we have never seen before, because our legislation has not kept pace and is not capable of keeping pace. Despite it being illegal to place a prostitution advert in a phone box, the same advert can legally be published for profit on a website, and traffickers have moved quickly into that gap. Pimping websites that act as a vast online brothel drive demand and supercharge the sex trafficking trade by making it easier and quicker for pimps to advertise their victims. They make it as easy to order a woman to abuse as it is to order a takeaway. They operate freely and openly because our legislation allows it.
A report published just weeks ago by the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner shows how adult services websites do not just host exploited and trafficked women but provide the infrastructure to initiate, scale and normalise their abuse. Nearly 63,000 listings for women were recorded at one point in time across 12 of these sites, and they attracted almost 41.7 million visitors in a month. That is just a fraction of an even larger marketplace, because additional sites are available to users. Nearly 60% of the adverts analysed displayed three or more indicators of trafficking or exploitation, which include multiple ads linked to the same phone number and “new to area” language.
Behind the numbers are real and severe harms endured by the women exploited on these sites. Survivors interviewed for the report talked about how they were groomed, controlled and advertised online without their knowledge or consent. A survivor, who was exploited alongside other women, said:
“None of us had access to the emails from buyers. They came directly through him. He answered as if he was us and then he would send me a message saying, ‘Oh, this person, you know, this is where you’re going to meet them and this is what you have agreed to do.’”
The use and abuse of women is directly enabled and amplified by the sites’ very design, which, for example, enables third-party facilitation. Survivors spoke of how traffickers and abusive partners created profiles, arranged bookings and made profits, while women themselves were controlled and intimidated. Despite third-party facilitation being a known red flag for trafficking, Ofcom guidance ignores that and portrays it as a safety measure.
Profiles on the sites also give the illusion of independence to mask deeper exploitation. Another survivor said she was
“being raped on webcam essentially. And of course, the people watching aren’t aware of that...the profile is written so it sounds as if I’m independent and enjoying it...how do you go behind a webcam to make sure that the woman isn’t being coerced?”
Meanwhile, buyers on some forums openly discuss which women are controlled and the benefits this has for them. As another survivor explained:
“You will see men sharing about...‘these girls are trafficked’...‘you can get away with doing this to her’...it’s just right there on the page”.
This is the selling and abuse of women in plain sight on an industrial scale, enabled by our legislative framework. It is totally unacceptable. These women deserve so much better. The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner is absolutely right to say that these websites are ready-made tools for abuse, and that the toughest action must be taken against them.
The all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation, which I chair, has been sounding the alarm on pimping websites and their harms for quite some time. The truth is that the current legislation and regulatory guidance are not acting or preventing harm, and it is traffickers, pimps and punters operating with near total impunity who benefit. Women are abused as if they are objects and suffer acutely. We are failing them. I urge the Government to pay close attention to the report’s findings and to act urgently on its recommendations for a robust review—one that includes survivors, and it needs to be prompt. A lot of evidence is already out there and the longer we wait, the more women and girls are suffering as a result.
What is more, the scale and ease of access of the online market is not only facilitating exploitation; it is, more widely, fuelling the dangerous rise in misogyny by normalising the idea that women exist to be bought, used and discarded. In an age when prostitution is glamourised, boys and men are repeatedly exposed to platforms that present women as sexual commodities, and that inevitably shapes their attitudes. The scale of demand for pimping websites should give us serious pause for thought in that respect as well. Shutting these sites down has a fundamental role to play not just in preventing horrific exploitation, but in shifting the attitudes of men and boys to promote healthy and respectful relationships. If we are to tackle male violence against women and girls, these websites have to be shut down.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) for a profound speech. She used the phrase “our humanity is the same”, and there is a profound truth in that. We in this House must recognise that there are people who disagree with that and want to tear us apart. I have a diverse constituency, which covers many different races, faiths and differences of views, and I treasure that diversity, because I believe our humanity is the same. We in this House must be very careful to fight against those who want to shatter that, tear us apart and take us significantly back in time.
Our humanity is the same as that of the women and girls mentioned by my friend, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), an office bearer on the APPG on Afghan women and girls. We must do much more to support women and girls in Afghanistan, and we must look afresh at things like international law to criminalise the mistreatment of women and girls to such evil degrees.
The Minister rightly mentioned the fight by trade unionists for equal pay. The first socialist in my family was my great auntie Nellie, who in the ’30s led equal pay strikes in the liquorice factories in Pontefract and became friends with Barbara Castle, who was, of course, responsible for the Equal Pay Act 1970. We should all be very angry about the fact that there is still considerable structural inequality of pay, and women now are paid less than men.
Our fight for equality now, which I believe is shared by us all, and which we must all share, faces new and much more dangerous threats, and we must redouble our efforts. We should not just be angry about that; we are legislators, so we must legislate and then see that legislation acted on. Otherwise, the future for women and girls—my daughter and the other children in my constituency and around the world—will become bleaker, instead of our seeing progress.
I want to speak about domestic abuse. One in 4 women in the UK will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. When I work with survivors in Glasgow East, I see how housing instability in particular is a barrier to my constituents fleeing abuse. I am dismayed at the lack of support provided by the housing sector in Scotland to survivors, who do not receive trauma-informed care and are not supported into safe, settled homes; instead, I have met women who, after suffering terrifying sexual violence, are forced into social housing in awful conditions and then face months of unknown male workmen coming into their new home. The social landlords are aware that the women in question have suffered. They should not have to ask for female workpeople to come to work in their homes—it should be a matter of course.
Women in my seat wait months for house transfers, meaning that their abusers know exactly where they live. A particular legal problem is when women are not included on the tenancy agreement for their rented home, which means they do not have legal rights to stay in their home and, when their relationship comes to an end, those women face eviction and homelessness. That is why the Scottish Parliament passed part 2 of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021, giving social landlords powers to transfer tenancies from abusers to survivors.
Almost five years after that Act was passed, however, we are still waiting for it to be made legally enforceable by the Scottish Government. I have been pressing the Scottish Government on the issue. In January, I wrote to the press about this disgraceful delay, and the next day the Scottish Government announced they would finally bring the provisions into force.
Despite the five-year delay, social landlords have had no formal guidance from the Scottish Government on how the provisions will operate in practice. They do not know how the courts or police will approach this, but it is essential for social landlords, and a poorly thought-out implementation will put survivors at further risk. I have raised these concerns with the SNP Government and am still awaiting a response.
There are organisations that do fantastic work to ensure housing stability for survivors. The Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance provides the infrastructure, training and monitoring necessary for social landlords to recognise and tackle domestic abuse, and it works very well in England. Just north of here, Islington council has worked very successfully with DAHA and significantly improved the outcomes for survivors of domestic abuse. In Glasgow, social landlords need help and support to make the improvements that they must make, and social landlords do recognise the importance of this.
I am determined to see survivors of domestic abuse get much better help and support, so I have asked social landlords to meet with DAHA. I am pleased that Wheatley and Govanhill housing associations and the Scottish Housing Regulator have expressed an interest in learning more and are willing to meet with DAHA. In agreeing to do so, they are demonstrating their commitment to supporting survivors of domestic abuse. I encourage others to do the same. We must do much, much better in Scotland for the survivors of domestic abuse, and I am determined to continue to work hard on this.
I wish to speak about one other topic. I am very proud of one of my local charities, Scottish Sports Futures, which does great work with young people in my seat. In particular, it encourages young women to speak up about their experience of violence against women and girls. That means that the young men in the charity’s programmes learn how to treat women as their equals and with respect. I cannot praise Scottish Sports Futures enough for working on this and giving those young women a voice.
Several of those young women in the programmes spoke with bravery about this at the charity’s annual awards event last week. A young woman from Barrowfield, in my constituency, spoke courageously about violence against women and girls, and the issue of youth violence more generally, which has had a profound impact on girls in my constituency, particularly following the killing there two years ago of a young boy, called Kory McCrimmon—his family faced their grief, by the way, with profound dignity and courage. I am proud of all my young constituents.
Politics is a matter of morals, and this is a moral issue. My moral obligation as their Member of Parliament is to do everything within my power to tackle violence against women and girls.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I thank all the women in this Chamber who really have slayed in their lane in today’s debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
“When they amputated my leg, they amputated a part of me. I see my body and I feel disgust, repulsion. I fear that my amputation took away my femininity, my ability to be yearned for; my womanhood pauperised. Trapped in a body that does not reflect my mind or my self.”
“Anorexia, unplanned, like an addiction, crept upon me. I ate less and became thinner. My wish: that nobody would notice my disability and I would simply disappear—a physical escapism. For the first time in my life, the eating disorder gave me control over my body; the way it looked, the way it felt. My frustration about my physical form turned into obsession; the obsession fed me where food did not: it gave me power.”
“Success became feeling bones left behind under taught skin; in knowing my pelvis protruded below a small waist, cheek bones were prominent on a smile-less face.”
“Anorexia was about the relationship between a despised body and a disciplined mind. Eventually, the mind was consumed too: a warped wasteland where fear and anger roamed. There was no escape from or for my self.”
“Weight: 4 stone 10 lbs. My body was breaking down, I was losing my hair, and my periods stopped. My menstruation ending ultimately saved me and my life. Somewhere, at the back of my head, I knew I wanted to have children. Eventually, I took the pill, my periods started again, I ate more. My desire to be a mother gave me a reason to get better, signalled a future and made me know choice once again.”
I wrote those passages 20 years ago, in my early 20s, while recovering from my last major surgery to my legs. I was anorexic for four years from age 14, and although I was physically better by the time I went to university, it took me until my mid-20s to have a healthy relationship with food.
I am not alone. Over the years, I have spoken to other disabled women about their experiences of eating disorders linked to their own body image and identity. Devastatingly, 20 years later—two decades after I wrote those passages— social attitudes towards sex, relationships and disability remain an enormous taboo, which means that disabled women are still going through that anguish, damaging their mental health, causing them to self-harm and eroding their self-esteem.
Actor and disability activist Melissa Johns, who has an upper-body limb difference, has shared her story. She said:
“I have a strong history of loathing my body. That never came from me—it came from society telling me that my body was wrong.”
Too often, disabled women’s bodies do not count.
Mum, social media influencer and wheelchair user Sophie Bradbury-Cox showed me just some comments made on her social media about the fact that she is a disabled mother. They included:
“There’s something horribly unethical about having children when you’re not able to care for yourself.”
Those damaging attitudes and a lack of awareness of the issues are leading disabled women to face barriers in public services, including accessing sexual, reproductive and maternity care.
In the last year, I have met two incredible disabled women: Carly, a Paralympian, and Sarah, an occupational therapist. Both have cerebral palsy and neither found out about their pregnancies until their second and third trimesters, respectively, because none of their clinicians considered that they might be pregnant. Carly Tait, who competed in the 2016 Paralympic games in Rio de Janeiro, soon discovered she was pregnant after retiring from professional sport. That was immediately followed by a lot of questions about whether she was capable of giving birth, in a line of conversation that she faced throughout her pregnancy.
Some people seemed to ignore Carly’s pregnancy altogether. On the last day before her maternity leave, a colleague approached her and said
“Oh my gosh! Are you pregnant?”,
showing an ableist view that someone like Carly could not possibly be pregnant. But disabled women are making babies, having babies and being brilliant mothers against the odds—odds that mean we face a 44% higher likelihood of stillbirth. That is why I have called on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to put inclusive maternity care for disabled women at the heart of our women’s health strategy, so that our womanhood no longer remains invisible.
But we need to go further. We need to finally embed the social model of disability into women’s healthcare, and implement the recommendations for the UK Government made by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2017. That committee found that the rights of disabled women and girls have not been systematically mainstreamed into either the gender equality or disability agendas, with disabled women facing multiple barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health services and professionals. I have lost count of the number of disabled people I have ended up mentoring who have self-harmed and attempted suicide because of sex, relationship and disability issues not being discussed, the lack of services and the absence of professional expertise to support them.
I am proud that our Government’s reforms will engender a high-quality and inclusive curriculum for all, but that must include the representation of disabled people in personal, social, health and economic education lessons at school. We must turn the tide of public attitudes towards disabled people, and particularly empower young disabled people to have more positive perceptions of self.
There are reasons to be hopeful. Green shoots of representation are appearing on our screens. “EastEnders” is currently covering a storyline about a pregnant woman who is a wheelchair user. This season of “Bridgerton” featured a subplot with Hazel, a maid played by Gracie McGonigal, and her love interest with dashing footman, John, without ever mentioning Hazel’s limb difference.
Instagram has become a burgeoning social media platform for brilliant disabled women who are super-charging the representation of disability and desire, and of being proud and empowered about the intrinsic beauty of our bodies and our selves. They are boldly forging the conversation about us being loved and in love. They are powering the narrative on disability and dating, elucidating new language about being in inter-abled couples, and navigating difficult conversations and acceptance. It is disability cast no longer as absence but as complete, full-bodied presence. To be loved is to be seen. It is high time our society saw disabled women’s whole selves, for only then will we create a society that treats disabled women with the dignity and respect we deserve.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Earlier, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) mentioned that it can be difficult to advise people to come into the role that we all do. She would be well served just by playing people a recording of what we have heard in the House today. This debate has been of the highest quality, and I thank everybody for their contributions so far. It has been a genuine pleasure to listen and be part of it.
We have had the whole gamut. People have taken the opportunity to big up their own constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) and the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) did excellently. I will not mention everybody because I cannot remember everybody’s constituency, but I will do my best. People have taken the opportunity to celebrate wonderful things in the country, and the wonderful people who saw a glass ceiling and jumped higher. It has been wonderful to be part of it.
People also did not shy away from the difficult things that we must do. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady), who both took the opportunity to talk about some really difficult things. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for her powerful testimony. She is somebody I always enjoy listening to in the Chamber, and I thank her for her contribution today.
The debate today serves many of those purposes. It gives us the opportunity to celebrate what is great, but also to talk about where our society and systems have failed women for far too long, and unfortunately, that is my role today. I want to raise a way in which the system has let down far too many people for far too long. I am talking about the crimes of Mohamed al-Fayed. I am specifically talking about his crimes, because I do not want to talk about him. Today is about the proud survivors who have done all they can to bring his crimes to light.
Al-Fayed, the former owner of Harrods, was a sexual predator. He trafficked and sexually abused hundreds of women over decades with near complete impunity. Well over 400 survivors have already come forward, and every day, more women take the brave decision to do so. Yesterday, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) powerfully described al-Fayed as Britain’s Epstein. It is a characterisation that she and I have heard many times from survivors, as we co-chair the all-party parliamentary group for the survivors of Fayed and Harrods. It is good to see another of our officers here, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam).
The scale of the crimes committed by this predator—I will not call him a man, because real men respect women—is staggering, but it is a mistake to think that this is the work of one bad human. Al-Fayed was supported by a network of enablers. He died having escaped justice, but there are scores of people who can and must be held to account. They include employees who identified, groomed and trafficked women for abuse; security staff who harassed and intimidated survivors into silence; lawyers who churned out non-disclosure agreement after non-disclosure agreement, while nobody thought to do anything about it; doctors who performed invasive medical exams and reported—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but as there is one live civil case, may I encourage him to exercise caution in what he says? It is perfectly okay to say anything about Mr al-Fayed, who is dead.
Dave Robertson
Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is really important, because there are some ongoing cases; I will talk about the Metropolitan police in a minute.
It is clear that we must do better. For far too long, survivors have been ignored. That cannot and must not continue. I am really grateful to the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, who is set to meet survivors very soon, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment yesterday to meeting survivors. It has taken far too long to get to this stage, but I am glad to see that things are finally starting to move.
I have had the privilege of meeting dozens of women who have taken the very brave step of disclosing their experiences to parliamentarians and people they have never met before. Their tenacity and strength has been fundamental to driving this agenda forward and making these recent advances. I am very grateful to all survivors, as I am sure everybody in the APPG is, but we must never take the trust that they have placed in us for granted.
The APPG ran a consultation with survivors, and we are really pleased that we have had dozens and dozens of responses to it, because we are clear that there is a huge network of people who have been wronged in so many ways by so many systems. It is astonishing how almost every time we have a meeting, there is something else. The scale of the failings cuts right across civil society and enormous parts of the state, and a huge amount needs to be done to recompense these people who have been so poorly served for so long.
I thank the Survivors Trust, which has been working with the APPG, and which provided invaluable support to ensure that we are working in a safe way, bearing in mind the trauma that survivors have suffered. In the coming months, I am eager to work with Members across this House and the other place, and anybody who wants to be involved, to make sure we build up a drumbeat of evidence about the scale of these crimes.
Wendy Chamberlain
The hon. Member is rightly and powerfully talking about the testimony of survivors. I join him in thanking the Survivors Trust, which has given us such invaluable support as we navigate managing a very difficult APPG. I want to mention two amazing women: our researchers, Kathryn and Jessie, who keep us right, keep us grounded, and have done a huge power of work, while we establish how we will take the APPG and the secretariat forward.
Dave Robertson
I am thankful to the hon. Member for mentioning Jessie and Kathryn, who act as the secretariat in a difficult space. They do that in and around other busy jobs. It is clear to me and the hon. Member that without their hard work, we would not have been able to do this. [Interruption.] They are far too good.
We are regularly reminded by survivors that for far too long, parts of their story, and often their entire story, was ignored. We are clear that things need to change and to move quickly. One of the things that comes up most regularly is the police investigation. I am glad that the Met, along with forces in Scotland and France, are investigating. The Met has now confirmed that it is interviewing suspects on suspicion of trafficking. That is vitally important, because survivors regularly bring up that the issue was not being taken seriously enough, and I am very glad that it now is. That focus is vital to maintaining what trust is left between survivors and the Met, but survivors still need reassurance that the force truly grasps the scale of the issue, and is truly working on this as fast as it can.
A frustration often raised with us is that the updates from the Met appear to be, “We will give you another update in three months.” That update ends up being, “There will be another update in three months.” Three months is not a short time, and when that statement is made a third, fourth or fifth time, it undermines people’s trust that things will ever come to a head, and that justice will happen.
I thank all Members who have spoken about al-Fayed’s crimes in this Chamber. A number of people have done so, in various ways. There are all those who joined the APPG, and all those who have spoken to me about the subject. It has been a real learning curve for me over the last year or so. It has been challenging for me; that is not to say that it is not more challenging for other people. I have appreciated people coming to me and showing trust. I want to repay that, as time goes by, and to move things forward for them.
A few Members have mentioned that the themes for this International Women’s Day have been rights, justice and action. We can see that this predator took rights away from far too many people; they deserve justice, and it is time for action to get justice delivered.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I expect to call the Front Benchers at about 4.30 pm, or maybe a little later, and I have either six or seven Members waiting to speak. Perhaps Members who are still waiting could confine their remarks to six or seven minutes, so that everyone can get in.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate. I pay tribute to the women and men here, and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for her powerful and moving account, and for sharing her experiences. She is a voice for so many, and there will be action because she is here. Thank you.
In Gravesham in my constituency, I have met many amazing women. I want to mention a couple before I move on to the substantive part of my speech. Nageena Hussain is a phenomenal woman. Last week, I met over 100 women, and we had a beautiful, wonderful evening together, in which we shared food at the breaking of the fast—it was phenomenal. I pay tribute to her, as well as to our business leaders, such as Sandra Hassan from Nell’s Café, who I nominated for the MP HERoes, which is Savvitas’s programme in partnership with NatWest. She is a business institution, and a business leader. I also pay tribute to Sylvia Mead, who brought people from wonderful Gravesham businesses to visit me in Parliament this week. These are women coming together to bring communities together, and there are many more such business leaders.
Women in Gravesham do great things, and I will tell the House a little about just one of them. Catherine Green grew up in Gravesend. She went to Gravesend grammar school for girls. She went on to university, to study natural sciences. She earned her PhD and completed many fellowships. She was part of the team at the Jenner Institute that developed the AstraZeneca covid vaccine. She worked with Sarah Gilbert, and we thank them for using their talents and expertise. When the world needed them, they were there, so I thank and recognise them for that.
When it comes to celebrating women and science, not all women in science have been recognised. I want to pay tribute to some who have not been recognised. Ada Lovelace is the mother, inventor and founder of computers, but that was recognised only 100 years afterwards. Rosalind Franklin was a chemist and X-ray crystallographer. She was not credited or valued for her research, but it was her X-ray image that showed that DNA is a double helix. Alice Ball was an African American chemist who discovered a leprosy treatment, but it was stolen and written up as the Dean method. That term was later changed, but still. Marie Tharp is the mother of plate tectonics. Those women were absolutely credible, and their names and contributions need to be recognised.
UN research shows that only a third of the global scientific community is made up of women, and only one in 10 of those researchers are women in leadership roles. Why is that? Well, women face a set of different challenges. One of those challenges is the motherhood penalty, from pregnancy and beyond. There are structural issues. In science, PhD students receive a stipend, and they are not employed, so they do not get access to maternity rights or Government-subsidised childcare. Maternity time is not really factored into their two-year contracts, so what should they do if they need to step out for six months or a year? Put their research on pause? Have somebody else come in and finish it? It means that they produce fewer papers, have less impact, and are less likely to see progress. Many women have suffered through that system, and have delayed having families until they have tenure—a permanent position. That is possible, but it does not need to be that hard.
That is just the pregnancy part. What about when the children grow up? Half of respondents to the Carers in STEMM report said that they had to cancel travel plans because of care responsibilities—I have experienced that myself. We might spend months planning an experiment, but then the nursery rings and says, “Come and collect your child—they’re ill.” Researchers in the field say that they do not travel to international conferences, where scientists network and bring ideas together, because of caring responsibilities. It is fine; we look after our families instead—but it all means that we are one step behind.
Others take career breaks, as I did. I declare an interest: I was the recipient of a Daphne Jackson fellowship. Those fellowships are amazing, because they help women and men return to science. The fellowship was named after Daphne Jackson, an English nuclear physicist who became the first female physics professor in the UK, at the University of Surrey, at the age of 34—phenomenal. She thought that qualified women who are unemployed or under-employed following a career break because of family commitments represent an appalling waste of talent and of the initial investment in their education, and I could not agree more. Many such women are eager to return to their original careers, or to field activity in which their initial education is relevant, and Daphne Jackson fellowships provide retraining, so that they can return part time. I thank and pay tribute to the Daphne Jackson Trust, as well as to the Francis Crick Institute, for supporting many women back into research.
After my meeting with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology—in which we discussed my career, the choice to leave science to raise a family, returning and trying to wiggle everything through to make it work—she launched yesterday a new charter to support women in research. It calls on all PhD funding bodies supported by UK Research and Innovation to step up and include 52 weeks’ maternity leave. That is about raising the bar and improving paternity leave, too; a rising tide lifts all boats. She also announced a £2.3 million increase in support for the Daphne Jackson Trust. That is over 100% extra. How many returns to science will that fund? It is incredible. The charter is a direction of travel—a marker. We are not done. This is a call for women researchers in the UK to tell us what else we can do, and how we can work together to make changes to improve science for everyone.
In my concluding remarks, I want to speak to all those young women and girls who are curious about science, and who want to help people or save the world: do not doubt yourself. The country needs you. Finally, to the men who support us and let us embrace our talents: thank you. Good men never finish last; they help us improve everybody’s quality of life. I believe that the profession of science has the ability to improve lives beyond measure. I thank the scientists who are making a difference. We see you and we thank you.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank all those who have contributed to this and other debates this week, including my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) and for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who this week have shown true bravery and should be an inspiration to us all. I also welcome the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) to her place and thank her for her passionate speech.
I want to thank and celebrate the amazing women who have played, and still play, a part in my life, including friends, family and my fabulous staff. They are truly inspirational in the love, support and grounding that they give me, and I hope that they know that I would not be here and I could not do this job without them.
This International Women’s Day, I want to celebrate the women of Portsmouth—my city—which, this year, is celebrating a truly special milestone of 100 years as a city: 100 years of community resilience and remarkable women getting on with the job and making our city the place it is. Traditionally, Portsmouth has been a city that celebrates its people’s achievements but, dominated by its naval dockyard, its history has often been a masculine one. But the women have always been there. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said, we would certainly notice if they were not. Teachers, doctors, nurses, city councillors, factory and shop workers, small business owners, faith leaders and volunteers are all pioneering equal rights at work and are all quietly cracking on and holding their families and their communities together. They did not, and often still do not, get the recognition that they deserved.
Members may notice that I often wear a necklace that says “Pompey Belle”. When I was teaching, a group of girlfriends in the National Union of Teachers and I began wearing them, partly in tribute to the women who, during the first and second world wars, kept my city’s heart beating while the men served abroad. But it is also a quiet reminder that we never face things alone, and that together we can achieve so much more. Whenever I put on this necklace, I feel like I am carrying the support of those women with me: women who are kind, intelligent and determined and who get things done. These necklaces are also made by Hip Hip Hooray, a brilliant woman-owned local business—local creativity celebrating our women.
To mark our city’s century, I am proud to be joining forces with others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), to launch the “100 Pompey Belles”—a campaign to truly recognise the unsung, amazing heroines of our city. The “100 Pompey Belles” are the women who show up every single day; the women who do not seek the spotlight but, without whom, Portsmouth simply would not function. These women are in all parts of my city and of all ages and of all backgrounds, and I am privileged to meet so many of them in this role as the Portsmouth North Member of Parliament. I am so often very humbled, and many times reduced to tears, by all the pride, strength, openness, trust and resilience that they demonstrate day after day, night after night, week after week.
With this year’s theme of “Give to Gain” I want to recognise the absolute queens in my city, because my city really does gain from them. Nominations will open soon, and I would love to see as many local women as possible get involved. I would love their friends, families, colleagues and neighbours to put their names forward, because we know that, too often, they will not do it themselves. We want to celebrate them and all that they do, from breaking barriers in science to running food banks, teaching and coaching our children, caring for our most vulnerable, running our small and large businesses and simply holding our communities together. Portsmouth women have always been extraordinary, and they have always been proud. To every Pompey Belle in this House and beyond: thank you for being you, and for all you do for others and for our city.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
We have had an excellent debate, with so many brilliant contributions, but I would like to single out three in particular. The hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) made a brilliant maiden speech. I am sure she will continue to make many colourful and inspiring contributions in her years ahead in this place, and it is always a joy to welcome another northern woman to the Chamber.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) should pick whatever lane she would like—I will gladly follow. The important thing is that she keeps driving ahead.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) reminded us that whatever our differences, we always have more in common than that which divides us. Madam Deputy Speaker, you were not in the Chair for her remarks, when she talked about strike action by women, but I caution the three Deputy Speakers not to go on strike, as I really dread to think what would happen to this place—with the greatest respect to Mr Speaker.
I put on record my thanks to my senior caseworker Megan Redhead who week in, week out strives to deliver great results and improve the lives of the people of Carlisle. In the last couple of weeks, she has achieved the most remarkable outcome for one woman in Carlisle in particular.
It is my privilege in this International Women’s Day debate to speak about another remarkable woman: Angela Burdett-Coutts, an overlooked figure from the Victorian era whose compassion, generosity and determination helped shape modern philanthropy. She was a woman who embodied “Give to Gain”. She was born on 21 April 1814 in Piccadilly, the youngest daughter of Sir Francis Burdett and Sophia Coutts. She inherited not only her family’s name but, in 1837, her grandfather Thomas Coutts’s immense banking fortune, making her one of the wealthiest women in England.
Burdett-Coutts, deeply influenced by leading social reformers including Charles Dickens, with whom she collaborated for many years, dedicated her fortune to education and tackling poverty and social injustice, earning her the name “Queen of the Poor”. Her philanthropy was extraordinary in its breadth: she helped to fund ragged schools, built model housing in the east end and developed the Columbia Market to bring wholesome but affordable food to the poor. She co-founded innovative projects such as the Urania Cottage, a home for vulnerable and homeless women seeking a new start in life.
In 1884, Burdett-Coutts co-founded the London Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which later became the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. She championed the protection of animals, becoming president of the ladies’ committee of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and commissioned the fountain and commemorative statue of Greyfriars Bobby. Her humanitarianism reached far beyond Britain, endowing bishoprics in Cape Town, Adelaide and British Columbia. Back home, she funded drinking fountains and animal troughs right across London. She also financed Charles Babbage’s early computing efforts and contributed significantly to hospitals and churches.
I first came across Angela Burdett-Coutts when I discovered that she had funded the building of St Stephen’s church in Carlisle in 1864. Having learned that she had financed the new St Stephen’s church in Westminster—just a stone’s throw from this place—the then Bishop of Carlisle wrote to her to inquire whether she would fund the building of a new church in one of Carlisle’s poorest areas, Wapping. Not only did she agree, and personally select the stained glass for the church, but she gifted a peal of eight bells, which on the church’s demolition in the 1960s were installed in the new St Elisabeth’s church in Harraby, where they remain to this day. In 1871, Queen Victoria recognised Angela Burdett-Coutts’s immense contributions by granting her a peerage, making Baroness Burdett-Coutts one of the few women of her era to receive such an honour in her own right.
Like all female pioneers, Angela Burdett-Coutts was unafraid to challenge convention. Possessing considerable wealth, she was beset by suitors. Many men proposed marriage to Miss Coutts, and she declined all of them. She did, however, propose marriage to her friend and adviser the Duke of Wellington when he was 79 and she was 33; he gently declined her. But that was nothing to the scandal her eventual marriage caused. When she was 66, she married a 29-year-old American, William Lehman Ashmead Bartlett. In doing so, she not only caused an outrage in Victorian society, but she triggered a clause in the will of her grandfather’s second wife, which stipulated that she must marry an Englishman, and in doing so lost much of her multimillion pound fortune.
Since discovering Angela Burdett-Coutts, I have mused not just on how stories such as hers deserve to be more widely known, but on how we should celebrate the female philanthropists and changemakers who did so much for people and wider society. So in closing, I invite you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister and all colleagues from across House to support not simply a statue or a plaque to female changemakers, but to support an audible celebration, featuring the Coutts bell from St Stephen’s church Carlisle, in a new national monument to the social change that women like Angela Burdett-Coutts and so many who we have heard about today have made possible.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in today’s phenomenal debate marking International Women’s Day, alongside so many remarkable women from across this House, including the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer), who gave an inspiring maiden speech. Although she is no longer in her place, I particularly thank her for her words of solidarity for our trans community, including trans women, who should never be forgotten in this discussion. It is appalling that the hon. Lady has already experienced intimidation just for standing shoulder to shoulder with our trans siblings, but I hope she knows that many of us, on both sides of the House, will have her back on that.
As a man, I approached this debate with a little hesitance, because I am acutely aware that the experiences being discussed today are not my own, but I also remembered how many women from across the House contributed so thoughtfully to the debate on International Men’s Day, and that reminded me that progress on equality has never come from working at cross purposes to one another, but from working together. The women who shaped my life, particularly my mum and my sister, raised me not only to respect women, but to champion them—to raise women up, to challenge barriers whenever we see them and to take that responsibility seriously in the work that we do in this place.
Since becoming a father to my daughter, these issues have taken on an even deeper meaning for me. When you look at the world through the eyes of your child, you start to notice things that you might once have taken for granted. My daughter is only six years old, and yet I have already heard her say things like, “I can’t do that, that’s a boy’s job,” or describe certain roles as ones that require you to be “brave”—an attribute that she associates with men.
I can assure the House that my husband and I made sure that she knows that she can do any job that she wants to do, and that she is exceptionally brave herself, but hearing that from a six-year-old reminded me that, despite the progress we celebrate on International Women’s Day, the messages that children absorb about what women and girls can or cannot do can still shape their ambitions from a very early age. As a parent, and as a Member of this House, that is something that I feel a responsibility to challenge. Every girl, in this country and beyond, should grow up believing that her ambition is limited only by her talents and her determination.
One issue that I want to touch on, which has been mentioned by other hon. Members, is the perception of masculinity, and how that shapes the experiences of both men and women. For a long time, I have spoken about the challenges facing young men and boys, but doing that should never be seen as being in opposition to championing women and girls. In fact, the two go hand in hand. If we want a healthier society, we have to address both sides of that equation.
Wendy Chamberlain
The hon. Gentleman has made me remember something very important. When Sarah Everard was murdered, a number of us were lighting candles, and I remember having a conversation with my son and my daughter, during which my daughter, who was 15, told her brother about all the times that she had been cat-called and harassed on the street. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that the issue is not just about educating girls or educating boys—it is about educating the human beings that we are raising. Does he agree?
Josh Newbury
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. Allyship across many different characteristics is essential, but I have always felt that anything that men can do to echo and raise up the voices of women is incredibly powerful. We should take that seriously and not shy away from it in debates such as this one, where we may perhaps feel that our voice is not as important, as it absolutely can be.
Too many men and boys today feel disillusioned with politics, with opportunities and with what positive masculinity can look like in modern Britain. That is a real issue that deserves serious attention, but the answer to the challenge is not to exploit those frustrations by turning men against women, or to seek votes by weakening women’s rights, yet that is exactly the direction that some would take us in. For example, as we have heard, the Reform candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election suggested that people without children should be taxed for that, placing pressure on women to have children. That misogynistic view of women’s role in society should be rejected in the strongest terms.
I am proud of everything that this Labour Government are championing for women, including closing the gender pay gap. British women still earn 13% less than men, but the pay gap is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet. Large employers are required to publish gender pay gap data, but that alone will not close the gap. This is not just fiscal; it is cultural. Thanks to the Employment Rights Act, employers will have to publish clear action plans showing how they will close the gap and support women to progress.
Before they even go into work girls can feel, as my daughter has shown me, like there are things that are not for them—certain ambitions that are out of reach. When we look at the history of opportunity in this country, we are reminded of how much can change when assumptions and prejudices are challenged. One of the most powerful examples of that is the work of Jennie Lee. As well as being a true Fifer, as noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), Jennie was also one of my predecessors as an adopted sister of Cannock.
As the Minister for the Arts in the 1960s, Jennie championed the creation of the Open University, which was built on the belief that talent should not be limited by background, age or sex. The idea that someone could study for a university degree from their own home was dismissed by many as unrealistic, but Jennie believed that education should be open to anyone with the determination to learn. The result has been extraordinary: the Open University has educated millions of people across this country and beyond, many of whom might never have had the opportunity otherwise to access higher education.
That legacy reminds us that expanding opportunity is not simply about access to education; it is also about expanding the horizons of what people believe is possible for themselves. But equality also depends on recognising the barriers that women still face in other areas of life. Women’s health has been overlooked far too often, with conditions such as endometriosis taking years to diagnose and many women leaving the workforce because of untreated menopause symptoms. I am proud that this Government are taking steps to tackle medical misogyny, from strengthening rights at work to improving support for conditions that largely affect women and expanding opportunity through education and childcare.
According to a report published by UN Women in 2022, it could take close to three centuries before we achieve full gender equality. That statistic should give us pause, but it should also strengthen our determination, because progress does not happen by itself; it happens when we smash outdated assumptions and refuse to accept that inequality is inevitable. If my daughter and millions of girls growing up across this country are to inherit a fairer society, it will need all of us in this House to continue that effort.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The previous occupant of the Chair reminded Members that we need to start Front-Bench speeches at around half-past 4. If the remaining Members could keep their comments to around five minutes, that would be very helpful.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I will do my very best, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate Members on their contributions to the debate so far. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) on a very impassioned first speech about the rich traditions in her constituency of standing in unity and for humanity against attempts to divide. It has been six years since I delivered my first speech in Parliament during a similar debate on International Women’s Day, in which I paid tribute to our local history of women’s struggles for social justice, which continue to be daily sources of inspiration.
Today’s debate comes as the cost of living crisis continues to foster a sense of injustice, uncertainty and anxiety across the UK, set against a brutal backdrop of more than a decade of Conservative austerity and chronic under-investment in public services, which were left hollowed out and, in many instances, privatised by the last Government. The cost of living crisis has meant that women are more likely than men to lose their jobs or reduce their paid work, given that they are more frequently employed in sectors that have been directly disrupted by austerity measures and impacted by cuts and under-investment in public services.
Women, particularly black, Asian and minority ethnic women, continue to account for around two thirds of low earners, and they are more likely to be working on zero-hours contracts or part-time contracts. Ahead of the UN International Day to Combat Islamophobia this weekend, I am all too aware of how Muslim women are among the most economically disadvantaged faith groups in the UK, impacted by the prevalence of negative stereotypes, harassment and hate crimes.
The increased overlap of working and caring responsibilities has added to the ongoing reality that caring continues to be a major factor in women’s ability to participate on equal terms. Put simply, women still face structural economic inequality throughout their lives, which intersects with other structures of inequality, including race and disability. We also know that violence against women, including trans women, continues to blight our society.
I know personally that the impact of domestic abuse on the physical and mental health of survivors can be devastating. Four years ago, I faced a reselection process in which numerous complaints were made about rule-breaking and misogynistic intimidation, a process marred by the involvement of my ex-husband and his associates. As many Members will be aware, I was subsequently signed off sick from work. Although activists and organisations in the domestic abuse sector expressed alarm at my treatment, and my independent domestic violence advocate made representations on my behalf, the matter remains unresolved. The post-separation harassment and the institutional gaslighting and silencing goes on and on.
What I am reminded of by my lived experience is that domestic abuse can impact people from all walks of life and in all forms of employment, including those of us in public life. To this day, I still have women from across the country reaching out in support, and I continue to work with Members from across the House to call on all political parties to ensure that political representatives who are survivors of domestic abuse are not exposed to further harassment in their roles. I also continue to call and campaign for better protections in the workplace more widely, from paid leave for domestic abuse to mandatory policies on domestic abuse in every workplace, to eliminate domestic abuse in our society, because that requires a whole-society approach.
I am intrigued by today’s announcement of a new unit to look into intimidation experienced during elections, given that my ex-husband stood against me at the last general election with the stated aim of trying to “set the record straight”, after everything I had already endured. I will look at ways to contribute constructively to the Government’s work in this regard, because this is not just about me. No survivor of domestic abuse should be prevented from standing for office or staying in public life, having fled abuse or because they experience post-separation harassment.
We need to ensure that this place sends the right message to our country. In the light of the Mandelson scandal, we need an independent statutory inquiry into all of Jeffrey Epstein’s links to British institutions and figures, which I—along with over 70 Members of this House—continue to call for. I also believe we need an independent investigation into the activities of Labour Together.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, I am delighted to be working with Women’s Aid to ensure that no survivor is left behind. As we approach the fifth anniversary of the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 next month, this could not be more important, because we in the VAWG sector know that the weaponisation of violence against women and girls by far-right groups and political parties such as Reform harms survivors and ultimately impedes the real work of tackling the root causes of society-wide violence, to the detriment of women and girls. It has resulted in women fleeing persecution abroad facing even more danger here, including being targeting at hotels over the past year.
The Government have an ambitious commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, and our APPG welcomes measures in the VAWG strategy to try to achieve that, including the overarching, cross-departmental approach and the focus on prevention. The Minister for Safeguarding has positively engaged with us in that regard, and is also delivering on other commitments. However, I am concerned about the Government’s wider programme of austerity; the real-terms cuts to benefits, including the retention of the overall benefit cap and the freezing of the local housing allowance; and the continued injustice of the WASPI women’s lack of compensation.
I am also concerned about the ongoing assaults on civil liberties, which target those who are most at risk: minoritised and migrant women, including those from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. I hope that, going forward, the Government can address the areas in which migrant and minoritised women need our support.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
All of us in this House—women and men—will have been inspired by individual women, both in and outside our own lives. I have certainly been inspired by many of the contributions made by women Members today, and I have been proud to be part of the minority who are listening and also contributing.
I am proud to say that I have become who I am today because of many women in my own life. There are three I want to single out and pay tribute to: my mum, who brought me up, despite many personal challenges in our family; Sister Bernadette of the St Joseph convent school in Malta, who gave me the self-discipline that I hope I still have today; and Patricia Hennessy, who was an inspiring primary school teacher who helped me and so many others to believe in ourselves. I am sure that is why I am here today.
I am proud to represent a constituency that has produced so many great women who have not just inspired those around them but made the weather that has brought greater equality for women across the country. Every year, I visit the grave of Lady Constance Lytton in Knebworth Park. She was a suffragette who came from a privileged background but took another name so that her privilege would not give her advantages. She was imprisoned and force-fed. She carved “V” with a hairpin on her chest: V for “Votes for women”. Women got those votes, but she soon lost her life, and every year we pay tribute to her and all the women who gave up so much to get to where we are today. We have so much further to go.
We have other great women in Stevenage who are still with us today, including Barbara Follett, one of my predecessors. We are very proud of our Barbara, who helped to found the Labour Women’s Network. I stand next to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), who has been a stalwart there herself, because Barbara helped to lead the way. Much of the composition of the House is down to her hard work. Not only that, but she has improved the appearance of many of us in this House; I myself have been Folletted by Barbara, so I give her special thanks for that.
Baroness Sharon Taylor in the other place was the leader of Stevenage council for 16 years, and is now doing great things as a Minister in this Government, improving housing for so many people. Housing is what gives women a much better quality of life.
Those women are trailblazers, but in my town we have other great women. Our deputy council leader, Jeannette Thomas, is leading the housing revolution in Stevenage. We have a mayor of Asian background, Councillor Nazmin Chowdhury, who with grace and understanding exemplifies the best of women in Stevenage. Finally, our youth mayor, Charlotte Gregory, has been shadowing me in this place this week. She also helped to put together my notes for this speech, not all of which I can use, unfortunately. I thank Charlotte for being an exemplar of the future of women in our town and our country. May there be many more like her to come.
I will not talk about the great things the Government are doing—I will let the Minister set some of that out—but I fully support our mission to halve violence against women and girls in the coming years. It is a lot of hard work. We have to keep pushing at it, and I will support that all the way. Trying to get equality for women is not a zero-sum game; it is good for us all. It is good for men too. We all benefit from equality for women. I am proud to have taken part in this debate, and will fight for equality with every breath, inside and outside this place.
Dr Lauren Sullivan
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to make it clear that, as per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I am a visiting research scientist—an unpaid position—at the Francis Crick Institute. I forgot to mention that in my speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. Her interests are now on the record. I now call, to make a very quick speech, Calvin Bailey.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
“A very quick speech from Calvin Bailey,” said no one ever. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—this will show your influence over me.
In 2021, the Defence Committee published a landmark report on women in the armed forces. One of the most consistent things that came out of it about women who serve is their feeling that they fail to be recognised by the public. Our veterans do not feel that society acknowledges them, so the Committee recommended that we use occasions like International Women’s Day to make sure that those voices and experiences are heard.
Throughout my career, I have had the privilege of serving alongside some exceptional women. When I led humanitarian aid operations in the Philippines, I did so alongside Master Sergeant Aircrew Samantha Green. When I delivered aid to the Yazidi women stranded on Mount Sinjar, it was Flight Lieutenant Abbie Anderson who generated our beloved C-130J aircraft, and it was my very close friend Jen Bracewell who managed both me—as you have done, Madam Deputy Speaker—and the missions. When I commanded a frontline squadron, I learned from the venerable Wing Commander Caz Viles, who had commanded the Royal Squadron. I did so under the exceptional leadership of Air Marshal Suraya Marshall, who is without doubt one of the most outstanding military leaders of her generation.
Despite the landmark Sex Discrimination Act 1975, women continued to be excluded from frontline combat roles in the British armed forces until 2016. In fact, it was only when I entered the Ministry of Defence in 2018 that all the restrictions were finally removed. Over the past couple of days, we have all seen that a female F-15 pilot was shot down over Kuwait. We should all reflect on the fact that, although women are putting themselves in the line of fire, the people who deploy them are questioning whether their gender makes them suitable to do their job. In the extra five minutes that I would have taken, I would have discussed how these things are being challenged at this very moment. I call on all of us to ensure that we challenge them when we are given the opportunity to speak.
Although the armed forces are recovering and the number of women in service is improving, it is important that we point to the disparities in treatment that persist. There are good stories, but there remain challenges and inequities. I urge anyone who sees my very truncated speech to go and listen to the wonderful speeches that we have heard today, including the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer), which will all be very ably summarised in a moment.
I started my speech by saying that a landmark piece of work was done by the Defence Committee. It is therefore important that I recognise Lucy, Eleanor, Ines, Toni and Corrin, who sit in the background and tolerate the likes of me, and who helped us produce that incredible work. I thank them. I look forward to hearing the summing up.
Joy Morrissey
This has been an excellent debate, with some outstanding contributions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) on making her maiden speech, which was significantly better than mine. Her empathy, honesty and generosity of spirit will serve her well in this place, and her genuine pride in Manchester puts even Andy Burnham to shame.
I thank the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) for her excellent speech on FGM, and for raising this important issue. We also heard from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), who raised the excellent idea of praising her staff. I shall shamelessly copy that by praising my office manager, Aleksandra Turner, and my senior case worker, Mary Shaw. Without these women, I would be truly lost. I thank the hon. Member for her idea, and all the women who serve as parliamentary staffers across the House. Honestly, we would be lost without them.
I shall keep my comments to a minimum, as I know that the Minister would like to speak. I just want to thank everybody for these incredible debates, and for the incredible time and honesty that all Members put into their speeches. I thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), and I am sure that her campaign to be the Mayor of London will be a smashing success. I was the first female to make it to the final three for the mayoralty for the Conservatives, and I would be absolutely terrified to stand against her. I have no doubt that she would do a fantastic job for London.
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for her contribution, and for standing up for young women and girls on online harms. She has continued to champion this issue, not just in this debate but throughout her time in Parliament.
I want to talk about everyone—for example, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) really championed the issue of child sexual exploitation, which is so important —and I feel as if I am doing them all an injustice by cutting short my comments, of which I have a plethora. Please know, however, that it was an incredible debate to watch, and we do have more in common than we think.
With that—everyone will be happy to hear that I am bringing my speech to a close—it seems fitting to return to Nancy Astor, and I want to end with one of her greatest quotes. She once said:
“Women are young at politics, but they are old at suffering; soon they will learn that through politics they can prevent some kinds of suffering.”
We in this House have that chance for our women and girls. Let us take it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
First, I thank the Minister for Equalities for securing this debate in Government time. In the time I have been in the House, I think this is only the second time that has happened. I am incredibly proud to stand alongside her. I also thank the Opposition spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), for setting the tone for this debate, and everybody else for following that tone.
I have to say that I have felt tearful at lots of points—I do not know what is wrong with me, but it is almost certainly something that the mother of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) would not be pleased for me to say. It is either hope or anger, or just the fact that I have my period, that makes me feel tired, hopeful and angry in equal measure. I say to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) that if I get through this without crying, it will be a miracle. I just want to say a massive thank you.
As others have done, I had assumed—because sometimes I do not pay much attention—that this debate had been secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), who does us that service so well every year, through the Backbench Business Committee, but it was in fact the Government’s doing. I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield for her comments, and I agree that she would be—and I hope she is—a challenge to whoever she stands opposite.
I thank the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer), who made her maiden speech. When I made my maiden speech, I commented on how sexist it is for it to be called a maiden speech, and I said I was not a maiden because my children were in the Gallery. True to form, I am talking about my period and my lack of virginity, but I shall continue. It was an absolute pleasure to listen to her. I shall put aside my Birmingham versus Manchester rivalry, and say that she is very welcome here and across this House. I am definitely not going to repeat what I said when I first introduced myself to her, but to paraphrase it without being sweary, I said there are lots of lovely people here regardless of which political parties they come from, and when we work together we are always strongest.
I wish that I could go through everybody’s speeches, but I just want to highlight my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), a woman who I work very closely with. Campaigns we have worked on together gave me cause to cry earlier in the week. I would only say that she has ruined “Bridgerton” for me, because I have seen only the first episode, so I am irritated. However, she always speaks with such passion, and who does not deserve love? That rang out through the Chamber.
I would like to pay tribute to the towering figures of the past that everybody has mentioned who advanced the causes of women’s rights, but we have also all paid tribute to the women who, without fanfare and acclaim, support families and contribute to their communities every single day. I personally could not cope without the women in my life propping me up, making me laugh and just noticing the stuff that needs noticing. People do not notice how important that little act of love actually is.
We have spoken of progress and celebration, but we know we have far to go. I could highlight the women of many countries in the world whom many Members have highlighted. The women of Afghanistan and Iran have featured very heavily in this debate. I am the sister-in-law of a beautiful and now departed Iranian woman who died of breast cancer. She made her home in our country, because her country was not safe for her. The bravery of the women who stand up to be counted in Afghanistan and Iran should move every single one of us.
When we do not want to come here on a Monday morning, imagine the privilege to be able to stand and speak out in this place. The reason I stood to be elected to Parliament in the first place is that, while we are gathered here at the heart of our democracy to discuss these issues in comfort and safety, beyond these walls in every part of our country women and girls are suffering. They are being attacked, abused, harassed and stalked. At home, in public places and online, the scale of violence against women and girls shames our society.
Today’s debate is not the moment for detailed policy talk, so I will not do that. But I will say that I am proud to be part of a Government who are tackling this issue as the national emergency it is. That has been underscored by many people who have spoken about our commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. But we know that words are not enough. Plenty has been promised and pledged in the past without results. That is why our violence against women and girls strategy, published in December, had to be different. It must deploy the full power of the state to deliver the change that is desperately needed. It is just a piece of paper; it is just a document. I have always said that when it needs to be stretched and ambition needs to be stretched, then that is absolutely what it should be. Brilliant women and campaigners—and credit to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner—campaigned for what I am about to say, which was not in the VAWG strategy.
Before I take on the grim task of reading out the names of all the women who have been killed in the past year, I want to take this opportunity to commit the Home Office to funding and delivering the oversight mechanism for the recommendations made in domestic homicide reviews. We will put in place a system that strengthens accountability and ensures that learning is consistently embedded across both local and national agencies.
This is about turning lessons into action, not just letting documents sit on a shelf in some local authority. By doing so, we will drive the meaningful change that is so desperately needed, because those women’s names—they used to just be numbers, but now they are names—must enable us to change to prevent future horrific deaths. It has been a long and arduous struggle, but I do believe that, with drive and leadership, change will come. Tragically, though, it will be too late for the victims, whose lives have been ended by this scourge, and their shattered families.
That brings me on to the task at hand. I will now read the names of the women who have allegedly been killed by men in the past year, collated arduously every year for over a decade by the Femicide Census. They are: Anjela Chetty; Joanne Penney; Michelle Egge-Bailey; Maleta Rosevear; Carmenza Valencia-Trujillo; Rachel Dixon; Claire Anderson; Paramjit Kaur; Clare Burns; Sarah Reynolds; Hien Thi Vu; Rebekah Campbell; Paria Veisi; Tracey Davies; Pamela Munro; Aimee Pike; Elizabeth Tamilore Odunsi; Nnenna Chima; Kathryn Perkins; Margaret McGowan; Ellen Cook; Rachael Vaughan; Marjama Osman; Yajaira Castro Mendez; Miriam MacDonald; Mary Green; Mandy Riley; Samantha Murphy; Isobella Knight; Christina Alexander; Annabel Rook; Reanne Coulson; Nilani Nimalarajah; Irene Mbugua; Nila Patel; Sarah Montgomery; Angela Botham; Fortune Gomo; Phylis Daly; Gwyneth Carter; Stephanie Blundell; Brenda Breed; Vanessa Whyte, and her children, James and Sara; Courtney Angus; Nkiru Chima; Kimberley Thompson; Shara Miller; Paris Kendall; Sufia Khatun; Zahwa Salah Mukhtar; Niwunhellage Dona Nirodha Kalapni Niwunhella; Sheryl Wilkins; Halyna Hoisan; Tia Langdon; Ndata Bobb; Linner Sang; June Bunyan; Michelle Thomson; Ann Green; Shelley Davies; Anjanee Sandhir; Catalina Birlea; Chereiss Bailey; Sonia Exelby; Agnės Druskienės; Michele Kennedy; Angela Shellis; Stephanie Irons; Dickiesa Nurse; Natalie Egan; Colleen Westerman; Katie Fox; Lainie Williams; Lili Stojanova; Xiaoqing Ke; Julie Wilson; Maria Saceanu; Lisa Smith; Janet Bowen; Samantha Lee; Lisa-Marie Hopkins; Gilly Livie; Tania Williams; Gloria De Lazzari; Victoria Hart; Lisa Denton; Vanessa Pountney-Chadha; Helen Rundle; Anam Rafay; Rita Rowley; Amaal Raytaan; Carla-Maria Georgescu; Helen Bird; Angela Clayton; Naomi MacIvor; Carolann Barraclough; Jennifer Symonds; Ellie Flanagan; and two women in their 40s whose names have not yet been confirmed. Every single year, there is always a name that has to be written on at the end because it comes in as I am walking in—I say that to give the House an idea of how regularly this happens. That final name on this year’s list is Karlie Sone.
The following are women whose names have not been read out in previous years: Lat Parks; Delia McInerney; Lucy Harrison; Laleh Zarejouneghani; Judith Law; Jane Riddell; Dawn Kerr; Victoria Adams; Simone Smith; and Brigitta Rasuli. I am grateful to the women of the Femicide Census for completing the list—it was incomplete because the information was not known—so that those women can be remembered. I also want to take a moment to remember those who have died by suicide or in unexplained circumstances as a result of abuse. We commit to doing more, so that their names are not forgotten. The number of those women outstrips the number in the list that I have just read out by some margin.
We refuse to forget these women, who all deserved so much more. I want to once again thank the Femicide Census for the tireless work that goes into collating these names every year. We find it difficult to listen to them, but the Femicide Census look through every single story. I express my profound gratitude for the work that it does to raise awareness of women and girls who have been so tragically killed by men. There is so much more that I could say, but the list continues to speak for itself. I will finish by saying only this: may these women get the justice that they deserved, and may we honour them by preventing others from suffering the same fate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered International Women’s Day.
Fire Station Closures
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on fire station closures. I would like to begin by paying tribute to the bravery of firefighters across the country.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and paying tribute to the bravery of firefighters. As the Member of Parliament for Glasgow East, I wish to pay tribute to the brave firefighters in Glasgow who risked their lives to battle the fire on Union Street this past week, preventing casualties and saving Glasgow Central station. This fire is absolutely devastating for the people who made their livelihoods and fed their families by working in that building, which has now closed.
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, in Scotland under the SNP, 1,250 firefighter posts have been cut since 2013, and high-rise appliances—critical for tackling fires like the one in Glasgow on Sunday—have been slashed from 26 to 16? Two of those appliances were in Glasgow, but both were unavailable on Sunday, it is understood.
Brian Mathew
I thank the hon. Member for those points; he made them well, and I take them on. We should all think of what happened in Glasgow at the weekend.
Family members of firefighters from Wiltshire are in the Gallery, and I thank them for coming. I know of firefighters from Dorset and Wiltshire who would have liked to be here, but as on-call professionals, they are in their communities today, ensuring that cover is in place, and they will mobilise if the call comes in. We owe them all a debt of gratitude.
I have met firefighters at a number of fire stations in Wiltshire. They are dedicated local people demonstrating real pride in place, protecting their area, and they have genuine concern about what any proposals mean for fire safety in rural communities. There is a consultation taking place on the closure of eight fire stations across Dorset and Wiltshire. To put that in perspective, that is eight engines supported by nearly 100 firefighting staff who keep communities such as Bradford-on-Avon safe. The town’s fire station has served for generations, and the consequences of its closure would be profound. That goes for all eight stations listed for closure.
The crews attend over 500 incidents per year, ranging from house fires to flood response, from road traffic collisions to river rescues. Those are the emergencies that make the headlines, but the everyday call-outs are no less important to those in trouble, and they include freeing trapped livestock, assisting vulnerable residents who are stuck in their home, and ensuring that partner agencies know about any safeguarding risks.
The stations act as natural points of emergency response co-ordination for events that we hope will never happen, but for which they must always be prepared. Beyond the communities the stations serve, the closures will have an impact on the whole Dorset and Wiltshire service. More than 60% of incidents that crews from the eight stations attend are outside the station catchment area. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), who is also my constituency neighbour, has written to me to say that she shares the concerns of the fire service and the many residents across Wiltshire who are worried about the impact of the closures on our community.
Last summer, firefighters from Bradford-on-Avon travelled 50 miles to tackle a large wildfire on Holt Heath in Dorset. The incident was a stark reminder of how our changing climate is adding to the burden on fire and rescue services. Wildfires, flooding and extreme weather are no longer once-in-a-generation events; they are becoming part of the operational norm. In spite of massive flooding during Storm Bert in my constituency and, indeed, this year in Devon, Cornwall and the east midlands, fire services across the country receive no specific funding for flood responses. How can we contemplate such sweeping cuts to emergency response capacity and civil resilience when, in fact, more is required?
Since my election, I have been in regular contact with Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service leadership, who have told me about the increasingly challenging funding environment. Since the merger in 2016, the service has had to find savings of over £15 million, which has led to a 15% reduction in firefighter posts and the withdrawal of second engines from five stations. Though no one disputes the need to focus on value for money, the service is already recognised as outstanding for efficiency by the independent inspectorate. The service’s current operations are lean, and ongoing modernisation is keeping capabilities up to standard, but the obvious question looms of how any further cost pressures can be absorbed.
The Government’s three-year settlement has been a welcome aid to longer-term planning. Indeed, the Minister will be quick to point out the Government’s 4.1% annual uplift over this period; that arises because they are allowing the fire authority to raise the council tax precept by £5 to offset the 19.5% decline in central Government funding between 2026 and 2029. However, at the core of that settlement is the Treasury’s assumption that the area’s council tax base, which is driven by new housing development, will increase by 1.57% annually. That forecast contrasts sharply with what has happened to actual growth in the past three years, in which it has averaged just 1%. For the coming 2026-27 financial year, the figure is now confirmed at 0.9%, far below the Treasury’s projection. That is what it will remain for the following two years, and the result is a £1.27 million annual disparity. The Government have been clear: the multi-year settlement is intended to provide greater certainty for local authorities to take sustainable long-term decisions. The Treasury’s 4.1% uplift for Dorset and Wiltshire is welcome. The service is not asking for special treatment; the request is that the means are available to achieve the funding uplift on the ground, not just in an optimistic Treasury model.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for allowing me to intervene. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who is concerned about Wilton, has written to the Minister to request a meeting. I did the same at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. I very much look forward to that meeting—
Dr Murrison
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue is easy to resolve? The conundrum we are in is based on the Treasury assessment that he described, which was over-optimistic through nobody’s particular fault, but we can remedy it simply by allowing some flexibility in the precept. That would deal with the issue facing our wonderful fire and rescue service. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to those wonderful people, particularly the volunteers, who freely give their time to keep our constituents safe.
Brian Mathew
I thank the right hon. Member for his comments; in fact, I will go into some details on that now. Members from all parties will recognise that rural fire services face different cost pressures compared with urban ones, and rurality is not adequately addressed in the current or previous funding formulae. We must continue that debate but, in the face of closures this summer, an urgent solution is required to safeguard our community fire services.
If the Government are not prepared to review their central funding, the only options on the table, when the Treasury’s assumptions are proven incorrect, are station closures, or additional precept flexibility for the 2027-28 financial year to address short-term funding pressures through local rather than additional central Government funding. Dorset and Wiltshire’s current precept is below the national average for stand-alone services, and a one-off correction would bridge the funding gap while keeping the precept in line with that of neighbouring services. In the consultation on closures, residents have been asked whether they are willing to pay a little more for their fire and rescue services. I urge the Minister to study their responses and act on them.
I can find no recent precedent for such a large number of fire stations being closed in one year, and with them the loss of so many frontline jobs. Once a station is closed and its site sold, there is very little chance it will be reinstated. The hit to emergency response times and community resilience is essentially irreversible.
For the average household, the fire precept amounts to less than £100 per year or £1.85 per week. For that amount, we receive what is arguably the most important insurance policy any of us can have: a well funded, well staffed and well-trained fire and rescue service, ready to respond when the worst happens. All eight stations are staffed by on-call firefighters—individuals who put their communities first and who are ready to pause their job and family life at a moment’s notice, putting themselves at risk to keep us safe.
To my mind, the question is simple. The Minister can do nothing, and the stations that have served our towns and villages for decades will close, or, by allowing some adjustments and giving the authority the opportunity to raise the funding that the Government say the Dorset and Wiltshire fire service should get via the precept, the stations will remain open, providing the emergency response, civil resilience and capacity that our communities will need in the years to come.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) on securing this important debate, and I thank him and the Minister for giving me permission to speak. I am in danger of repeating many of the points that my hon. Friend made, but they are important points, and this is an important issue.
The proposals from Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service would see the closure of eight on-call fire stations across Dorset and Wiltshire, including the stations at Charmouth and Maiden Newton in my constituency of West Dorset. I recognise that decisions about station closures ultimately sit with fire authorities, not the Minister, but when the pressures driving those decisions stem from central Government funding settlements, it is only right that the Government are held to account.
If approved in the coming weeks, the closures would remove 16% of the service’s fire stations and lead to the loss of 72 firefighters. For many of the villages and towns these stations serve, they are the closest responders, and their loss would change the resilience of emergency coverage across our rural communities.
The proposed closures have understandably caused deep concern among my constituents. I have met the chief fire officer and senior management, representatives of the two firefighters’ unions and the station commanders for both Charmouth and Maiden Newton. I have also received a huge number of emails and letters from residents who are rightly worried about what the changes will mean for their safety and the safety of the many visitors who come to West Dorset each year.
The firefighters who serve our communities do extraordinary work. The stations at Charmouth and Maiden Newton, as well as the six other stations, are staffed by on-call firefighters—people who live and work locally but are ready to leave their jobs and families at the drop of a hat to respond to emergencies. They do so knowing that they may be putting themselves in harm’s way to protect their neighbours. In West Dorset, they are often the first responders to road traffic collisions, particularly on dangerous rural roads such as the A35. During the summer months they respond to wildfires and heath fires, which are becoming more and more frequent as temperatures rise. They also assist during flooding incidents, which our communities have experienced repeatedly in recent years, most recently during Storm Chandra.
Since the merger that created Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service in 2016, the service has had to find more than £15 million in savings and is under real financial pressure. That has already resulted in a 15% reduction in firefighter posts and the removal of second fire engines from five stations. Under the so-called long-term funding settlement offered by this Government, the authority has a revenue budget deficit of £1.2 million in year 1, £1.5 million in year 2 and £1.7 million in year 3. Frankly, I do not think “funding settlement” is the correct phrase.
The Minister will mention the Government’s decision to allow fire authorities to raise the council tax precept by £5 per year, which is said to produce an average annual increase in funding of 4.1%, but, as has been outlined, that does not tell the full story. The central Government revenue support grant for Dorset and Wiltshire is projected to fall from £12.8 million in 2026-27 to £10.3 million by 2028-29—a reduction of nearly 20% in three years. The fair funding model has, to date, removed about £1.8 million a year from the service’s budget. Put simply, the Government expect fire services to make up the shortfall the Government have created through council tax increases.
In theory, council tax makes up 73% of fire service funding, business rates make up 11%, and revenue support grant from central Government makes up only 16%, but the underlying assumptions do not work for our rural areas. Council tax revenue depends heavily on local population growth and housing development. In many rural areas, including Dorset, the tax base is growing far more slowly than Treasury assumptions suggest. Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service has already confirmed that its council tax base growth is below the levels assumed in the funding settlement.
At the same time, the service faces rising costs that it cannot control: increases in employer national insurance contributions; higher fuel costs, especially with the current conflict in the middle east; higher energy bills; and rising contract costs. That is further compounded by the fact that the funding model does not properly account for rurality. All this leaves the service in an increasingly vulnerable financial position.
Dr Murrison
I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has to say. However, does he agree that the only practical way of getting Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service the funds it needs to prevent the closure of the eight stations, including at Mere in my constituency, is to allow for flexibility around the precept? Otherwise, sadly, they will close. The structural issues he has cited of course need to be addressed, but they will not help in respect of the emergency that is upon us.
Edward Morello
I fully accept that an increase in the precept would be one option available to the Government, but I would also like to challenge the Government on the underlying assumptions in Treasury funding models, not least with the forecast population growth and the lack of rurality in many of the funding models across the board. We are talking about fire services, but I could talk to rurality in the funding of Dorset police, Dorset NHS or any number of areas. The fact is that rural Britain is repeatedly underserved when it comes to the Treasury funding model.
The result is that stations like Charmouth are now being considered for closure, with neighbouring stations, such as Lyme Regis, expected to cover larger areas without any additional resources. If local stations close, travel distances will inevitably increase, which means longer response times for fires, road traffic collisions, flooding incidents and other emergencies. Sixty per cent of incidents that crews from the eight at-risk stations attend are outside the station catchment area. In critical, life-threatening situations, small delays will have consequences. That is particularly concerning in West Dorset, where the population increases by 42% during the summer months due to tourism. Our narrow country roads, the wider effects of rurality, seasonal visitor numbers and coastal geography all create travel difficulties that are not accounted for in the formulae. Time and again, it is rural communities that end up paying the price.
A consultation on the proposed closures is under way and, like many, I urge all my constituents to make their voices heard. But the reality is that the service is being pushed towards these decisions by the financial framework that it has to operate within. Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service has already lost one fifth of its workforce since 2010. Removing another 16% of stations would push the service even further. I therefore ask the Government to look carefully at whether the current funding settlement for fire and rescue services properly reflects the needs of rural and coastal areas, and whether the current funding is undoing years of underfunding or, in reality, compounding it.
It is not hyperbole to say that, without proper funding, we are putting people’s lives at risk. I beg the Minister and the Treasury to meet Dorset and Wiltshire fire service to review the underlying assumptions and reconsider the funding settlement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for raising this important issue and setting out his concerns so clearly. I acknowledge the firefighters who have attended and welcome them to the Gallery. I am mindful that this is an issue of significant concern to many, including those who have travelled here today and those who feel passionately about this subject. He has quite understandably focused on proposals affecting his constituency, and I will address the points he has raised, while noting that there are, as he acknowledges, limits to central Government’s involvement in local decisions.
First, let me be clear: public safety is and always will be the main priority of this Government. I want to place on the record the Government’s deep appreciation for the dedication, professionalism and courage shown every day by firefighters and the support staff who stand behind them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) pointed out, their work saves lives and provides reassurance to communities across the country, as was demonstrated in the fire near Glasgow Central station on Sunday, which shows how much we depend on the bravery and rapid response of firefighters to safeguard lives and provide reassurance in moments of real danger.
Members will appreciate that decisions on how fire and rescue services are organised, including the number and locations of fire stations, appliance availability and crewing numbers, are not decisions for the Government. I am pleased that hon. Members recognise this and that they are rightly the responsibility of the local fire and rescue authority and its chief fire officer, who are best placed to assess local needs and demands.
All FRAs have a statutory duty to produce a community risk management plan in which they set out the key challenges and risks facing their communities and how they intend to mitigate them. Decisions on fire and rescue resources, including how staff are best deployed and the location of fire stations, are matters for each FRA based on risks identified within local community risk management plans.
Let me turn to funding. After a decade of short-term settlements, 2026-27 marks a significant change, as hon. Members have recognised. It delivers the first multi-year funding agreement for local government, providing councils and FRAs with the stability and certainty required to plan ahead and invest for the long term. Under the settlement, almost £1.95 billion in core spending power will be made available to stand-alone FRAs in England, excluding North Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. That represents an average increase of 4.71% on 2025-26 levels, rising to a total increase of 12.75% by the end of the multi-year settlement period. In addition, since the provisional settlement, an extra £15 million has been secured for fire and rescue services over the multi-year settlement. That ensures a minimum uplift of 3.8% in core spending power in 2026-27 for all stand-alone fire and rescue services, with some benefiting from increases of more than 7%.
Dr Murrison
I welcome the multi-year settlement, and so does the fire and rescue service. However, does the Minister accept that one problem is that the assumptions on which Government support is based—the growth of council tax—cannot be tweaked up or down, because we are looking at a longer settlement period than was previously the case? That is precisely the problem that we face. The solution being offered is precept flexibility, which would keep our fire stations open. In a sense, what we are talking about is an unintended artefact of the multi-year settlement.
Samantha Dixon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points. I look forward to discussing them with him further, as I will no doubt be representing the Prime Minister in our meeting. In line with usual practice, and in recognition of the views raised, the Government will continue to keep our methodology under review when calculating the core spending power of local government for future years. I have noted Members’ comments.
The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes mentioned funding pressures. Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service will have access to £79.5 million in core spending power in 2026-27—a 4.1% increase compared with 2025-26. That strengthens the FRA’s ability to plan, invest and deliver for the communities it serves. Although the Government set the funding framework, decisions on how best to deploy resources to meet core responsibilities remains the responsibility of the FRA, ensuring a locally led response to local risk.
I pay particular tribute to our on-call firefighters, who balance everyday lives, jobs, families and responsibilities with the exceptional commitment of responding to emergencies. Whether they are attending a fire in a rural village or a major incident in a city centre, their readiness and bravery command the respect of the whole House. In many rural areas, on-call firefighters are not just important; they are indispensable. Those communities rely heavily on their presence, their local knowledge and ability to respond rapidly. I firmly believe that the on-call model is invaluable to the communities that it serves. Although the Government recognises the challenges for services in which the on-call model is integral to operations, it can, with innovative and strategic thinking, work and offer real resilience within fire services. With sustained collaboration between Government, fire and rescue services and fire and rescue authorities, there is real opportunity to strengthen and revitalise the on-call workforce as part of a wider workforce strategy that sees on-call staff treated and respected as the professionals that they truly are.
To support that work, the National Fire Chiefs Council has published detailed research into the sustainability of the retained duty system. This work has been shared with FRAs to inform future planning, improvement activity and local workforce strategies. The Government continue to engage closely with the sector on this important issue.
More broadly, the Government remain committed to a reform agenda that supports the sector to evolve, professionalise and thrive. I am encouraged by the work of the ministerial advisory group for fire and rescue reform, which has brought together a wide range of voices to identify good practice and remove barriers to progress. I do, however, recognise that the funding formula as it stands is out of date. We are working on reforming it for the next spending review period.
Operational decisions rightly must remain with local FRAs. I note that the Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue authority, in which the hon. Member’s party holds the majority, is consulting on these proposals. The consultation runs until 15 May, so I encourage all affected residents, firefighters and stakeholders to participate. Meanwhile, this Government will continue to support the sector with stable funding, a clear framework for reform—of the role of firefighters and FRAs and of funding—and an unwavering commitment to public safety. We will stand with firefighters as they continue to protect our communities with professionalism and courage. I thank the hon. Member once again for raising these important issues, and I look forward to working with Members across the House to ensure that our fire and rescue services remain resilient, responsive and equipped for the challenges ahead.
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
Marriage Regulations
(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
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of modernising marriage regulations.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The gateway to my constituency, and indeed Scotland, is the historical village of Gretna Green. For centuries, Gretna Green has been shorthand for the potent idea that love cannot be constrained by needless bureaucracy. That really started in 1754, following the implementation of the Marriage Act 1753 in England and Wales. The Act was intended to prevent secret or impulsive marriages by requiring those under 21 to obtain parental consent, and forcing all weddings into the church with public announcements.
However, those strictures did not apply in Scotland, where a couple could legally marry simply by declaring their intention in front of witnesses. That legal difference created an immediate opportunity for young lovers seeking to marry quickly or without the permission of disapproving families. Gretna Green was the first village that these runaway couples reached after crossing the border on the main coaching route to Scotland.
In Scottish custom, a blacksmith was seen as someone who could symbolically forge relationships just as they forged metal. As the law in Scotland allowed almost anyone to conduct a ceremony, Gretna Green’s blacksmith became the wedding officiant, marrying couples over the anvil—an object that symbolised the forging of a new life together.
By the time the law changed in 1856, to require a 21-day residency period in Scotland, the village’s reputation as a romantic destination was already assured, and remains so today. Couples still come to marry in Gretna Green. Indeed, only recently, Bryn and Sandra flew in from Sydney, Australia to marry there, following in the footsteps of Bryn’s grandparents. Not everyone travels as far as from Sydney, but more than 4,000 couples from across the UK choose Gretna Green each year, with up to 60 weddings every Valentine’s day alone. In fact, one in five of all marriages in Scotland takes place in Dumfries and Galloway.
Two adults wishing to marry in the United Kingdom must now wait nearly a month—a full 28-day notice period—simply to formalise their commitment. When we can apply for passports online, secure mortgages and even complete divorces within a matter of days, that legal lag looks like an anachronism, wholly out of sync with technology, norms and modern public expectations.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman talks about anachronisms. Would he agree that the inequity between humanist marriages being legal in Scotland and not being permitted in England and Wales is an ongoing anachronism that should be addressed?
David Mundell
I agree. The hon. Lady will be aware that many humanists come to Scotland, and indeed to Gretna Green, to get married for that very reason. That issue needs to be addressed in the context of modernising marriage regulations.
Dumfries and Galloway council, one of the three councils in my Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale constituency, has indicated that it could complete all the necessary checks within five days, yet the law mandates a wait that effectively stretches to 29 days in real terms. In the United States, Minnesota and Massachusetts require a similar three to five days for checks, while New York and Las Vegas allow for marriages within minutes or 24 hours. The British overseas territory of Gibraltar requires only 24 hours, and Denmark, sometimes competing with Gretna Green to be the Las Vegas of Europe, requires just five days. In Denmark, a jurisdiction that the Home Secretary seems very keen to promote, the system protects against abuse and fraud while allowing couples to marry within days rather than weeks. Why can the UK not do the same?
This debate is not about weakening safeguards or making marriage easy in a way that invites fraud; it is about asking whether our system reflects the realities of modern life. Under the Immigration Act 2014, the UK Home Office already has the power to extend the standard marriage notice period to 70 days. If the UK Government already have the power to identify, investigate and disrupt sham marriages, why does every couple need to have their wedding delayed?
The public are clear. They want a system that is simpler, fairer and more flexible. A recent YouGov poll found that 88% of UK adults support the ability to fast-track the marriage process. With fewer than half of UK adults now married, we are witnessing an historic shift in the structure of our families. While shifting social ideas play a part, 61% of adults cite the rising cost and complexity of weddings as a key reason for the decision to decline the opportunity.
Inaction also has an economic cost. The UK wedding sector is estimated to be worth £10 billion to £15 billion annually, supporting countless jobs and venues across the UK, as in Gretna Green. Such venues are spread across the breadth of the country, and I am sure Members present have venues in their own constituencies that come to mind. By maintaining a needlessly slow process, more flexible jurisdictions will come to benefit more than Britain from spending on weddings. Many visitors from the United States now come to Scotland to get married, having seen “Highlander”, “Outlander” and other such programmes on international television channels and realised the beauty of the country.
I of course appreciate that the Government in Holyrood and the Scottish Parliament have responsibility for some of these issues in Scotland, and I would also be delighted to see the Scottish Government take forward proposals at the first opportunity, but in the absence of them doing so, the UK Government have the capacity to demonstrate a different way of doing things. I do not wish to pre-empt what the Minister may have to say, but she may reference the Law Commission’s 2022 report, “Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law”, and the announcement in October last year that the UK Government would reform wedding law.
Although the Law Commission’s report was extensive and thoughtful, its focus was largely on where weddings can take place and who can conduct them. It suggested moving towards a system focused on authorised officiants, rather than on licensed buildings, which would allow for more outdoor and home ceremonies—reforms that I wholeheartedly support. The administrative notice period, however, received far less attention in that review. With the Government already having accepted that marriage law needs modernisation, why not tackle the waiting time, too?
To be clear, this is not about deregulating marriage law, but about making it fit for the modern day through digital notice systems and more flexible waiting periods, the recognition of independent celebrants to allow personalised, but legally binding ceremonies—the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) has already referred to the opportunity for humanist weddings—and simplified documentation that reflects modern administrative capability. One suggestion has been the appointment of a marriage tsar to move forward the aforementioned modernisation. However, I am sure that if it is driven from within Government, it can take place.
Administrative delays are not merely bureaucratic inconveniences; they carry a profound human and financial toll. For many, particularly in our armed forces, these administrative hurdles are not merely inconvenient; they can be fundamentally incompatible with the realities of service life. In recent days, we have all seen service personnel deployed at short notice. That is part of being in the services, as are unpredictable posting cycles that do not align with a rigid, 28-day delay, and the marriage system’s opaque exceptions are difficult to navigate at a time of high stress.
Moreover, with the average UK wedding now costing more than £20,000, delays can lead to the loss of substantial venue deposits and the risk of escalating catering and other fees, which have also risen by about 24% due to inflation. This “cost of worry” creates uncertainty, where heartbreaking last-minute cancellations become a reality for those caught in an antiquated system. These hurdles, and the costs associated with them, effectively put marriage on the back burner for many who would otherwise want to marry.
The history of Gretna Green shows that love cannot wait, love should not wait, and neither should we. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that she will agree that the time has come to review the administrative hurdles that stand in the way of love today.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher.
I want to make a very small point. I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for the points he has raised, to which I would like to add. Following the Council of Europe recognising the Cornish language with part III minority language status, giving it the same status as all other Celtic languages, I am hopeful that the Minister will agree with me that regulations now need to be updated and the Cornish language marriage regulations brought in line with the practices in Wales, for example, so that the entire service can be conducted in the Cornish language, which is not the case at the moment.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this debate, which has made me reflect on the hurdles I had to overcome to get married.
I am a Roman Catholic; my husband is Church of England. We got married in the ecumenical chapel of my old university. That meant we had to apply for a special licence, which turned out to be an extraordinary document in calligraphy and with a seal. We had to get a letter from both our dads to confirm that neither of us was already married. We had to get permission from our local parish church and consent from the Catholic Church. It took a very long time to arrange all that paperwork—obviously because of the religious requirement, rather than Government administration.
I am happy to say it was worth the trouble, and my husband and I will be celebrating our silver wedding anniversary next year. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I take this opportunity to send my best wishes to anyone in my Richmond Park constituency or, indeed, across the country who is planning a wedding this year, whether in Gretna Green or not.
The Liberal Democrats firmly believe that couples should be able to celebrate their marriage in the way they want. Changes to marriage regulations would be small, but they would change the lives of so many people who want to demonstrate their love for one another in a manner that reflects their own religion or beliefs. That includes humanist celebrations. The Liberal Democrats made this case during our time in the coalition Government, but it was blocked by the Conservatives, despite 90% of the public supporting the legislation. We will continue to back full legal recognition of humanist marriages, in this Parliament and beyond.
In 2020, the High Court found that the failure to recognise humanist marriages was discriminatory, and in the summer of 2022 the Law Commission recommended modernising marriage law and breaking down unnecessary barriers to weddings for engaged couples. The Law Commission concluded that the law in its current state was out of date, complex and uncertain, yet still the Conservatives failed to act.
I welcome this Government’s intention to modernise our marriage law to recognise humanist weddings, as well as to permit legally binding religious ceremonies in the UK to take place, including Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu weddings. Many of those weddings involve beautiful ceremonies, joyous moments and ultimately the declaration of love and commitment by couples. Ruling such marriages as unlawful does not represent modern-day Britain, our values or the acceptance and welcoming of other cultures.
The Liberal Democrats firmly support the liberalisation of marriage law through the Government’s proposals, and we have long supported the need for reform. Enabling couples to commit to spending their lives together is a fundamental principle of British culture. Although we term these proposals as modern, the reforms should have been introduced a long time ago. The Government have stated that they will consult on their proposals in early 2026, and I would like clarity on the date the consultation will be opened, considering that we are nearing the end of the first quarter.
The legal recognition of more marriages will provide a boost to our economy, as the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale recognised in his opening speech. Allowing more couples to take part in legally binding ceremonies is expected to add over £100 million to the public purse, while providing a significant boost to the events and weddings business sectors, which are important parts of the hospitality industry in all our constituencies.
The Liberal Democrats are proud to have been instrumental in securing the legalisation of same-sex marriage during the coalition Government, with the then Lib Dem Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone, fighting the Conservatives to introduce the legislation. We long campaigned for that change, and the announcement that same-sex marriage would be legally recognised is one of the biggest achievements of the coalition.
Marriage for same-sex couples was a crucial step towards equality, and one that has touched so many lives for the better. The joy of getting to marry the person you love, surrounded by family and friends, is something everyone deserves the chance to experience. Although at the time it was considered a contentious issue, I am delighted that public opinion is now overwhelmingly in favour of same-sex marriage. That is not to underestimate the extent to which homophobia remains an issue in our society. In the year ending March 2025, nearly 116,000 hate crimes were recorded—an increase on the previous year—but recognising same-sex and other marriages has established a footing for social acceptance, and it is a step towards a more tolerant society.
The proposed reform to wedding law will have positive implications for family law. It will ensure that more couples enter marriage with a secure legal foundation, and it will prevent issues from arising where couples assume their religious ceremony is legally binding, only to find that it is not. Issues such as a lack of financial protection causing significant hardship on separation can be a result of non-legally binding ceremonies. The Liberal Democrats believe that modern marriage should be recognised under the law, and therefore that these couples deserve exactly the same rights as any other married couple.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)—who I consider a friend—on securing the debate. I could characterise him as a romantic perhaps, given his decision to focus on this topic, and I know from his early-day motion that he has taken a close interest in these issues.
From the perspective of the justice system, marriage is not simply a social institution, but a legal status that carries significant consequences in areas ranging from inheritance and family law to taxation, immigration and parental responsibility. Because of that, the framework governing marriage rightly sits within the responsibilities of the Ministry of Justice. With that responsibility comes an obligation to ensure not only that the legal framework is workable in practice, but that it continues to uphold the seriousness and integrity of marriage as an institution.
The statutory 28-day notice period, the processes surrounding registration, and the complexity of guidance for couples all deserve periodic scrutiny to ensure they continue to serve their intended purpose. Safeguards are essential, and notice periods allow registrars to verify eligibility, while also helping to prevent sham marriages or coercion, but the experiences of couples and registrars suggest there may be circumstances where greater clarity and flexibility would improve how the law operates in practice. However, any move to modernise the framework must be undertaken with care. Reform should not create a system that treats marriage casually or allows the institution to be diluted. Rather, modernisation should reinforce the seriousness of marriage while ensuring the law functions effectively in practice.
My right hon. Friend drew attention to the perspective of Gretna Green—one of the most historic and recognisable wedding destinations in the United Kingdom—which is in his constituency. For centuries, Gretna Green has occupied a unique place in the story of marriage law in these islands. Following the Marriage Act 1753, couples famously travelled north of the border to marry under Scotland’s more flexible rules. That history has become embedded in the cultural identity of the place and has helped to shape a thriving wedding destination that continues to attract couples from across the UK and beyond. Today, that tradition supports not only the ceremonies themselves, but a wider network of hotels, restaurants and local businesses that rely on the wedding sector, and for which my right hon. Friend is a champion and advocate in all the right ways.
The “Love Shouldn’t Wait” campaign launched by Gretna Green Ltd raises a number of practical questions about whether aspects of the current system create avoidable delays for couples wishing to marry. Although the MOJ must rightly approach such proposals with care, it is appropriate that we listen to the experience of those who work daily with couples navigating the system.
From a justice policy perspective, my right hon. Friend’s EDM raised several points: first, whether the current framework provides sufficiently clear and transparent mechanisms for urgent marriages in exceptional circumstances; secondly, whether the system of guidance and administration should be simplified so that couples and registrars alike can navigate it more easily; and, thirdly, whether the continued development of secure digital processes could streamline elements of the marriage registration system, while preserving safeguards against fraud.
However, in pursuing such reforms, we must be careful that the pendulum does not swing too far in the other direction. It is worth remembering that the question of modernising marriage law is not new; over the past decade, successive Governments have recognised that aspects of the legal framework governing weddings in England and Wales warranted wider review.
Most recently, the Law Commission set out a comprehensive package of recommendations for reforming wedding law in its report published in 2022. Among its key proposals was a shift away from the current system in England and Wales, which largely regulates weddings through the buildings in which they take place, towards a model centred on the officiant conducting the ceremony.
Alongside that longer-term review, the previous Government introduced more limited reforms where there was a clear practical need, such as the changes made during the covid pandemic to allow weddings to carry on. However, Ministers at the time were clear that more fundamental questions about wedding law should be considered comprehensively, rather than through piecemeal change. My right hon. Friend has also suggested the appointment of a marriage tsar; I do not know whether he is suggesting that he might be a candidate for that role, but it is something we should look at.
As a member of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, I wanted to touch on the contribution from the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), because I have a lot of sympathy for the point she made. The Conservative party has not reached a settled policy on it at this stage, but I am personally very sympathetic to her suggestion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale has rightly drawn attention to the experience of communities such as Gretna Green, where the intersection between legal regulation and real-world practice is particularly visible. By listening to those experiences, and by considering the practical reforms highlighted in EDM 2200 and the substantial work already undertaken on wider wedding law reform, Ministers can help to ensure that our marriage laws remain legally sound and practically workable, while continuing to respect and uphold the institution of marriage itself.
I once again thank my right hon. Friend for securing the debate, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on the concerns raised.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. Let me start by reiterating the thanks that others have already extended to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and by congratulating him on securing this important debate. What a pleasure it is to discuss something like love and marriage, as opposed to some of the slightly darker subjects that often detain us in all matters justice.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the modernisation of weddings and marriage law, as well as the important points the right hon. Gentleman raised about whether the current legal framework keeps pace with modern expectations and the practical realities of couples wishing to marry. Marriage will always be one of the most important institutions in our society, and I know that Members across the House care deeply about it, as do I and many of our constituents.
I start by paying tribute to the unique place that Gretna Green, in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, has in the history of weddings in the United Kingdom. When this issue first crossed my desk, my first thought went to “Pride and Prejudice”, which is one of my favourite novels. Gretna Green is the location to which Lydia Bennet and the slightly roguish George Wickham fled to get married out of sight of their parents. There are, of course, plenty of other good reasons why Gretna Green remains a popular choice for wedding ceremonies to this day. It carries a long and rich history, which the right hon. Gentleman described so eloquently. Sitting just over the border between England and Scotland, it was indeed often the first Scottish settlement that couples fleeing England and its stricter wedding laws would reach. Although I am glad it is no longer necessary for couples to brave a trip north of the border to Gretna Green to seek freedom by eloping, its reputation for romance and tradition, as we have heard, persists to this day.
As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the responsibility for weddings law in Scotland sits with the Scottish Government. As such, I cannot comment on specific aspects, but I recognise that the issues he raised about how the different systems operate across the United Kingdom, and the opportunity that this Government have to modernise weddings law, are part of a conversation that we in this House will want to have.
Let us turn to what the Government are doing to reform weddings law in England and Wales. As the right hon. Gentleman referenced, last year the Government announced the biggest overhaul of weddings law in England and Wales since the 19th century. Our planned reforms build on the comprehensive and important work of the Law Commission and its 2022 report on weddings law. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that report is both extensive and thoughtful.
The Government made that announcement because marriage is one of our most important institutions. At its best, it is a celebration of love, a symbol of enduring partnership and a deep personal commitment between two people. For those choosing to marry, it is a significant and meaningful decision. It is therefore important that the legal framework governing weddings is clear and modern and works well for those who rely on it.
Our reforms focus on two key areas ripe for change. First, the law will move away from regulating the building in which a wedding takes place, and instead focus on the officiant responsible for conducting the ceremony. That will make it easier for people to get married in a variety of settings, giving them flexibility and choice. Secondly, we will introduce a single set of rules governing all weddings, with the exception of retaining Anglican preliminaries. That will enable many more couples to have ceremonies that reflect their values and beliefs.
At the centre of the reforms is the Government’s commitment to protect the dignity and integrity of weddings as we create a level playing field for all groups. We will give couples more choice and freedom over how they marry, but ceremonies must always reflect the significant lifelong commitment that marriage represents.
To progress those reforms, and to answer the question from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the Government will publish a consultation early this year. I appreciate that it is already March, and as one knows, “early this year” can be a flexible concept in this place, but our determination remains to get on with that consultation, building on the Law Commission’s report. That report was comprehensive, and the Government’s consultation will therefore focus on more detailed aspects of reform, including the dignity and suitability of locations and ceremonies, and the role of independent officiants.
I want to address the point made by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale about the necessity of notice periods. As he said, under the current law of England and Wales, once a couple have given notice of their intention to marry, they must generally wait 28 days before they are issued their marriage schedule. He pointed to Gibraltar as an example of a place where that process is much quicker—having strong connections to Gibraltar, I know that is why it is an attractive jurisdiction, not just for John and Yoko, but for many others since.
The notice period exists to ensure that any legal impediment to the marriage, or any other concerns about it, can be raised and dealt with before the marriage is given approval to go ahead. The Law Commission considered the preliminaries process in detail in its report and emphasised the importance of maintaining a robust notice system, given the protections that it offers for vulnerable people and against forced and sham marriages. That is important.
While recommending that the process be modernised, including by enabling couples to give notice online, the commission did not propose shortening the existing 28-day notice period. However, it noted that the process could be made easier for couples, and recommended providing an online system for giving notice, as the right hon. Gentleman also suggested. The Government are carefully considering our approach to preliminaries and the process for giving notice. As part of that work, I will ensure that the policy team engages with international jurisdictions, including overseas territories such as the ones the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The case for reform in this area is compelling. It will result in a great many benefits. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale noted that the current law means that weddings, while good for the local economy, can become very costly for both couples and businesses. The Government agree that weddings can be far too expensive, so our reforms will make it more affordable for couples to get married. A new system to regulate officiants should make many lower-cost options much more accessible. Families will no longer need to fund two weddings—one that is legally binding, and one that is not but reflects their culture and beliefs.
Reforms will also see a significant boost to the economy, with the Law Commission estimating that they could lead to a 3% increase in weddings in England. Wouldn’t that be a fine thing? There are also a huge number of social benefits. We will make it easier for religious groups to marry in accordance with their beliefs, improving equality and preventing vulnerable individuals, particularly women, from unknowingly having a wedding without legal protections.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park for raising the issue of humanist marriage. They will know that the Government committed to allow non-religious belief organisations, such as humanists, to conduct legally binding weddings, representing another huge step forward to ensure that marriage law reflects the make-up of modern Britain. I look forward to seeing those plans come forward. I will offer to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), who is no longer here, on how the Cornish language operates within our marriage system.
Suffice it to say that reform is coming and the consultation is coming. We need a broader national conversation for the comprehensive reform that is required. Something as important as modernising our wedding laws for the first time in a very long time needs to be undertaken in a thoughtful, considered and comprehensive way. I look forward to seeing many of the reforms and the modern step change that will allow more couples to enjoy this precious thing long into the future.
David Mundell
I thank all participants for their engagement in this debate. I particularly welcome the Minister’s remarks and the tone of those remarks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said, it is important to reflect on the experience of the people carrying out weddings at this time, and few people are more experienced than those in Gretna Green.
I am glad that the Minister said she would look at other jurisdictions. As I said in my remarks, our Home Secretary has highlighted Denmark as a country with robust rules and regulations on immigration and illegal immigration, yet Denmark is able to consider whether a marriage is a sham or one of true commitment within five days. It is important to look at the systems that allow that to happen. The length of time is not, in itself, necessarily a way of ensuring an outcome if the systems behind it cannot detect the issues that we are trying to detect by creating a waiting period.
We also touched on the fact that people should not be put off getting married by the bureaucracy or cost. That is at the heart of this. A couple’s commitment to each other and wish to get married should prevail, and bureaucracy and cost should not be impediments.
On the digital issues, it should not be easier to complete divorce proceedings than to complete the forms required for marriage. The digitalisation of many of these processes should certainly be a priority. Having served in government myself, I am familiar with the time periods involved, and I know that “early in the year” might well progress to September—we always regarded the winter as going through to March or April. However, I hope that the proposals will be introduced soon, and that this discussion, debate and dialogue can continue.
As I said in opening, bureaucracy should not be an impediment to love. We should encourage people who want to get married to do so in the way they wish, while protecting the integrity of marriage. I thank all those who have contributed to the debate, and I look forward to its continuation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of modernising marriage regulations.
Carnivals
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for carnivals.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this important debate.
Carnivals have been celebrated in Somerset for over 400 years and continue to be wonderful celebrations that are of economic, social and cultural importance to the country. They are part of the fabric of so many communities: it is estimated that across the country, 220 traditional English carnivals still take place each year. They are often aligned with saints’ days or events in the agricultural calendar, which reflects their origin as part of England’s cultural life. Across our nation, carnivals promote cultural inclusivity and multiculturalism, as can be seen at the Notting Hill carnival, which welcomes over 1 million spectators annually.
Last Friday, I was pleased to bring local carnival club members, committee members and stakeholders together at a roundtable event in Glastonbury. It was a pleasure to meet so many dedicated volunteers who work tirelessly to make Somerset’s illuminated carnivals so special. I am grateful to everyone who took the time to share their experiences, concerns and hopes for the future. Carnival is their passion, and it is their deep commitment to it that keeps the much-loved tradition alive. The number of hours that each club and each committee puts into building and maintaining their carts and organising each carnival is simply astounding. Mini Sheppard, a member of the Mendip Vale carnival club, spends six nights a week committed to assisting local carnival clubs, while building and maintaining carts. That highlights the level of commitment that club and committee members give to carnival, as do so many others. For most people involved in carnival, this dedication spans decades; for some, it is a lifetime.
In Somerset, the tradition of carnival originates from Guy Fawkes’s foiled Catholic gunpowder plot of 1605. From those roots, carnivals continue to be an integral part of Somerset’s cultural identity. West country carnivals are unique in being illuminated night-time winter events organised solely by local volunteers. Nigel Clarke from Wells City carnival committee told me that
“it is our love for this tradition that binds the whole community together.”
Illuminated carnival parades occur in more than 30 towns across Somerset between August and November. The most famous are the magnificent seven of the Somerset county Guy Fawkes circuit. This fantastic circuit starts in Bridgwater and concludes with Glastonbury carnival, which will be held this year on 21 November. Glastonbury carnival celebrations can be dated back to at least the mid-19th century. Records show that in the 1840s, bonfires and a carnival were organised by the “bonfire boys”. A turning point in the attitude to Glastonbury’s carnival celebrations came in 1920, when the Chilkwell Guy Fawkes carnival committee was formed.
Other carnivals in my constituency are Wincanton and Castle Cary, which are both part of the Wessex grand prix circuit. The circuit was the brainchild of Keith Berry of Frome carnival association and Gordon Stockman of Castle Cary carnival society, and I am pleased to say that this year it celebrates its 41st year.
Given illuminated carnivals’ unique place in British history, they must feature on the UK’s inventory of living heritage. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that they remain a living part of our heritage and are not allowed to disappear from Somerset’s streets.
Not only are carnivals a cherished, integral part of Somerset’s cultural identity, they are economically significant to our region. Across the south-west, culture plays an important role in the regional economy. It is estimated to be worth over £1 billion annually, with Somerset’s carnival season generating over £40 million every year. The events provide a major boost to local businesses, with carnivals generating a large increase in footfall that supports the hospitality, catering, retail, leisure and entertainment sectors. Hazel DeGregorio, the chairperson of Glastonbury Chilkwell carnival, told me that more than 400,000 spectators attended the seven Somerset county carnivals in 2025, with more than 100,000 visitors gathering in Glastonbury for the day of the Chilkwell carnival. I can attest to that as I was there, and it was the most wonderful procession.
The magnificent seven of the Somerset county Guy Fawkes circuit contribute more than £4 million each year to Somerset’s economy. The tourism sector is huge for the west country’s economy, and illuminated carnivals help to sustain that economic activity during the winter months, bringing visitors and spending into rural communities during the quieter tourist off-season.
The benefits are not only economic, but charitable. Since 1980, more than £2 million has been raised through street collections at the seven Somerset carnivals, with much of that money supporting local charities and community groups. Behind every carnival are the clubs and committees that work tirelessly all year round, fundraising, building carts and organising processions, while feeding back into the local economy at every step. When we talk about Somerset’s illuminated carnivals, we are not only talking about spectacle, culture and tradition. We are also talking about jobs, businesses, tourism, charity and community investment.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I do not know whether you have had the opportunity to visit any of the Somerset carnivals, but they are spectacular and huge. One of the magnificent seven is, of course, Wells, and the second in my patch is Shepton Mallet. As my hon. Friend was saying, they not only contribute to cultural life but have an absolutely huge number of volunteers. They work on making carnival carts all year round, engaging young people in the activity. It is fantastic that so many young people—literally hundreds and hundreds—get involved in building the carts. They really are a spectacle, and I invite you to come down to Somerset to have a look. You will not see anything else like it anywhere else in the country.
Sarah Dyke
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution—it was not really a question. I wholeheartedly endorse her offer of a visit to carnival in Somerset; it is a spectacular sight, as she rightly points out. I will come on to her point about the importance of young people continuing to be a part of the tradition, and about the skills that they can learn by getting involved in carnival.
Despite the economic significance of carnivals to Somerset and the wider south-west, carnival clubs and organising committees face rising costs that threaten their long-term sustainability. The cost of participation has increased significantly: it now costs more than £30,000 to put one single illuminated cart on the road during a procession. The costs include materials, fuel—another significant cost that will increase this year, as we know—tractor and generator hire, insurance and health and safety compliance. All those costs have risen and continue to rise.
Historically, carnival clubs have sustained themselves through a combination of membership fees, local fundraising and sponsorship from local businesses, but with small businesses navigating a challenging fiscal landscape, many simply cannot afford to sponsor local clubs, no matter how much they value them. Given those challenges, I would welcome it if the Minister outlined how the Government plan to safeguard the viability of Somerset’s illuminated carnivals, and whether they recognise the financial damage that losing them would inflict on our regional economy.
Carnival committees also face increases in the cost of insurance, licences, safety infrastructure and prize money. Paul Burch, the entries secretary and lead organiser of Castle Cary and Ansford carnival society, told me that the cost of organising and running its carnival is likely to rise from £9,000 in 2022 to more than £13,000 this year. The carnival in Wincanton, in the east of my constituency, was revived by John Sansom in 1977, but sadly had to stop in 2009 for six years because of a number of financial restrictions. Thankfully, a local committee was formed in 2015 to bring back that much-loved carnival.
Volunteers are key to running successful carnivals, but with fewer volunteers available, some carnival committees, such as Castle Cary’s, are now forced to pay professional marshalling costs to assist with manning the road closures. For smaller carnival committees, the costs are even more crippling. South Somerset carnival park committee’s costs, which cover insurance, first aid, radio hire, barriers and road closures, now exceed £6,000 and are rising. These growing costs place enormous pressure on those volunteers and committees.
A key reason why carnival committees are struggling is the sharp decline in money raised through street collections. For generations, collections taken along the carnival routes would help to cover the cost of events, with a significant remainder donated to local charities. Reg Cohen, president of Glastonbury Chilkwell carnival, tells me that collections have been falling year on year, with the coins and notes that once filled collection buckets becoming far less common in an increasingly cashless society.
Those who went to carnivals years ago will remember throwing coins at a cart as it was going by. As we go out with less and less cash in our pockets, that happens less and less. Carnival committees in Somerset have attempted to adapt by introducing QR codes and digital donations, but in many of Somerset’s rural towns, unreliable mobile signals make that almost impossible. It is also very difficult logistically, because spectators simply do not want to be doing all that while they are at a carnival procession; they want to be watching the amazing illuminated carts go by.
Tessa Munt
My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. I thank her and my friend the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall, because it is a really important issue. I have been a carnival collector for years. I carry two buckets. In years gone past, it was almost impossible to carry them because they were so heavy with coins. Everyone used to save their pennies, tuppences and fivepence and tenpence pieces, but now there is very little of that money saved across a year. First, that is because things are tight: it is hard to live, so people need every penny that they can get. Secondly, as my hon. Friend mentioned, there is a lack of wi-fi. In fact, in parts of Shepton Mallet and particularly in the city of Wells—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. May I ask the hon. Member to come to her question?
Tessa Munt
Almost the whole of the way east of Wells is without any wi-fi, even for those who live there. That makes things incredibly difficult. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Sarah Dyke
I certainly do agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for her question this time. She makes a very good point: the income that was brought in buckets and thrown on the carts once sustained carnivals. Now, it does not go far enough to cover the cost of running them, especially with all the additional associated costs.
That concern has led to leading club and committee members in my constituency, including John Dando of Glastonbury carnival committee, Sue and Gordon Stockman of Cary Comedians carnival club and Dr Andrew Tallon of Mendip Vale carnival club, founding the Carnivals in Somerset Promotion Project to protect this unique tradition and prevent it from disappearing, which could happen unless urgent efforts are made to widen participation and increase support. I thank them for founding that brilliant project to keep our brilliant carnivals alive.
I would like to highlight not only what carnival clubs bring to Somerset’s culture and economy, but the opportunities they bring to members. At my roundtable, people told me about the vital practical, teamworking and social skills they gained, along with skills in engineering, electrical, carpentry, costume design, event organisation, publicity and accounting, to name but a few opportunities on offer within the carnival environment. Those are all vital, hands-on skills that can translate directly into future careers for younger members. That is particularly important in rural areas such as Somerset, where opportunities for practical learning and apprenticeships have diminished. For young people for whom the traditional education system just is not suitable, carnivals provide an outlet to develop skills, learn from experienced volunteers and contribute to their community.
In Somerset, 7% of 16 to 18-year-olds are not in education, employment or training, which is above the national average. Sally Taylor from Wick carnival club in Glastonbury stressed the role that clubs play in helping young people with SEND to gain skills and opportunities, but for that to continue, we must make sure that carnival clubs can access safe and secure premises from which they can operate. Kym Tomms from South Somerset Carnival Park noted that two clubs on the south Somerset circuit face closure, as they do not have adequate physical space to run their clubs. One currently has outdoor storage space only, while the other faces the expiry of its shed lease next year. Following more than a decade of negotiations, planning permission has finally been granted for South Somerset Carnival Park to build a new storage shed on the Dillington estate for four carnival clubs. These facilities are not simply workshops; they are community and educational hubs. Although planning permission has been secured, the clubs must now raise the funds to construct the sheds—a process that organisers say could take years and obviously adds financial pressure.
Carnival clubs across the region are facing umpteen barriers when seeking permission for the industrial-sized units needed to build their carts. We need a planning system that supports local enterprise and recognises when development will bring benefit to communities. Supporting carnivals and carnival clubs is an investment in transferable skills, strengthening communities and providing opportunities for young people.
Health and safety is absolutely paramount for carnival clubs and carnival committees. Since the late 1990s, organisers have rightly seen increased regulations designed to protect participants, spectators and volunteers. Since the covid-19 pandemic, sadly, Somerset council has not held any safety advisory group meetings prior to carnival season that include all the relevant stakeholders. Avon and Somerset police operational planning specialist Andy Newland told me that reimplementing this advisory group is key to enable these important discussions.
Due to the crisis in local authority funding, Somerset council has been forced to move to a risk assessment approach. That is why I am calling for councils to be subject to a statutory requirement to hold safety advisory group meetings with all relevant stakeholders ahead of carnival. With support from central Government for local cultural events, we can make sure that our carnivals remain safe and well-organised celebrations for years to come.
In the 1990s, Avon and Somerset police introduced a vehicle special order specifying the height, weight and length of a cart, known as “the box”. Diane from Harlequin carnival club told me that the approach has levelled the playing field for clubs in competition, as they are all building to the same dimensions, while also seeking to improve public safety. That is a good thing, but the restrictions have diminished the creativity and flexibility that carnival clubs rely on when designing the carts and the fabulously themed productions. For example, if a performer’s arm movement goes too far outside the box, that is a breach of the safety restrictions that have been imposed. Although I understand why the regulations on the box are in place while the cart is being transported along the highways outside of a procession, it is really important that we are able to flex the regulations to make sure that, while the carnival is in procession, it is as spectacular as possible.
To achieve the right balance between safety and expression, I implore the Minister to bring together the Vehicle Certification Agency and carnival clubs and committees in Somerset, so that they can voice their concerns. The clubs and committees are not opposed to the regulations and support sensible restrictions—they themselves called for stronger safety regulations to professionalise carnivals in the late 1990s—but they must be fair and developed in co-ordination with those looking to keep this tradition alive.
Carnivals are a wonderful example of community cohesion, brought to fruition by the hard work and commitment of local volunteers. They bring people together across communities, as they have for hundreds of years, and we must make sure that they continue to do so in the future. Put simply, carnival is part of Somerset’s DNA, so I hope that we can secure its long-term future.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I call the co-sponsor of the debate, Dan Aldridge.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
Thank you, Mrs Harris; it is an honour to serve under your chairship.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), whose passion for Somerset carnivals and communities I share, for their hard work in securing this debate. I am also grateful to see the Minister in her place. It was a pleasure to welcome her to Weston-super-Mare last year, so that she could launch her appointment as tourism Minister at the Grand Pier. It really mattered and meant a lot to my constituents that she chose my town, which is long overdue serious Government attention and investment. I thank her for that. It speaks to my values, which I believe this Government also hold dear, and to the reason that I fought to represent the town I love back in 2024.
We believe in these communities because we are them, and we need them to succeed. In this job, when we do something important, it can be all too easy to whizz by and think, “Right, what next?” but the debate on this topic matters. No Member of Parliament has previously considered Weston carnival as worthy of note, but an event so impressive and integral to my town’s identity and Somerset’s rich heritage deserves to be recognised, so I am proud to be the first Member of Parliament to talk about Weston carnival in this place.
I have thought a lot about the importance to my family of carnival and all the memories it has given us over the years. One annual tradition is for my mother to say that she is, “not going in this weather”, only to rally at the last minute with a pint of Thatcher’s—well done, Mum. Another is trying to find my sisters, nephews and niece, who insist on setting up camp at one end of town despite knowing that I like the other end of town, and getting across town is a bit of a battle. I am always grateful that my brother lives in town, so I can use his loo—and sometimes dry off—as the parade goes past. While my family try to find each other, we always end up finding and hugging friends, some of whom we see only at carnival because we have busy lives and it is difficult, so that is really important to us. The shops, bars and pubs also stay open to share these experiences with customers and friends.
Having thought it through, I find carnival has been there for some of the biggest moments of my life: as a boost and a distraction during some really sad family bereavements, as something to do when I had no money—that was the case for a few years—and as the background to some of the biggest decisions of my life, not least when a good friend floated the idea that I might want to be Weston’s MP, although that is a story to dissect at a later date. That is just some of the history I share with the carnival; the number of such stories across my town would be incalculable.
Carnival speaks to something fundamental in us all: the need for not only community, but light and joy in the cold winter months. The electric lights and loud music of the carts may be modern, but the spirit of carnival is rooted in something instinctive, human and ancient, just like our historic county. It is about not only resilience and community but defiance and rebellion, allowing us to shake off normality, let loose and extend the season that starts with Halloween and trick-or-treating. Weston carnival is also part of the run-up to Christmas, which I think is why I love it so much. When the Christmas carts come by, I will be singing and dancing to Mariah Carey’s “All I Want for Christmas Is You”. That tradition will live for evermore.
The relationship every person has with carnival is both personal, and shared across their community. That is part of what makes carnival special: it is for everybody, and everyone has their own memories, stories and traditions. It also maintains a deeply local feel, even though it would not look out of place in a Disney or Universal Studios production. When friends visit for carnival, they are blown away. They cannot believe that it is not as globally renowned as carnivals in Rio and Venice. Some people might sneer at that, but they should come and see it before they judge.
Interestingly, however, our best-kept local secret has started to get out. People have started to notice it on Instagram and TikTok. Millions across the world are starting to watch it, and the insights about where people are logging in from show that it sometimes correlates to where other carnivals are. People are interested in what is happening, and I really hope that that translates into them coming and visiting.
I will play favourites when it comes to Weston carnival, as I expect my colleagues will about their carnivals. We all genuinely believe that ours is the best, because place and community matter far more than some might think or believe. In a world of increasing disconnection, carnival is a beautiful, bright, singing, dancing advert for the power of human connection. We put it at risk at our peril. None the less, it is fair to say that to love my carnival is to love them all, because they are an interconnected ecosystem. They all depend on each other, and on a network of thousands of volunteers and families with skills and passion passed down through generations. They maintain, innovate and deliver jaw-dropping, heart-pumping “wow” factor year on year.
For children, going to carnival with their parents is a thing of wonder. It is the most amazing thing to watch young children with their families have these bright eyes and be so in awe of it. It is beautiful, but it is also fun to go with friends for the first time as a teenager—that is a rite of passage. Families stand side by side on the route, parents with bags of snacks and children with light-up toys that are immediately regretted as soon as they get in the car to go home. Every square inch of pavement in Weston is taken up by people who love our carnival, who love the town and who love each other. Those moments stay with you, and they speak to the deep sense of belonging that carnival creates and sustains.
I will talk briefly about the practical importance of carnival for our community. From young children to great-grandparents, people learn from each other, teaching and gaining practical experience in costume design, choreography and theatrical make-up. It is also a huge engineering feat. I really love that Weston college is starting to tap into that and see it as a strategic piece of infrastructure in the town, giving students practical experience in electrical engineering, metalwork, carpentry and construction. Those are exactly the skills that our future economy needs, and they are forged in coastal and rural towns that have been overlooked too often and for too long.
Many of us who represent seaside towns argue for money and strategies to help develop skills, attract investment and build year-round economies. In Weston-super-Mare and across Somerset, we already have a powerful part of the answer—not holding out a begging bowl, but saying, “We want to do this in partnership.” Despite our carnival still flying somewhat under the national radar, it draws more than 400,000 visitors from a worldwide audience, adding to the thousands of residents who turn out loyally year in, year out, bringing vital footfall at a time when coastal businesses need it the most.
Weston carnival is not simply a local spectacle; it has national and international significance as one of the largest illuminated processions in Europe. The thing I find most special about it is that it is built not by companies and corporate giants but by local people, who give their time and talent freely. Young people see their work light up the night for the first time and see the real, tangible impact of hard graft. Ties are built and strengthened across generations by thousands of hours of voluntary effort, building something shared that the whole town, county and country can be proud of.
Brilliant charities participate and raise funds, local businesses sponsor the carnival and dedicated volunteers, including a number of my friends, stay way past the event to clear up the litter when everyone has gone home. As a plea to everybody: make sure you clear up your litter and dispose of it appropriately; do not leave it for volunteers to pick up. But for those volunteers, no sooner has the year’s carnival finished than they are preparing for the next one. That hard work goes on year in, year out and year round. I thank them; they are seen, and they are appreciated.
Carnival is the largest annual event in Weston-super-Mare and a major regional mass participation event. For an event that receives no external funding support, built and run entirely by volunteers and organised by the Weston carnival committee, it is a living, breathing testament to the human spirit and the strength of community. Last year alone, Weston carnival volunteers raised more than £21,000 for local charities and helped to foster a powerful sense of civic pride.
Yet there remains a clear gap between what carnival towns contribute and the support they receive. The UK’s creative industries generate more than £100 billion a year—indeed, they are one of the eight critical sectors in the industrial strategy—yet in Weston that creative power is sustained almost entirely by volunteers, who face rising safety, insurance and infrastructure costs. There is limited access to the funding frameworks available to other cultural institutions, and often a lack of skills and knowledge about how to access them.
If we are serious about growth that is felt across all our communities, investment cannot be confined to summer tourism and hospitality. We must back the wonderful things, such as carnival, that already exist. We must play to our strengths. If we do, coastal economies and towns such as mine can grow sustainably and thrive for the next generation. Those towns matter. It is up to all of us in this place who represent towns to use our voices effectively and collectively to build the case for a better settlement that looks to our unique strengths and does not simply see us as subsidiaries of cities.
Carnival is heritage and soul. It is our unique town culture writ large. It is skills and business, it is community support—and it is real life. It is proof that towns such as Weston are primed to unlock the full creative and economic potential that all of us who are rooted there see in bucketloads. We just need the right engagement and support. Let us back the creators and community champions who step up and do the work to build the community they want to see. I urge my colleagues, the Minister, the Government, the House and the country to see the Weston and Somerset carnivals, and towns such as mine, in those terms.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) for securing this debate on carnivals and for the fantastic speeches that have already been made.
In Luton South and South Bedfordshire there is a long history of processions to mark important events, celebrations and protests, bringing communities together. In Luton they date back as far as the 1400s, when guild feasts were a common feature of local culture. In the South Bedfordshire part of my constituency, many of the villages still participate in the traditional May fairs, which date back to medieval times and mark the beginning of spring. I have been delighted to attend community events in Studham and Kensworth, which are full of fun, with schoolchildren dancing around the traditional maypole, music, community spirit and just good times.
In Luton, carnival goes back a long way, but it is slightly different. In May 1976, we held the first Luton carnival as we know it, to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Luton becoming a borough. To give away a little secret, I was there as a very small child, with my mum and the other members of the Luton Labour women’s council, who hosted one of the stalls in the street fair. From that small beginning, the carnival has quickly become a significant annual celebration, showcasing the rich mix of cultures that call Luton home. It particularly spotlights the influence and impact of our Luton Caribbean community, many of whom came to the UK as part of the Windrush generation and found their home in Luton, as well as the cultural influence of our African diaspora. Growing up, carnival was an institution, the classic scene that all hon. Members can imagine: up the side streets, stacks of speakers, loud music and everyone having a good time, getting food on one corner and seeing the costumes of the parade on the other.
In 2012, Luton International Carnival was officially recognised as the biggest one-day carnival in the UK. That legacy remains, with the event still one of the biggest annual events of the calendar—a true representation of unity, music and culture that embodies the spirit of our Luton community. I am proud to have the UK Centre for Carnival Arts, a registered charity and Arts Council national portfolio organisation, in my constituency. It is dedicated to promoting excellence in carnival arts, championing the work of carnival groups across the UK and connecting, inspiring and strengthening the carnival arts sector.
Our carnival is a symbol of everything that makes our town special, celebrating our diverse heritage, our energy and, importantly, our togetherness, making us one town full of many voices. There is no greater evidence for that than the wide-ranging list of participants who join the celebrations alongside our Caribbean groups such as the St Vincent and the Grenadines: the Luton branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, Luton Roma Trust, Luton Irish Forum, Luton Keralites Association, United Nations Associations—Luton, Luton Malayali Muslim Association and Purbachal—The Eastern Sky, to name just a few.
This year, our carnival is even more significant, as we celebrate the 50th annual Luton International Carnival on Sunday 24 May, which of course coincides with Luton’s 150th anniversary year as a borough. To mark this occasion, this year’s theme is “gold”—of course it is—with participants showcasing their creativity by celebrating bold and imaginative designs inspired by gold. The procession will travel from Luton town centre down to Wardown Park, which was the original and traditional location for much of the carnival’s history.
The impact of the carnival and what it symbolises have been passed from generation to generation in our town. Last June, I was delighted to host the brother and sister duo of Luton filmmakers, Niya and Jadean, in Parliament for a screening of their film, “Beyond The Rush”. The film, developed in collaboration with the British Film Institute documentary society, explored the vital impact of the Caribbean community on our economy, nightlife and cultural scene in Luton, from the Windrush generation to the present day, including key cultural events such as Luton International Carnival. It was great to bring young, local talent from Luton to display this brilliant piece of work in Westminster, featuring some fantastic members of our Luton Caribbean community, and to highlight the enduring legacy of Luton’s carnival in our local community.
As has already been said in this debate, carnivals are more than just a great day of cultural and creative fun; they have economic, social, educational and community cohesion benefits. I look forward to joining people from across Luton at this year’s 50th celebration carnival, and I am sure this carnival will be even more epic than last year’s.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and it has been a real pleasure to hear about the different carnivals today; I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) for that. I am sure everyone here, and everyone listening, has taken note of all the carnivals that we have to visit this year—and, of course, that everyone will remember to clean up their litter afterwards.
Carnivals are quite special to me, Mrs Harris, but not for the reason you might expect. In my last year at Durham University, the first house party that my flatmates and I had was carnival-themed, and henceforth we were known as “House Carnival”. The five other girls that I lived with got me through a dissertation, last-year exams and heartbreak, and we have been best friends for life. Almost 20 years later—that sounds far too long; I do not want to believe it!—we are still close friends who gather for the weekend, even from across the UK. But I digress—I may come back to that.
Carnivals are also special to the people of Harpenden and Berkhamsted—and, as we have heard, to people all across the country. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, and from across the Chamber today, about the celebration of multiculturalism, the carnival clubs, and the volunteers who dedicate hours of their lives to them and that history that is so special. I loved what she said about not just the importance of a living heritage and the stories that it tells of our past, our present and our future, but the opportunities and challenges; there is the wonder of carnival, but also the practicality around it—the skills and what we learn.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare shared beautiful stories of those celebrated family memories—that light and joy. I loved hearing him talk about shaking off normality; I think we all need a little bit more of that. He also reminded us that carnivals bring people together not only locally but globally, and of that idea of a rite of passage—that, actually, it is not just being there, but being present, because either we have taken part or someone we know has—and how special that is.
The hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) is not far away from my patch. Given the history and the fantastic multiculturalism that she mentioned, especially with the Caribbean and Ukrainian communities who are integral to that, means that I have noted down the 50th Luton International Carnival for this year.
In Harpenden and Berkhamsted, we have our Tring summer carnival, organised by Tring Together, where people are sure to be offered some award-winning beers from Tring Brewery, or Puddingstone Distillery’s Campfire Gin—I have a little bit of that in my cupboard. They can hear from Tring Music Partnership, Tring school’s swing band and Tring’s glee club, see the Tring Youth Theatre Project and Tring Shotokan karate club, and have input from the youth town council in Tring.
I thank Tring Together, the many dedicated volunteers across this country, and stalwarts such as Vivianne Child. Tring Together works with the Tring Team Parish and the Tring town council, but it is involved in much more than just the carnival—the Tring Business Mart, the Spring Fayre, Tring cinema, Group Action and the Christmas festival. In Tring, we also have the Apple Parade, led by Mr and Mrs Green and supported by Sustainable Tring. That is something to celebrate. This weekend—sadly, I cannot make it—we have the Tring Spring FEASTival. In Harpenden, we have the summer carnival, the Christmas carnival, and all the other joyous occasions that bring the town together. As has been mentioned today, these events also raise money for local charities and support so much of our community.
In Berkhamsted, we may not have a carnival by name, but we have BerkoFest. BerkoFest was where I first met John from Herts Welcome Refugees, who was in Parliament just yesterday—it brings so many of us together. It is also where I heard the world-class violinist Nikita Vikhorova from Odessa in Ukraine, just a few months after we lamented Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the war that, sadly, still continues.
We also have the festival of light with Berkhamsted town council, bringing joy and festivities and filling the 800-year-old St Peter’s church with candles for a magical evening. In Aldbury, we have the May fair, a wonderful summer day with beautiful colours and the “May Queen”. It is just so special. All those traditions represent, as I said and as has been mentioned, the history, the present and tomorrow.
On behalf of other hon. Members, I will mention Somerset, where the carnival tradition stretches back hundreds of years and is one of the most distinctive and cherished cultural traditions in the south-west. It is important to note for the record that Somerset carnival, which runs across four circuits and draws around 150,000 people each year, is a carnival of carts, not floats—I believe that has been mentioned, and that it is a small but important distinction.
The modern carnival raises vital funds, and the circuit passes through Shepton Mallet, Glastonbury, Bridgwater, Burnham-on-Sea and Midsomer Norton. My hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), who could not be here today, tells me that the year’s standout achievement went to the Huckyduck carnival club, which won the overall tableau category with its cart “Scarecrow Partea”, achieving maximum points at all seven carnivals on the circuit—a remarkable achievement and testament to the dedication and craft involved.
This is a timely debate, however, because that tradition faces a real challenge. It is largely kept alive by the older generation, with their concerted effort and their knowledge, skill and passion, which are so vital but risk being lost. My question to the Minister, which I think has been asked already, is, “What more can be done through arts funding, heritage programmes and community support to help to pass this tradition to the next generation before it is too late?” Each of these town and regional carnivals reflects its own characteristics and community.
Carnivals bring together people of all ages and backgrounds. Just like “House Carnival”, which brought me joy, comfort and community and helped to bring out the best in me, carnivals across this country do the same for communities, and we must do what we can to support them. I hope that today has inspired many more to get involved and to visit their carnival, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my Somerset neighbour, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), for opening this debate and describing how important carnivals are to Somerset’s culture, life and economy. My neighbour in north Somerset, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), made an excellent contribution, highlighting how important carnival is to our communities across Somerset. I also thank the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) for reminding us that there are thriving carnivals outside Somerset as well.
I am delighted to respond to this debate, because the Guy Fawkes carnival in Bridgwater is the oldest of its kind in our country. We can trace its history back to the famous gunpowder plot of 1605; Parliament decreed the lighting of bonfires in memory of the event, and the people of Bridgwater embraced the tradition with some enthusiasm. Perhaps that was because Bridgwater was strongly Protestant, or perhaps it was because they were fans of their elected parliamentarians—I appreciate that may seem unlikely to today’s Members of Parliament. Whatever the reason, those early celebrations eventually grew into the magnificent spectacle that now takes to the streets of Bridgwater each year on the first Saturday of November and then continues across Somerset.
Unfortunately, the earliest years were not well recorded, as local newspapers did not appear in the town until the mid-19th century. Luckily, once journalistic records started in 1847, we can trace the development of the carnival more clearly, making it clear that Bridgwater Guy Fawkes carnival is the oldest event of its kind in the United Kingdom. In those days, celebrations centred around a huge bonfire on the Cornhill in the centre of the town. People from all corners of Bridgwater would parade to the fire, often in costume. However, in 1880, the parade descended into disorder and rioting—it is believed that alcohol may have played a part in this. A letter written by Mr Frank Squire to the Bridgwater Mercury—which is still our town’s newspaper—provided a solution: he suggested forming a controlling committee and organising an official procession so that the magnificent costumes could be seen throughout the town. The idea garnered significant support among residents of the town and the very next year the first carnival, as we would recognise it today, took place. We now have the longest-running carnival in the country, and that is why we are proud to call Bridgwater the home of carnival. It has been my pleasure, as Bridgwater’s MP, to visit the sheds where the carts are built, attend the carnival concerts and watch the spectacular performances, to watch the magnificent carnival as it moves slowly through the town—and finally, to take part in the squibbing.
If you have not witnessed it, Mrs Harris, squibbing has nothing to do with Harry Potter; it involves simultaneously lighting a great many fireworks attached to coshes and up to 150 squibbers holding them overhead. I want to pay tribute to the many volunteers who make costumes, rehearse their acts, construct their carts, judge the entries, raise funds, and undertake the many other hundreds of tasks that are necessary to put on this fantastic spectacle. I particularly thank Dave Creedy, the president of the Bridgwater Guy Fawkes carnival, and his committee for their tireless work. Thanks also to the many carnival clubs within my constituency. I pay tribute to Bridgwater Belles, British Flag, Cavaliers, Centurion, Crusaders, Gremlins, Griffens, Lime Kiln, Marina Sydenham Juvenile, Marketeers, Newmarket, Hill View, Pentathlon, Ramblers, Renegades, Toppers, Vagabonds, Westonzoyland, Wilfs and Wills. I doubt any other constituency has more carnival clubs than Bridgwater.
While carnivals are an extraordinary spectacle that attract hundreds of thousands of tourists to Somerset’s towns every year, they are increasingly expensive to run. The cost of insurance increases every year. Then there are the costs of compliance with regulations, the cost of diesel and of disposing of waste, and how His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs does not allow VAT relief on all the related expenditure that is necessary for the carnival to fulfil its charitable goals.
The Minister will be pleased to hear me say that these problems did not start in 2024, but they do increase little by little each year. The cumulative effect is to make life more difficult for the great teams of volunteers who put in so much work to run our carnivals across Britain. Will the Minister confirm that the Government value our carnivals? Does she acknowledge the contribution that they make to encouraging volunteering and to engaging young and old alike in community projects, to raising money for charity and boosting tourism? Will she commit to working on a cross-party basis to ensure that this great tradition is able to continue for another 180 years?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) on securing this important debate and for the powerful way in which they have spoken about their constituencies and the distinctive long-standing cultural tradition of illuminated carnivals. All hon. Members who have contributed to this debate have spoken with such passion. I will address some of the direct points put to me before talking about how carnivals impact the arts and tourism.
As we have heard, the west country carnival circuits are a spectacular annual celebration dating back to the 17th century. They represent far more than local custom; they bring in visitors and are a valuable source of income. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton on her continued advocacy for carnivals, including the Glastonbury carnival, and for the roundtable she held in her constituency this month. She spoke about the passionate commitment of everyone who attended that and, indeed, she referenced the magnificent seven carnivals and their impact on things such as charity, tourism, culture, volunteering and the community. She made an important point about skills and volunteering, which I will touch on later.
The hon. Member put points to me about costs, including material, fuel, tractors and insurance. I acknowledge that and the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) made that point as well. The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton spoke about fundraising, membership fees and sponsorship, and increasing challenges. We live in an increasingly cashless society, and we have seen a roughly 15% reduction in the use of cash since 2017. That is something the Government are aware of. The hon. Member also made a specific point about safety advisory groups. The Government issue best practice, which is co-ordinated by the Cabinet Office, but it is a matter for local government. I will write to her about that specific point, as it might be useful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare rightly stated that my first visit as the Minister for Tourism was to his constituency, and I was delighted to visit. I had the pleasure of meeting local tourism and hospitality leaders, as well as the dedicated team at the Grand Pier. I thank him for his kind words and his warm welcome. The visit made it incredibly clear to me how vital the visitor economy is to the spirit and economy of the west country. I wish all those at the Weston-super-Mare carnival continued success and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for being the first in this place to speak about that carnival. He spoke passionately about the carnival ecosystem and how it inspires younger people. Indeed, it inspires those of all ages, as the shadow spokesperson rightly pointed out.
It was good to hear from the shadow spokesperson, and I know he takes a keen interest in this subject. He asked a question at oral questions a few weeks ago and I am delighted that I will meet him soon to discuss the matter further. The Bridgwater carnival is part of the west country carnival circuit, and the magnificent seven procession travels from his constituency to Glastonbury. He spoke about his constituency being “the home of carnival”.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) spoke about the history in her area, dating back to the 1400s. She also asked a question on this topic at Culture, Media and Sport questions—it was a popular subject. She spoke about the UK Centre for Carnival Arts in Luton. It is the first dedicated facility for professional development, production and celebration of carnival culture. That is really important and it is the driving force behind the Luton International Carnival, which my hon. Friend spoke so passionately about.
Every year, carnival draws thousands of visitors. It is not just a show; it supports the local economy and brings the community together. It is a unique form of living history. Both Arts Council England and the national lottery project grants have supported vital initiatives around the carnival, including community workshops, school programmes and the development of key skills, such as costume making and set design. As an art form rich in cultural heritage and global influence, the Government continue to fund carnival arts right across the country via their grant-in-aid investment in Arts Council England. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare raised a point about access to funding. It might be helpful if I write to all hon. Members in the debate about how carnival can bid for and access funding. I will make sure my Department writes to each hon. Member here after the debate.
As part of a transformative £1.5 billion package over the course of this Parliament, the Government provided a 5% funding uplift to key national arts organisations. That means organisations, such as the UK Centre for Carnival Arts in Luton and the St Pauls carnival in Bristol, are funded as part of the Arts Council’s national portfolio. The funding supports a broad ecosystem beyond the incredible shows. It supports creative workshops, master classes around events and, of course, the unforgettable original costume designs and live music. The Government’s arts everywhere ambition ensures that carnival is not merely a seasonal event, but a sophisticated year-round art form that supports places to thrive, generating millions of pounds in benefits and telling our nations’ stories.
The next generation of carnival artists are being cultivated and supported through Arts Council England investment in organisations such as Global Grooves in Tameside, which transforms the lives of young people by immersing them in the world of carnival. Through its dedicated future leaders programme at the Vale youth hub, it bridges the gap between community tradition and professional skills development, offering hands-on experiences in costume design, puppetry and dance.
Government support helps to ensure that the vibrant heart of carnival continues. The organisations that I mentioned are amazing examples of how our national story moved from community practice to national policy in 2024, when the UK ratified UNESCO’s 2003 convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Intangible cultural heritage, or living heritage, matters because those traditions are the threads that weave us together. They provide a way to celebrate our incredible diversity, which can turn strangers into a community through shared song, craft and celebration.
This debate is important because of the impact that carnival has on tourism and the visitor economy, not just on the arts. Our ambition is clear: we want to welcome 50 million international visitors annually by 2030. But we recognise that numbers alone are not the measure of success. We must ensure that those visitors stay longer and explore further, reaching beyond our major hubs and into the rural and coastal heartlands. That is something that we will acknowledge and celebrate next week in English Tourism Week. To do that, we understand that sustaining regional growth requires more visitors. We want to be passionate, and carnivals play an incredibly important role. I also want to recognise the huge impact that volunteers have in carnivals. A number of Members have made incredibly important points, so I will end by paying tribute to all Members and the vital role that carnivals play.
Sarah Dyke
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and give special thanks to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), who co-sponsored the debate alongside me. As has been outlined, carnivals are a distinctive and important part of British cultural heritage. For many in Somerset, they are a key point of celebration throughout the year. I appreciate the Minister’s supportive comments recognising the value that they bring and extend an invitation to her and you, Mrs Harris, to join me at Glastonbury carnival on 21 November. You will be very welcome there.
We must make sure that carnivals across the UK are supported, and I hope that today’s debate will help us focus our minds on the work that is needed to ensure that these celebrations take place long into the future. I hope the debate has illuminated to this place the special social, cultural and economic importance of carnivals to Somerset. Let us keep their lights on. To finish, it seems appropriate to quote Robbie Williams: let us make sure that they are “Back for Good” and let us make sure that we let them “entertain you”.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for carnivals.
Written Statements
National Security and Investment Act 2021: Notifiable Acquisition Regulations
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
I am today publishing the Government’s response to the consultation on the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Notifiable Acquisition) (Specification of Qualifying Entities) Regulations 2021.
On 22 July 2025, the Government launched a 12-week consultation on the NARs, which set out the areas of the economy subject to mandatory notification under the NSI Act. The consultation provided stakeholders with the opportunity to share their views on our proposed updates to the NARs. Within each schedule of the NARs, our proposals sought to reduce scope where possible, increase scope where necessary and improve clarity for businesses. The consultation closed on 14 October 2025.
Respondents largely supported the proposed changes, including creating stand-alone semiconductors and critical minerals schedules and adding water as a new area. Many stakeholders suggested that some definitions, such as artificial intelligence and critical suppliers to Government, remained too broad or technically complex. Most respondents also requested clearer and more extensive guidance across the NARs.
I would like to thank all respondents for providing thoughtful, thorough and constructive feedback.
Following careful consideration of the feedback received, the Government will:
Make further drafting changes to the following updated schedules to reduce capturing low-risk notifications where possible: critical minerals, semiconductors, artificial intelligence and communications;
Make further minor amendments to the following updated schedules to clarify scope and definitions: critical suppliers to Government, data infrastructure, energy and suppliers to the emergency services;
Finalise the water schedule;
Keep the updated advanced materials and synthetic biology schedules broadly as they are, to ensure that emerging technologies and the diverse uses of these are captured; and
Provide updated and more detailed guidance for the majority of the schedules consulted on, alongside the defence schedule, to address topics frequently raised in feedback.
These reforms will ensure that the NARs continue to capture emerging national security risks proportionately while getting out of the way of secure investment, unlocking economic growth across the UK.
I intend to lay secondary legislation to update the NARs in due course.
[HCWS1394]
Service Police Complaints Commissioner Annual Report 2024: MOD Response
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I am pleased to place in the Library of the House today the Ministry of Defence’s formal response to the Service Police Complaints Commissioner’s annual report for 2024.
The commissioner’s report assesses the delivery of their functions and the work of the office in 2024. The response sets out the MOD’s comments on the report and approach to each of the four new recommendations made by the commissioner.
The MOD values the strong, independent oversight that the commissioner brings to the service police complaints process and is committed to having a system that our personnel can have trust and confidence in.
Attachments can be viewed online at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-03-12/HCWS1396
[HCWS1396]
IEA Co-ordinated Oil Stock Release: UK Participation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
My thoughts are with British citizens and those across the world affected by the events in the middle east of recent days. Since the conflict began, we have seen Iran target energy production and export infrastructure across the Gulf. Traffic in the strait of Hormuz, through which around 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas is shipped, has declined very significantly, and the Iranian regime has issued reckless and unjustified threats to all ships using it. As a result, we are seeing significant disruption to international fossil fuel markets. While the UK’s energy supplies remain resilient and stable because of our diversity of supply, we are exposed to global oil and gas prices. This is yet another example of why we must end our reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets and switch to clean, home-grown energy. We are accelerating towards clean power by 2030, which will protect bill payers from future fossil fuel shocks and bring down bills.
Over the last week, I have had multiple meetings with the executive director of the International Energy Agency, with counterparts in the Gulf and the G7, and with our major UK oil and gas companies. The G7 Energy Ministers’ meeting and the exceptional IEA governing board on 10 March were crucial opportunities to assess security of supply and market conditions, and the response available to Governments.
Following the IEA governing board, and reflecting the global market conditions, members, including the UK, decided to take co-ordinated action to release emergency oil stocks. IEA members will release a total of 400 million barrels to the market. The UK will contribute the requested 13.5 million barrels, reflecting our share of oil consumption across IEA members.
The UK’s participation in this co-ordinated action demonstrates our commitment to the stability of global energy supplies and protecting consumers. This is an appropriate measure, taken alongside IEA partners, to protect bill payers and our economy while the situation in the middle east continues. Although co-ordinated action on an oil stock release is an important step towards stability, we are clear that ensuring the safe transit of tankers through the strait of Hormuz is the crucial enduring solution.
I would like to thank the IEA for its co-ordination and expert analysis, underlining its vital role in global energy security, and fellow IEA members for their allyship and collective resolve.
[HCWS1395]
NHS Mental Health Spending
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Today, I am publishing the annual statement for NHS mental health spend. The Health and Care Act 2022 introduced a statutory requirement to publish a statement setting out expectations for NHS mental health services spending before the end of each financial year. 2025-26 2026-27 Recurrent NHS baseline (£billion) 180.8 191.6 Total forecast mental health spend (£billion) 15.7 16.1 Mental health share of recurrent baseline (%) 8.68 8.40
The Government are committed to improving and supporting the nation’s mental health, focused on delivering better outcomes rather than just inputs—giving people the right support, at the right time. This priority runs consistently through our manifesto, the 10-year health plan and NHS England’s medium-term planning framework. We recognise that more must be done to reduce unacceptable waits and ensure services meet the needs of the population. That is why the medium-term planning framework sets such ambitious goals for integrated care boards over the next three years to drive improvements across mental health services, including putting mental health support in every school by 2029, expanding NHS talking therapies and individual placement support, and reducing the number of inappropriate out-of-area placements by the end of March 2027.
The Government have already taken action to improve mental health care, including through the Mental Health Act 2025, which ensures more personalised and compassionate care for people with severe mental illness. I have also launched an independent review into prevalence and support for mental health conditions, ADHD and autism, so that we can build an improved system that prevents mental ill health and delivers improved outcomes. Later this year, we will publish a new modern service framework that will set out what excellent care should look like for people with severe mental illness. Alongside this, we are confronting the root causes of mental ill health through cross-Government action, including through our suicide prevention strategy and men’s health strategy, and I fully support the efforts of the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to make the online world safer for children.
On funding, real-terms spending on mental health continues to increase year on year, reflecting this Government’s commitment to improving mental health services. For 2026-27, mental health spending is forecast to reach a record £16.1 billion, up from £15.7 billion in 2025-26. This represents a real-terms increase of around £140 million compared with 2025-26. Real-terms growth in budgets will enable continued delivery of the ambitions set out in the 10-year health plan and the medium-term planning framework.
Spending for 2026-27 also includes ringfenced service development funding: firstly, to expand access to NHS talking therapies and individual placement and support, ensuring we reach those most in need while also supporting economic growth; and secondly, for accelerating the expansion of mental health support teams in schools and colleges to 100% coverage by 2029.
We are also making significant capital investment over the spending review period. Some £473 million of mental health capital funding has been made available over 2026-27 to 2029-30, as set out in NHS England’s capital guidance, published in November. This funding is available to systems to invest in community-based mental health centres, establish mental health emergency departments and reduce inappropriate out-of-area placements and locked inpatient rehabilitation.
Critically, financial safeguards remain in place. I am pleased to update the House that in 2025-26, all integrated care boards are forecast to meet the mental health investment standard, which sets a minimum rate of growth in annual spend on mental health services. These figures are based on data up to December, as full-year data are not yet available. To maintain this progress, the Government are requiring all integrated care boards to meet the mental health investment standard over the next three years. As this statement must be issued before the start of the new financial year, the figures for 2026-27 represent the best current estimates, based on projections that take account of the medium-term planning framework allocations published on 17 November 2025.
The proportion of overall NHS spend allocated to mental health in 2026-27 is forecast to be 8.4%, 0.28 percentage points lower than in 2025-26. This is a consequence of significant additional investment in other core areas, including those that benefit mental health services such as the substantial amounts going into NHS technology and digital transformation, general practice, community-based services, and neighbourhood health centres. These system-wide improvements are focused on fixing the fundamentals of the NHS and, although they are not counted in pure mental health service spend, will deliver significant benefits for mental health services and patients. There are also important areas of mental health-related expenditure not captured in the share of spend figure, such as prescribing mental health medication, continuing healthcare and NHS England’s investment in training the mental health workforce.
The 2025-26 NHS baseline has been restated to include the 2025-26 pay uplift. The 2026-27 NHS baseline has been updated to reflect last year’s spending review settlement, including some items which were not previously included in the baseline for this assessment, but are now recurrently part of the NHS budget. Total forecast mental health spend includes integrated care board expenditure contributing to the mental health investment standard, as well as NHS England’s service development fund and specialised commissioning spend on mental health. It also incorporates the £117 million from the autumn statement 2023 for the expansion of NHS talking therapies—protected in the 2024 Budget settlement—and the £65 million from the spring and autumn Budgets 2024 to expand individual placement and support. The figures exclude capital funding.
Through setting clear expectations for integrated care boards, increasing investment in mental health, and maintaining firm financial safeguards, this Government are committed to delivering the ambitious reform agenda set out in the 10-year health plan and medium-term planning framework. This approach supports a shift away from input-based requirements towards a clearer focus on the outcomes that matter most for people with mental health needs, ensuring that services deliver the improvements in experience and care that the public rightly expect.
[HCWS1397]
House of Lords
Children in Care: Illegal Accommodation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Wood of Anfield
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to end the use of illegal accommodation for children in care and secure sufficient regulated care.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are clear: unregistered placements must stop. Powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will allow Ofsted to issue monetary penalties, enabling faster action against unregistered providers. We are investing £560 million in capital funding up to 2029-30 to increase appropriate registered placements, including through registered regional care co-operatives. We will strengthen kinship care and invest £2.4 billion in the families first partnership programme to support families, keeping them together, thereby reducing residential demand that is driving reliance on unregistered placements.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. It should shame all of us in this country that for many years, our system for protecting the most vulnerable children has been and is pushing hundreds of them each year into unregistered homes—illegal homes that are not inspected. Addressing this, as the Minister says, is very complex: it involves kinship care and resource regulation. I welcome the Government’s commitment to clamping down on the growing unregulated sector. What are the Government’s plans specifically to expand foster care, which is a crucial part of alleviating the pressure on local authorities that leads to the growth in unregulated places?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for all the work he does in this area, regularly raising its profile. I assure him and noble Lords that places in loving foster homes for children who need them is one of our top priorities. In February, we published an ambitious fostering action plan, setting out urgent steps to reverse the decline in foster care numbers and reform the system. This involves investment of more than £88 million over the next two years and includes England-wide action, enhanced regional collaboration, a £12.4 million intervention fund and investment in foster care support and retention.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Further to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wood, if we are to reduce the use of illegal accommodation, we need to provide more, safer and better accommodation. The Minister may know that some organisations, such as Home for Good, provide alternatives to hard-pressed local authority accommodation, and they do so with very strong outcomes and at a fraction of the cost of local authority provision. Will she do all she can to encourage organisations like Home for Good to provide these alternatives for vulnerable teenagers currently in care?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, particularly for focusing on outcomes. That is the issue we face: too many young people who go through the care system do not have good outcomes, and we absolutely must address this. I welcome his highlighting the innovative approaches to providing supportive family environments for young people, giving them the stability and support they need. I absolutely support his request.
Lord Bird (CB)
Does the Minister agree that care is often the only time when a lot of people who come from disturbed family lives can get their hands on some social mobility? I would like the Minister to up the idea that care is a great contributor to social justice.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Lord touches on a very important and sensitive issue. Too often, young people are labelled by what happens to them. It is critical that, where we get the opportunity to engage with young people, we bring together their peer group to give support, along with all the other agencies that can offer help and guidance and steer them on their way forward. I absolutely agree that social justice should be at the heart of everything we do in this place.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, do this Government know exactly where these children are and where they are placed? Do we have the data available so that these children can be tracked down and protected in the way that they should be, and so that local authorities, where necessary, can step in to offer the support they need?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
That, again, is an important point. The collection of data is critical, and local authorities need to submit that data annually. However, data is only as good as its interpretation and use. I am afraid that, although we have much data, we do not focus on what it is telling us and what we can do to bring improvements. That will be our focus going forward.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the importance of foster parents and their significance in this area. Prospective foster parents often complain about the length of time it takes to be both approved and recruited. Is there any way of speeding up the process, while of course maintaining necessary due diligence?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Generally speaking, in trying to analyse why the number of foster carers has dropped, it is around the general areas of support, which are so important. Of course, when people make such a life-changing decision, they want to get on with it, but it is absolutely paramount that this be done in a supportive way, making sure that all aspects are considered, and that potential foster carers are fully apprised of what they are embarking on and where the support is to help them in that journey.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, helping local authorities to reach their sufficiency duty is one of the best ways to reduce the use of illegal accommodation. One of the most effective ways of achieving this, both in cost to authorities and outcomes for children, is by increasing the number of kinship carers. May I therefore press the Minister on kinship care regulations? Will the Government commit to re-examining their position on those regulations and make it easier for children to enter into care with family members, which must be a brilliant outcome if it goes well?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Earl is preaching to the converted. My experience, going back over 16 years now, has all been about enabling the kinship care model to grow, thrive and be recognised. It has not been recognised before, and I am delighted that in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, for the first time, it is getting the attention it deserves. When it is properly done, fully supported and with family group conferencing at the outset, it is a life-changer for children and young people themselves but also for their families. It is a very important area and we need to do more to support it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
The Minister has rightly made much of the Government’s commitment of more funds for kinship care. When are they are likely to report back to this House and the other place about the success of the pilot schemes they are now funding?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I will get back to the noble Lord; I do not have the exact timescales in front of me. The nine areas have been chosen and are up and running. The evidence they gather will be critical in enabling us to move forward and to make sure—hopefully in a very positive way—that all the lessons learned are available to children and families across the country.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
Thank you. My Lords, the largest providers of children’s care homes have average profit rates of 22.6%. Private equity is central to it. On 18 November 2024, the Secretary of State for Education said:
“We will crack down on care providers making excessive profits”.
Can the Minister explain why this promised crackdown has not materialised and when it might begin?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am not sure if my noble friend sat in on any of the sessions of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, but future regulations will enable a cap on the profits of non-local authority, Ofsted-registered providers of children’s homes. We have to do this carefully and sensibly. I urge all noble Lords to realise that we have an unprecedented number of children and young people coming forward into care. Our focus needs to be on preventing those young people coming into care in the first place.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Looked-after children have the richest parents in the country—the state—but they have been let down over many successive Governments. One of the best sources of information to make improvements to the services is the life experience of looked-after children themselves. Can the Minister tell the House how young people who have gone through the system will be able to inform the decision-making process to enable improvements to the system?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
It is not just about young people who have come out of care, but young people who are in care at the time. Most local authorities have very supportive groups through which young people come together and meet. We must not underestimate the power of peer groups sharing their concerns. The voice of the child and of young people is fundamental, critical, to taking this journey forward. For too long the state has taken an attitude of, “We know best; we will instruct what has to happen”. This cannot go on. I am delighted that children and young people are now being given the opportunity to be really involved in their futures.
NHS: Heart Valve Disease
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McCabe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether NHS services for heart valve disease support healthy ageing and ensure older adults receive equitable access to timely treatment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, to accelerate the 10-year health plan ambition to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke by 25% and to tackle unwarranted variation across the country, this year we will publish a new cardiovascular disease modern service framework. It will support consistent, high-quality and equitable care while fostering innovation across the cardiovascular disease pathway.
Lord McCabe (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. The guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery suggest that the UK is falling behind in terms of diagnosis and treatment for heart valve disease. Can she give an assurance that the new framework will take full account of these guidelines and pay particular attention to the diagnosis and treatment of older people?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am most grateful to my noble friend for his work in promoting the improvement of services for those with heart valve disease. I can say—it might be helpful—that we are driving down cardiology waiting lists. The number of people waiting over 52 weeks from referral to treatment was down 9% between the end of December 2025 and the end of January 2026. Yes, the modern service framework will accelerate this progress to reduce premature mortality and will set standards for the best evidence-based interventions.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, management of people with heart valve disease is truly a low-hanging fruit in reducing deaths due to cardiovascular disease. Some 400 people a year die on waiting lists for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. It is simple for people who have breathlessness or suffer from decreased exercise tolerance or chest pain. Even I, within five minutes, could diagnose whether they were at risk of heart valve disease or not—line them up and I will tell you.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am reassured that the noble Lord can assist within five minutes—we might consider engaging him. The serious point is that early diagnosis is important, and the modern service framework will build on the work that has already been done. I know that the noble Lord is aware of this, but just the use of a stethoscope is the way to make an early and initial diagnosis. We are upping our game here by bringing in AI-assisted stethoscopes, which will be a massive assistance for diagnosis.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to ask her supplementary question.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Resuscitation Council UK, the British Cardiovascular Society and the National Council for Palliative Care have excellent and sensitive joint guidance on the use of cardiovascular implants towards the end of life. My family’s experience in different parts of the country shows that not all cardiac surgeons take account of end-of-life care in patients. In one case, a patient was told that she would not be allowed to leave the hospital until she had a pacemaker, despite the fact that, at 88 years old, she did not want one and, two years on, bitterly regrets finally agreeing. Can the Minister say whether the review that she just mentioned will ensure that surgeons follow the guidance and work not only with patients but with their other clinicians?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am sorry to hear the experience that the noble Baroness describes. We are indeed seeking to have a whole-team approach to the whole patient. I absolutely agree with her that it should indeed consider where somebody is in their life stage.
Baroness Browning (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord McCabe, referenced older people in particular in his Question—he did not say where he drew the line at old, but perhaps I will declare an interest. What happens, for example, when really older people need heart surgery but are considered to be an anaesthetic risk? With new developments in heart surgery, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what progress there has been in carrying out procedures without necessarily needing to have invasive surgery.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can privately share with the noble Baroness that I suspect that “older people” covers both of us: it is over 65. The point that she makes is important. The option of what is called a TAVI intervention is far less invasive than a surgical intervention, as she referred to. That activity has grown significantly year on year, with something like a 16% increase on 2024-25. That is a very welcome step forward as we move towards minimally invasive procedures.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, it is obvious that early testing for heart valve disease is an exemplary form of preventive medicine, which is where we all need to get to. The House owes my noble friend gratitude for organising heart valve testing through the Heart Valve Voice, which was extremely successful. Does my noble friend agree with me that, because of the absence of routine testing, we should look for opportunities to link heart valve testing with the other sorts of routine testing where there is a captive audience? These could include, for example, occasions when people go for cholesterol testing or possibly even flu vaccination, which are becoming more routine? If we could get that in operation at an early stage, it could make a significant difference.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right and, certainly, as we move through our 10-year health plan, the opportunity to make every contact count is very important. I refer my noble friend to the advances that we have made in services available in community pharmacies, because measuring blood pressure is hugely important. Our pharmacies, I am glad to say, have delivered nearly 4.2 million blood pressure monitoring checks since October 2021. We have more than 7,500 pharmacies now available in our high streets delivering this service. That is the kind of thing that my noble friend is looking for.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of King’s Health Partners. The Minister made reference to AI stethoscopes aiding in the diagnosis of patients with heart conditions. The evidence for this was established in a very large trial—the TRICORDER trial—involving some 1.5 million patients and more than 200 general practices in our country. What it demonstrated was, compared to the use of the ordinary standard of care, a doubling of the rate of diagnosis for heart failure and a tripling of the rate of diagnosis for heart arrhythmias. The problem was that, subsequent to the trial, the diagnostic rate did not increase, suggesting that it is necessary to invest in training and the establishment of new working pathways to ensure that innovation can be properly established in routine clinical practice. Is His Majesty’s Government funding such activity?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to make the point that innovation research is one part of it, but it is actually its implementation that matters. However, the faster and more frequent detection of cardiovascular conditions is the key thing and training is certainly a part of that.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving me time for this question. She will be aware that studies analysed in around 155,000 diagnoses of aortic stenosis in England have found that women were significantly less likely to be referred to specialists and far less likely to receive valve replacement. This also applies to patients from deprived areas and in some ethnic minority groups. What assessment have the Government made of these disparities and what action are the noble Baroness’s department and NHS England taking to ensure that patients have access to heart valve treatment regardless of their gender, ethnicity or where they live?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right: women are underdiagnosed, they are undertreated and some ethnic minority groups face poorer access. That is why I very much welcome the fact that, in the framework to which I referred, dealing with inequalities will be absolutely key. Research, in which we are partnering with the British Heart Foundation, will focus on tackling inequalities in higher-risk groups as well as unequal cardiovascular disease outcomes. Inequalities and tackling them will be at the heart of all our acceleration of progress as well as our research.
Peatland Restoration
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the benefits of peatland restoration for flood resilience and nature recovery.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, peatland restoration provides multiple benefits. It improves flood resilience by slowing water leaving the uplands and significantly reducing peak flows. Peatlands make up the UK’s largest extent of semi-natural habitat, so action to restore them makes an important contribution to delivering biodiversity targets. In the environmental improvement plan, this Government committed to restoring 40,000 hectares of peatland by 2030. To help to achieve this, we will extend our peatland grant scheme by a further year.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. My understanding is that so far we have restored a quarter of a million hectares, against a target of 2 million hectares by 2040. That is only 10%. As the noble Lord says, it is crucial that we do this, to keep water higher up in the catchment area for biodiversity and for carbon storage. What plan do the Government have to enable degraded peatlands to be restored? Will that plan be produced in conjunction with the devolved powers? How are the Government proposing to engage with people in communities that regularly use peatland for farming and other purposes? I declare an interest because my forebear Bishops of Norwich largely controlled the digging of peat that created the Norfolk Broads.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his questions and for claiming that inherited responsibility. He is absolutely right about the importance of peatlands. They have been referred to as the UK’s rainforest. They store vast amounts of carbon, regulate water flow and support biodiversity. Restoration is currently funded through the national peatland grant scheme, which we have extended for an additional year, as I said. Following this, restoration will primarily be supported through environmental land management schemes such as Landscape Recovery and Countryside Stewardship, which are expected to bring at least 35,000 hectares of peatland into restoration by 2050. We expect that to happen under the most recent round of the Landscape Recovery scheme.
The Government regularly speak to a wide range of stakeholders including those involved in peatland restoration, such as wildlife trusts, national parks, the horticultural sector, landowners and farmers, as well as our partners in local, regional and other national Governments. By 2030, we will invest £85 million to restore and manage our peatlands, which will include support for water infrastructure, peatland restoration and the trials of farming on higher water tables.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply to the right reverend Prelate and to the right reverend Prelate for referencing his diocese’s historic interests in the Norfolk Broads. I had the privilege of serving on the original Standing Committee to set up the Broads Authority. That was taken through, incidentally, by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Is the Minister aware that the Broads Peat Partnership is doing a great deal of work to restore these habitats? Will he make sure that his department works with the Broads Authority carefully on this project? Is he satisfied that the Broads Authority is striking the right balance between commercial interests, such as boating and navigation, and protecting the natural environment?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to single out the importance of the broads and the wider lowland agricultural peatlands. They are responsible for 88% of all emissions from England’s peatlands. We are working with all our partner organisations, including the Broads Authority, to support the restoration of peatlands, be they lowland or upland. Over the next four years, for the lowlands, Defra will fund water infrastructure facilitation grants and wetter farming trials, which will enable farmers and land managers to make changes to their water management and undertake more sustainable actions on peat. We will continue to work with them to ensure that they get that balance right between their more high-profile activities, such as supporting tourism, and that essential activity on lowland peatlands.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the widespread public concern that peat for horticulture continues to degrade our vital peatlands? Can he update the House on the Government’s response to the Horticultural Peat (Prohibition of Sale) Bill tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleague Sarah Dyke MP? Can he explain the delay on this, given that it was in the Government’s manifesto and was already a broken promise by the Conservative Government?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that this is a very important issue. I am sure that she has read in detail our environmental improvement plan that was published at the end of last year. This was set out as one of our key actions on peatland and peatland restoration. The Government are committed to protecting these nature-rich habitats, including peat bogs, and we plan to legislate for a ban on the sale of peat and peat container products when parliamentary time allows. I am afraid that I am not going to predict what will be in any forthcoming King’s Speech, but this is a priority for this Government.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Galloway Fisheries Trust and chairman of the Fleet District Salmon Fishery Board. The single biggest cause of peatland destruction has been the historic indiscriminate planting of non-native conifers on peatlands. About 18% of UK peatland has been destroyed in that way. While new planting on deep peat is rightly no longer allowed, the position of replanting after felling is not so clear. Can the noble Lord assure me that replanting of conifer woodland on peatland will not be allowed and that the peatland will be restored after felling?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right about the action that has been taken in previous years that has degraded our peatland, including, as he said, the planting of conifers. I will have to write to him on some of the detail on that, but I want to be clear that we see the importance of restoring peatland to its natural state. That way we create a virtuous circle—wet peatlands that are both good for water management but also good for climate change.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his responses so far. Further to the question from across the House on a ban on the sale of peat for horticultural purposes, could I encourage the Minister to talk to his ministerial colleagues to ensure that such legislation is in the forthcoming King’s Speech? Could I also encourage him to talk to Ministers in the devolved Administrations about such a ban in order to protect our precious landscape, which has been scarred for quite a number of years?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her persistence in pursuing this important matter. She is asking me to undertake a lot of conversations; I like having a chat, so I will see what I can do. I cannot make any commitments about the forthcoming King’s Speech, but I just underline what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. This is a clear priority for this Government. We have put it in our environmental improvement plan. We understand its importance and, as she said, it is also important that we work with the devolved Governments, so that when we ban something it is banned completely. It will happen, but when parliamentary time allows.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom peatlands hold over 3 billion tonnes of carbon. I welcome the Government’s commitment to continue funding the Conservative Government’s innovative £50 million England Peat Action Plan, since the benefits of peatland restoration are significant and multiple. While the Peatland Code is a valuable source of revenue to incentivise this work, based on reducing carbon emissions, it is not enough in many parts of England. Will the Minister go back and press Defra to encourage greater private sector investment in the other goods provided by restoration, for example from the water and insurance sectors? Crucially, does he share the concerns of many organisations that the environmental delivery plans, the EDPs, in the UK’s Planning and Infrastructure Act, risk damaging nature-based markets by allowing developers to bypass legal obligations for on-site protection and just pay into a general centralised fund instead?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right in drawing our attention to the Peatland Code and the work of other organisations and he is right in saying that private finance will be vital if we are to meet our peatland restoration objectives. It is important that peatland projects are able to make the most of new revenue streams, including carbon finance. We are acting in a number of different ways as a Government to ensure peatland restoration. A key constraint on restoration delivery is the size of the sector, which is why we are launching a new sector capacity grant of over £1 million in the summer, which will provide funding for training, skills and equipment. In terms of development, peatland policy works alongside planning systems, rather than prohibiting development. It guides developers to design schemes that avoid unnecessary peat loss and manage water tables safely.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, last year we had a record number of wildfires, including in our peatlands and moorlands. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister if he could update the House on progress on the Government’s wildfire strategy and action plan, which is now overdue. If the Minister does not know the answer, perhaps he could write to me.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I will have to write to the noble Earl to update him on the wildfire plan strategy, but I would say that, just at the end of last year, the House debated and passed updated regulations around the burning of peatland, heather land and moorland, which is obviously an important aspect. I can tell him that over 675,000 hectares of peatland are now protected under those regulations; fewer than 2,000 hectares were burned last year.
Anti-Muslim Hostility: Non-statutory Definition
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of how the new non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility will (1) protect Muslims, and (2) safeguard freedom of speech.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have adopted a definition of anti-Muslim hostility focused on protecting individuals. The definition provides a shared practical framework to help victims, communities and services respond to anti-Muslim hostility while improving understanding across wider society. It also explicitly safeguards free speech, making it clear that criticism, debate or even ridicule of religious ideas remain lawful. Keeping citizens safe is a fundamental duty of government. I would always hope that we did not need these definitions, but we know we do, and this definition is a crucial step in strengthening the protection for our citizens.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply, and I appreciate that the Government have made a real attempt to balance protecting Muslims on the one hand and safeguarding freedom of speech on the other. While I can see that the definition might be quite useful from a cultural point of view, it is very difficult to see how it is going to work in relation to the law. The Government’s statement specifically says:
“The definition does not change what is or is not a crime, nor does it equate anti-Muslim hostility with crime”.
My question is really this: in what way, if any, does this definition make a difference to the application of the law? After all, violence against Muslims is already a crime. By having this definition, what difference does it make?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble and right reverend Lord is quite correct to say that this definition does not change the law. However, it describes distinct forms of unacceptable hostility that many Muslims experience. We know the terrible things that happen, online and in person, to members of our Muslim community. This should increase understanding across wider society. It gives victims confidence that what they face will be recognised and taken seriously. By setting clearer boundaries around what is and, importantly, what is not anti-Muslim hostility, the definition helps create space for a much more open and honest discussion of sensitive—we know how sensitive these issues are—but wholly legitimate issues. The definition does not restrict criticism, debate or even ridiculing. It is about unacceptable behaviour towards people, not the protection of belief systems.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the working group on a very clear, common-sense definition. Does she agree that it is a very useful public educational tool, not least for signposting actual hard law, such as articles in the human rights convention on free expression and discrimination, and, as my noble friend said, for being clear that free speech, including critique of religion, is protected?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for making the point about thanking the working group. This has been a very sensitive and very detailed piece of work for it to do, and I am very grateful to the working group, my honourable friend the Minister for Faith in the other place and, of course, my noble friend Lord Khan, who started working on this and did a great deal of work on it previously.
My point, which my noble friend echoed, is that if we cannot clearly define an issue, we cannot properly identify, measure or address it. A definition provides the clarity needed to respond consistently and effectively. It helps distinguish between legitimate debate—which remains fully protected—and unacceptable hostility, prejudice and discrimination directed at individuals. Very importantly, there are elements of the definition that refer to legal procedures and other elements that are aimed more at society’s acceptance that we should not be hostile towards our communities.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
We will hear from the Conservative Benches.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, to build on the Question from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, of course the Minister will be aware that the previous Government back in 2016—I know because I was instrumental in that—brought in the specific crime of anti-Muslim hatred, but the approach they took was one of inclusivity; that is, it was not just for one faith but for ensuring that all religious hate crime could be reported. Indeed, the statistics we have now reflect that. I respect very much Dominic Grieve, who I worked with very closely. How will this definition fit in specifically? The second element is on education and ensuring that hate crimes are reported and accurately recorded.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Yes, it is really important that we make sure that the reporting and recording are done. In terms of support for other faith groups, we will work with and celebrate our faith and belief communities to improve the understanding of different religions, to support tolerance and to build a more cohesive and resilient country. A very detailed action plan sits behind the whole of Protecting What Matters, which is where the definition is included. The education the noble Lord refers to is very clearly and consistently part of that action plan—we will have another opportunity to debate that on Monday when I will answer questions on the Statement on it. We continue to support programmes such as Near Neighbours which bring people together in religiously and ethnically diverse neighbourhoods to make sure that they are collaborating on community initiatives. The action plan supports all that work as well as providing this very clear definition of anti-Muslim hostility.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
I welcome the action plan and pay tribute to all the work that has gone into arriving at it. In 2019, the then Conservative Communities Secretary, James Brokenshire, said:
“The government is wholeheartedly committed to ensuring that Muslims are not targeted for hatred, persecution or discrimination”.
The Government’s press release at the time said that they agreed that
“there needs to be a formal definition of Islamophobia to help strengthen our efforts against anti-Muslim hatred”.
In recognising, as the Minister has set out, that this definition is not about preventing free speech but about protecting individuals, can I ask her to articulate how this plan and this definition would operate on exactly the same principle as the widely adopted working definition of antisemitism, and that those who claim this is an Islamophobia law or a blasphemy law—which is widely being put out there now, very destructively—are simply spreading disinformation and sowing division? Hate speech is not free speech.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I want to be absolutely crystal-clear on the point about blasphemy. There are no blasphemy laws in England, and the Government have no plans to introduce any. The UK has a very proud tradition of religious tolerance within the law, and the Government are committed to building a strong and integrated society in which hatred and prejudice are not tolerated and where everyone is free to express their religious identity and live without fear of discrimination or harm. Muslims are currently subject to 45% of hate crime and we have seen horrific incidents aimed at our Jewish communities and, shockingly, a spike in antisemitism in our communities following those incidents. We need to support those communities, and the Government are absolutely committed to doing so.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, it has been a great honour in the last few weeks to have been the guest at several iftar meals with the Muslim community in Yorkshire, where I am based. I know the noble Baroness mentioned the debate on Monday, but knowing how real Muslim hate crime is and hearing stories from Muslim neighbours just in the last few days, it would be good to hear more about how this is going to be implemented, because this is a definition not to sit on a shelf but to be used to help us become a more tolerant society.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the most reverend Primate. I am going to the iftar in Stevenage tomorrow evening, and it has been great to see the cross-community participation in iftars around the country. The Government are taking a number of steps to support this definition, with funding that will help to tackle some of the anti-Muslim hostility that we have seen. For example, we have put additional funding for cohesion into the Pride in Place programme to enable us to tackle some of these issues. I will go into more detail on Monday.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the anti-Muslim hostility definition allows things to be said that are “in the public interest”. Can the Minister clarify who decides what the public interest is, and how?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The definition of anti-Muslim hostility is accompanied by a statement very clearly setting out what the definition does not do. It is not legally binding; it does not override or change the law; it does not affect sentencing or create new crimes, and it does not prevent raising concerns in the public interest. It is very important that people feel able to raise concerns where they feel that they are in the public interest. It is not about protecting religion from criticism but only about protecting people from targeted hostility. Where people want to raise criticisms of a religion, and if that is in the public interest, they are perfectly able to do so.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the cost of pension salary sacrifice was set to treble to £8 billion a year by the end of this decade. That increase has been driven mostly by high earners, with additional rate taxpayers tripling their salary sacrifice contributions since 2017. This includes individuals sacrificing their bonuses without paying any income tax and national insurance contributions on them. The status quo is neither fair nor fiscally sustainable. We simply cannot afford to allow the cost of pension salary sacrifice to balloon, benefiting predominantly higher earners.
The Bill therefore introduces a cap of £2,000 under which no employer or employee national insurance contributions will be charged on any pension contributions. It protects ordinary workers by using salary sacrifice and limits the impact on employers while ensuring that the system remains fiscally sustainable. The majority of those currently using salary sacrifice will be unaffected.
Saving into a pension, including via salary sacrifice, will also remain hugely tax-advantageous under these changes. The Government currently provide over £70 billion of income tax and national insurance contributions relief on pension contributions each year. That spend will be entirely unaffected by these changes. These are fair and balanced reforms. They protect lower and middle earners. They give employers many years to prepare. They preserve the incentives that underpin workplace pension saving and they ensure that the tax system is kept on a sustainable footing. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as we said at Second Reading, in Committee and again on Report, this is a poorly conceived Bill, because it prioritises the hope of short-term tax gain over the far more important task of sustaining a system that encourages and rewards responsible pension saving. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have sought to examine it line by line to see what the Government’s policy will actually mean in practice, and what has become clear is deeply troubling.
This measure risks deterring pension savings. It will hit those on lower and middle incomes, including some earning under £30,000 a year. It will impose yet more compliance, payroll and administrative burdens on business, particularly on small businesses and charities that are already under considerable strain. It will particularly penalise those who are repaying student loans.
Against that background, I am proud of the scrutiny that the House has brought to the Bill. Your Lordships have approached it with care, expertise and determination to improve it where we can. As a result, with unusual speed, good order and good humour, the House agreed five amendments last week which seek to limit some of the Bill’s most damaging consequences.
First, our Conservative amendments ensure that basic rate taxpayers, those on the lowest incomes, are protected from the NICs charge. If the Government insist that this policy is directed at higher earners, not those on modest incomes trying to save for their retirement, this should be explicit in the Bill.
Secondly, we proposed an exemption for small and medium-sized enterprises and small charities. These organisations are the backbone of our economy and our communities, and they should not be burdened with yet more payroll, compliance and administrative costs as a result of this policy. We have all seen the impact on them of last year’s £25 billion hit.
Thirdly, we proposed that most of the regulations under the Bill should be subject to the affirmative procedure. Given the uncertainty that surrounds how these provisions will apply, it is only right that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise those regulations properly.
Fourthly, my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley successfully secured an amendment to limit the impact of the Bill on those repaying student loans, who would be hardest hit by the measure.
Finally, the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised the cap to £5,000, helping to mitigate some of the worst impacts of the Bill on those least able to bear them.
In recognition of the seriousness of the issues raised by the Bill and the progress made here, I shall take a moment to thank a number of noble Lords for the diligence with which they have scrutinised it. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lord Leigh of Hurley, Lord Fuller, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. They have worked tirelessly, both with me and my noble friend Lord Altrincham, and their amendments have prompted important debates. I am also grateful to our Whips’ Office team, especially my adviser Oliver Bramley, for their unstinting and effective support, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for the constructive way in which she has engaged with us during the course of the Bill. Hers has been a powerful voice in holding the Government to account.
More broadly, I thank other noble Lords across the House, including the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford, Lord Londesborough and Lord Freyberg, for their thoughtful contributions in scrutinising the legislation. Finally, it would be remiss of me not to thank the Minister for the way in which he has engaged with the House during the passage of the Bill. I am particularly grateful to him and his officials for their response to the letter I sent following Committee. It addressed a number of the questions raised during our debates and was both timely and informative.
I hope that, as the Bill proceeds, the Government will reflect carefully on the points raised and show a willingness to move on the issues that have united so many across this House.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, this was a very short Bill but, frankly, I do not know how it got through the House of Commons and came to this House without clarity on the fundamental issue of whether we were talking about a cap that was per employee or per employment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, for seeking the answers to that and making sure we were informed on Report. We were looking at two different Bills, not knowing which one we were working on, until we reached that point in the conversation, so I thank him.
I also join in saying that this was a collaborative effort, not in opposition to the Government but because we were of common mind across the Conservative Benches, my Benches and the Cross Benches—the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough, Lord de Clifford and Lord Freyberg, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned, all played a crucial role in this. I particularly congratulate my Benches on taking a vow of omertà not to speak on many occasions on the Bill so that we moved it rapidly through the House. I think the whole House was grateful that, on Thursday, when we finally came to vote, we were done in less than two hours rather than delaying everyone from departing on a Thursday. I thank my team very much for their discipline. I also thank Ulysse Abbate in our Whips’ office, who is new to this kind of work, but my goodness is he good at content and co-ordination.
This was a good example of people, having realised they are taking the same position, working together to make sure that it is effective. I very much hope that the Commons will appreciate the significance of the amendments passed to the Bill. Of all the Bills I have ever seen, this contains so many unintended consequences that, even if you believed in the fundamentals behind it, you would need to make substantial change for it to be in any way workable and not ending up targeting unintended groups, such as those on basic incomes. It would be devastating for people repaying student loans, which has to be fixed, and very difficult for SMEs. We chose different routes to try to make those changes and ended up with a very solid group of amendments. I thank the House for co-operating on this issue.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer. I beg to move.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:55 - Division on the amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 26 / Noes: 134 - Amendment to the Motion disagreed.
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Order laid before the House on 13 January be approved.
Relevant document: 49th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the House for its consideration of this draft order, which was laid before the House on 13 January.
The UK Emissions Trading Scheme was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme contributing to the UK’s emissions reduction targets and net-zero goal. The scheme was established to increase the climate ambition of the UK’s carbon pricing policy while protecting the competitiveness of UK businesses.
The scheme is run by the UK ETS Authority, a joint body comprising the UK Government and the devolved Governments acting together. A cap is set on the total amount of certain greenhouse gases that can be emitted by sectors covered by the scheme, and the cap is reduced over time so that total emissions must fall. Under the UK ETS, operators participating in the scheme are required to monitor, report on and surrender allowances in respect of their greenhouse gas emissions. The scope of the UK ETS is being expanded to maritime activities as part of the Government’s strategy of decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy to meet our net-zero target by 2050. It is an effective lever to reduce emissions and delivers on a key commitment in the UK’s maritime decarbonisation strategy. We expect this to help overcome key barriers to maritime decarbonisation by incentivising low-carbon fuels and fuel-efficient technologies and operating practices. Last week, the Government also brought forward £271 million of funding to help industry with the changes to vessels, fuelling and infrastructure required for maritime decarbonisation.
This statutory instrument makes amendments to the legislation that gives effect to the UK ETS. It expands the scheme’s scope to include coverage of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide from domestic voyages and in-port activities in the UK, effective from 1 July 2026. The instrument amends the legislation to require maritime operators to participate in the scheme, and to allow them to bid at auction for UK allowances. It will apply to ships of 5,000 gross tonnage and above, but a small number of exemptions apply, such as for government ships, including military and law enforcement ships, and ferries operating services to Scotland’s islands and peninsulas. Ferries serving Rathlin Island and the Isles of Scilly are out of scope of the instrument as they are below the 5,000 gross tonnage threshold. We consulted on the potential inclusion of Crown dependencies and overseas territories in the recent international maritime consultation, but they are not in scope of this instrument, which expands the scheme to domestic maritime emissions only.
The provisions set out in the instrument require the maritime operator of a ship, either its registered owner or the company responsible for its compliance with the International Safety Management Code, to obtain an emissions monitoring plan. This plan will document the processes used to ascertain its ships’ emissions. For each scheme year, maritime operators will then be expected to monitor, independently verify and report their maritime emissions to the relevant regulator, and surrender an equivalent level of allowances. The instrument also introduces the concept of “surrender deductions”, reducing by 50% the number of allowances for surrender in respect of voyages between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to deliver equivalence in carbon-pricing coverage on routes across the Irish Sea. Operators will be assigned to a UK ETS regulator based on the location of their registered office or place of residence. This is the same approach that applies to aircraft operators.
One emissions monitoring plan will cover all the ships for which the maritime operator is responsible, and emissions must be monitored using one of the four methods prescribed in the instrument. Maritime operators will be required to report emissions from all ships for which they are responsible through an annual emissions report, which must be submitted to the regulator on or before 31 March in the year following the scheme year to which it relates. Maritime operators have an obligation to verify their annual emissions report. The verification must be carried out by an impartial and accredited verifier, independent from the maritime operator. If satisfied, the verifier will draft a verification report, which will be submitted to the regulator alongside the annual emissions report.
Maritime operators will also be required to surrender a level of allowances equivalent to their emissions by 30 April in the year following the scheme year. However, the instrument introduces the concept of a “double surrender”, whereby the date by which allowances must be surrendered in relation to the first scheme year—2026—is 30 April 2028 and not 30 April 2027, as would otherwise be the case.
Neither the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, CBAM, nor its EU equivalent applies to maritime emissions, and this instrument does not introduce any CBAM obligations for maritime operators.
These changes follow comprehensive engagement and consultation with stakeholders. The UK and devolved Governments carried out a consultation in 2022 which was concerned with the development of the UK ETS, including whether to include maritime activities in the scheme. A second consultation ran between 28 November 2024 and 23 January 2025 and sought views on the details of how maritime would be incorporated into the ETS from 2026. The relevant responses to this consultation were summarised in the interim and main authority responses, published in July and November 2025 respectively.
I recognise the fatal and non-fatal amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for our discussion today. I wish to ensure that noble Lords in attendance today are aware that this legislation was approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly two days ago. This is of particular importance, as the amendments tabled identify potential issues with respect to Northern Ireland. I hope that this provides the noble Baroness and the noble Lord with some reassurance as to their concerns. Noble Lords will be aware that this instrument needs to be approved by all the UK legislatures. That has now been the case with the approval of this instrument by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Further, I urge noble Lords to consider the importance of this legislation for our wider relationship with Europe, in particular in enabling a link with the EU ETS, which includes these emissions and will provide for a mutual exemption from CBAM. This exemption will protect UK businesses from charges on £7 billion-worth of goods and services. Linkage of our emissions trading systems, combined with the sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—measures, is set to add nearly £9 billion to the UK economy by 2040. I strongly urge my fellow noble Lords to consider these benefits, and the costs they would be placing on UK businesses today should they vote in favour of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness and noble Lord.
In conclusion, the expansion of the UK ETS to cover maritime activities will support its role as a fundamental pillar of the UK’s climate policy. It plays a key part in the Government’s strategy of decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy to meet our net-zero target by 2050. It also delivers on a key commitment within our maritime decarbonisation strategy. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Hoey
Leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House declines to approve the draft Order laid before the House on 13 January because while the Scottish Islands are protected from the Order, Northern Ireland, which is already marginalised from the rest of the UK through the imposition of the Windsor Framework, is denied the same protection; and because in a context where no viable fuel alternatives exist the only impact of the Order will be to increase bureaucratic burdens on business and impose additional costs on those living in parts of the UK that depend on maritime transport”.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for his remarks and for his kindness in reaching out to me asking for a meeting when I tabled the amendment. Without wanting to in any way ruin his career prospects, I suggest to noble Lords that if this particular Minister had been in charge, this SI would not be going forward—it would be being dropped at this stage while we await future negotiations over any linkage between the EU ETS and the UK ETS.
As noble Lords will know, I have tabled several regret and fatal amendments over the past number of years, all to draw attention to the way in which the Windsor Framework has affected businesses and people in Northern Ireland. But this is a very different SI: it has absolutely nothing to do with the Windsor Framework and the protocol, although it does compound the further isolating of Northern Ireland from the rest of the country. This SI is a deliberate and calculated attack by His Majesty’s Government on business and consumers in Northern Ireland by introducing what is effectively a new maritime carbon tax, while not recognising Northern Ireland’s total reliance on maritime transport. The consequence will be that businesses and households will be disproportionately affected by it.
Noble Lords need to understand why this matters so much to Northern Ireland. It matters because we are uniquely dependent on maritime connectivity: 90% of goods entering or leaving Northern Ireland move by sea. Ferry services are absolutely vital. They are not a choice; they are an absolute must, as a route to the market in GB. These routes are vital for—to give some examples we all know about—agri-food exports, manufacturing parts, supermarket and retail distribution, supplies for construction and, of course, passenger movement.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
The noble Baroness referenced the good work of the Scotland Office in lobbying to ensure that Scotland was exempted. Does she agree that this stands in sharp contrast to the Northern Ireland Office, which was instead lobbying parties in Northern Ireland to back this order and ensure that it was implemented?
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord almost pre-empts what I was about to say, so I thank him. As if this is not enough to give politics a bad name, the events of last week, I am afraid, leave a nasty taste in the mouth. The Northern Ireland Assembly’s DAERA scrutiny committee met last Thursday and heard from Stena Line, the key ferry company linking GB to NI, and the UK Chamber of Shipping. All parties there, bar the Alliance, expressed concerns. The Minister is an Alliance member, of course. The committee was ready to reject the order but was told that there was a Northern Ireland-specific impact assessment around, and agreed to postpone its decision until Monday this week so that members could read the impact assessment. On Monday, the committee met again and was presented with no NI impact assessment because no such impact assessment existed. Officials suggested that the impact on Northern Ireland was already assessed but, again, this is not true.
The Frontier Economics study often cited was commissioned in 2023 by Whitehall departments, not the NI department. It mentions Northern Ireland a few times but provides no quantified estimates of the impacts on Northern Ireland’s consumers or business. It also spends a lot of time emphasising cruise liner shipping, which is not even covered, and barely touches on freight routes. The Government have acknowledged that Northern Ireland is more exposed to cost transmission through maritime freight but surely then there should have been a dedicated economic impact assessment carried out. Did the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ever even discuss it with Secretary of State Miliband to point out the unfairness? Sometimes we almost question the role and purpose of the Northern Ireland Office. The impact assessment statement was just a ruse to prevent a vote last Thursday that would have gone the wrong way, and to buy the Government time.
Over the weekend, Northern Ireland officials lobbied MLAs very hard. Even the Secretary of State was engaged in texting and maybe even telephoning party leaders with the argument that had never been mentioned in the other place when this was discussed, saying that the entire EU reset would be threatened if the Assembly blocked the SI. The people of Northern Ireland expect their Secretary of State to at the very least put forward the arguments as to why they should not be subject to discriminatory treatment, leading to higher fares. It is clear that Northern Ireland does not have a Northern Ireland Office that works for the people of Northern Ireland the way in which the Scotland Office does.
The committee voted by five votes to four to approve the SI. One MLA, Michelle McIlveen, described these events in the following terms in the Assembly. She stated:
“What happened was, frankly, disgraceful. Last-minute pressure was placed on parties by UKG. A new dimension associated with CBAM and impact on EU negotiations was introduced. No facts, detail or proper briefing, just smoke and mirrors. That is not the way that we should do our politics, and interference at such a late stage is highly suspicious”.
The EU reset argument is nonsense. It played on the suggestion that if this order is not passed, that would be the end of any discussion on maritime greenhouse gases. In truth, however, as noble Lords know, regulations are pulled fairly regularly to make corrections and replaced a few days later with a new set of corrected regulations with “(No.2)” added at the end. The order that we are discussing is blatantly discriminatory and I call on the Government to commit at the very least to withdraw it and table a draft (No.2) order, which can have the same wording as the current order but applies the same exemption to Northern Ireland or Scotland. I appreciate that there may be noble Lords who wish to mention some other areas of the United Kingdom that have not been exempted.
Stena Line and the UK Chamber of Shipping have asked for reasonable adjustments: a 12-month delay to allow them to prepare, a Northern Ireland-specific economic assessment, a phased introduction period, and revenues raised to be targeted towards maritime decarbonisation. All those seem eminently sensible to me, as I hope they do to other noble Lords. I support the regret amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, but I feel very strongly that we are fed up with regretting things—regret does not change anything. That is why, unless we get a very strong response from the Minister—although I appreciate that he is not making these decisions—I believe that, for the sake of the people of Northern Ireland and for the sake of decency and fairness, I will be forced to push this to a vote.
I will mention something that came up in the other House. The honourable Member for North Antrim and the honourable Member for South Antrim both spoke against this and the Conservative Members voted against it in Committee, but of course with the huge Labour majority it went through the House. The 50% reduction was raised, which Northern Ireland is of course getting. The Minister there responded by saying:
“I wanted to clear up a couple of points … The 50% reduction that applies to Northern Ireland is there to create parity between vessels that operate between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and those that operate between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 3/2/26; col. 13.]
Of course, the Republic of Ireland is under the EU’s 50% reduction. The honourable Member for North Antrim responded:
“The Minister is telling the Committee that parity with the Republic of Ireland is more important to him than parity with the rest of the United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 3/2/26; col. 14.]
That tells us something. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, I should inform the House that, if this amendment is agreed to, I will be unable to call the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this SI, to which I have tabled a regret amendment. I also echo all the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, on the role of the Minister. I will speak both to my regret amendment and to the noble Baroness’s fatal amendment.
There are two important issues regarding this SI, which places a carbon tax on the ferries that service principally Northern Ireland but also the Isle of Wight. First, as this House knows, the arguments for a statutory instrument must be identical in both Houses of Parliament and, in this case, in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as well. They are expected to be consistent in substance and fact. Neither has been applied on this occasion, as was evidenced in the debate in Northern Ireland this week.
My concerns are twofold. The first is procedural: frankly, there has been a total lack of respect for the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The second is political: this is nothing more than a carbon tax on those who rely, for their livelihoods and travel, on the ferries captured by this legislation. Unlike the European scheme, it is not hypothecated with revenues invested in decarbonisation. Instead, as has been pointed out, it is the Treasury that pockets the proceeds, with no benefit to the environment, nor, most importantly, to the people of Northern Ireland. It is just another carbon tax to make Northern Ireland in particular less competitive than like-for-like companies in GB.
On 13 January this year, the SI was introduced in both Houses. On 3 February, it passed the House of Commons without reference at any point to the implications of the EU CBAM. However, when debated on 3 February, the good news in another place was that this SI had nothing to do with the EU CBAM. If it had, it would have read differently, and the impact assessment would have shown a range of options outlining what would happen to the emissions trading system under the EU CBAM.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I note that, according to paragraph 4.42 of the Companion, the usual advisory speaking times still apply. It is 20 minutes for openers and winders and 15 minutes for everyone else. That includes the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will respond to this SI and the regret amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. My noble friend Lady Suttie will respond to the specific points raised in the fatal amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.
This order extends the UK trading scheme to cover emissions from carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide from domestic maritime activities for vessels over 5,000 gross tonnage, including in-port emissions, from 1 July 2026. It implements decisions of the UK ETS authority, agreed by all four Governments of the United Kingdom, and has already passed by a substantial majority in the other place. It is part of our broader strategy to decarbonise all sectors of the UK economy and to meet our legally binding 2050 net-zero targets.
To be clear, we support the order and we will not vote in favour of either the regret amendment or the other amendment. We believe, though, that the SI needs to meet three tests: it needs to have environmental integrity, economic fairness and practical deliverability. It must also support the UK’s wider trading interests, including our growing relationship with the European Union. The Liberal Democrats start from a clear point of principle: carbon must be properly priced and the polluter must pay. The UK ETS is a flagship decarbonisation instrument, a cap and trade system that sets a declining cap on total emissions and auctions allowances, each representing one tonne of CO2 equivalent. Tightening that cap over time sends a clear signal to businesses about what they must reduce and by when.
Emissions trading is, in our view, the most effective way to cut total emissions at the lowest cost. It enables the market to identify and invest in the cheapest abatement options, rather than relying solely on prescriptive regulation, and that reduces carbon leakage. Extending the logic to domestic maritime completes a missing piece in the system that already covers power, heavy industry and aviation. Maritime emissions matter. They are a significant and growing source of CO2 emissions. A key barrier to their reduction is that fuel prices do not adequately reflect the environmental costs and therefore reduce incentives for change. Including domestic maritime in the ETS helps to remove the barriers, putting a clear technology-neutral price on emissions from voyages and time spent at berth.
The Government’s impact assessment estimates a central net reduction of around 645,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent, delivering greenhouse gas savings valued on the central estimate of around £155 million and around £179 million in air quality benefits. Overall, the measure has a positive net social value on the Government’s central estimate of £132 million. That is a measurable gain for people and planet. Consultation material suggests that vessels over 5,000 gross tonnes account for two-fifths of domestic maritime emissions. Is the Minister confident that the scope and the threshold align with our overall carbon budgets?
Our climate policy must also be fair. Costs must not fall disproportionately on those who are least able to bear them. The Government’s impact assessment suggests limited consumer impact: typically 1% for most goods and around 2% for some—
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Can I ask him two things, from a state of ignorance? First, why is Scotland being omitted and Northern Ireland put in? Secondly, we seem to be dealing with an issue on CBAM that was not referred to in the House of Commons. It seems extraordinary that we should be looking at it from a different perspective from the House of Commons.
Earl Russell (LD)
I welcome the noble and learned Baroness’s intervention. The Scotland issue relates to devolved legislation and legislation that Scotland has passed. The issue in relation to the CBAM is in relation to—
Earl Russell (LD)
There is a reduction in place in Northern Ireland. There is not specific legislation around that.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
The noble Lord gave one of his key considerations as a test of economic fairness. Perhaps he could explain to the House how it is economically fair to have an 100% exemption for Scotland but 50% for Northern Ireland. How is that fair?
Earl Russell (LD)
It is not for me to respond to what is a question for the Minister. The Government’s impact assessment estimates central abatement investment of around £22 million, with administrative costs of £179 million over the period. The allowance-purchase cost is largely a transfer to the Exchequer and devolved Administrations, with many operators being non-UK based. Carbon pricing must therefore be matched with a credible transition plan. Without that, this becomes not a nudge for transition but could simply be a tax. However, the Government have announced £448 million for the UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions—UK SHORE—between 2026 and 2030, the largest public investment yet in commercial maritime.
Phase 2 will support larger projects through the Clean Maritime Demonstration competition and the Zero Emissions Vessels and Infrastructure competition. That is the industrial policy that must sit alongside carbon pricing. At the same time, the measure is expected, on the Government’s central estimate, to generate around £1.9 billion in allowance-sale revenue: around £95 million a year. Will the Minister confirm that a material share of ETS maritime revenues will be reinvested in maritime decarbonisation, including cleaner vessels, shore power, alternative fuels, and support for local transition in coastal and island communities, rather than simply disappearing? Will the Minister commit to publishing annually how much is raised from maritime ETS and how much is invested in maritime decarbonisation?
The cruise industry is an important and growing part of our economy, calling at some 50 UK ports and making over 2,500 calls a year, supporting tens of thousands of jobs and adding billions to the UK-wide economy. The industry’s concern on ETS is that revenues are not being visibly recycled into cleaner fuels and infrastructure specific to their industry. We only have a handful of onshore connections for cruise liners at the moment, so will the Minister tell us what investment will be made as a result of this scheme to bring shore power, and on what timetable for the cruise industry?
The Government and the UK ETS have done substantial preparatory work, including consultations, a digital monitoring platform and voluntary onboarding since November 2025, ahead of the July 2026 start. The Government’s impact assessment estimates an average administrative cost of around £5,700 per operator per year. This may be modest, but it has real implications for real firms. We recognise that this should reduce over time.
We welcome the formal review at the end of 2028 to assess emissions outcomes, administrative burdens and any needed adjustments to scope or thresholds. We have a number of specific concerns about any plans to expand the scope to international voyages. My noble friend will address the specific issues relating to Northern Ireland aspects. We believe the right approach is to keep these provisions under review and match carbon pricing with practical support, not to abandon maritime decarbonisation. Extending the UK ETS to domestic maritime emissions also helps keep our scheme aligned with greater integration with the EU. In turn, a genuinely linked system will help strengthen our trading relationship.
The fatal and regret Motions both reflect genuine anxieties about costs, competitiveness, and the union, but neither justifies rejecting this order. The suggestion that there is no alternative is not borne out by the evidence. Improved operating practices, routing efficiency and gradual fuel switching all represent viable abatement pathways.
Near-zero emission fuels remain expensive and infrastructure is incomplete. But that is exactly why revenue recycling and UK SHORE matter. The right course is to pair a robust carbon price with predictable investment that keeps the maritime sector on its net-zero path, while keeping the UK economy competitive. To call this measure simply a tax misunderstands how the ETS works. It is designed to minimise the cost of meeting our climate goals, to give business flexibility and to limit carbon leakage: this is a practical measure. It becomes a tax only if the Government pocket the proceeds and fail to reinvest them. Revenue is a byproduct: the purpose is to cap and reduce emissions over time. We are supportive of the extension of emissions trading to domestic maritime. Done well, emissions trading drives real reductions, supports innovation and underpins our net-zero transition.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the statutory instrument in the way that he did, to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for introducing her fatal Motion, and to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for introducing the regret Motion. It is very important that we in this Chamber debate these issues: this matter got 47 minutes in the other place. Often, matters that affect Northern Irish consumers and businesses in a very direct and detrimental way do not get any time at all in the other place. It is therefore all the more important that your Lordships have the opportunity to debate these matters.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, have powerfully set out what happened in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s consideration of this matter. This Government are supposed to be pro growth; they are supposed to have the cost of living at the heart of their consideration, and indeed they say that they are pro union and are committed to this through various command papers and policy statements. Thank goodness we are not debating the Windsor Framework edifice today, but it always needs to be taken into consideration, because it was certainly a matter for the Secretary of State when he was interacting with party leaders on this particular issue. This statutory instrument runs counter to all these priorities of the Government, yet they proceed with it nevertheless.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referenced the intense lobbying on the part of His Majesty’s Government, at Secretary of State and ministerial level, to parties in Northern Ireland when it became clear that they were deeply concerned about the effects on Northern Ireland. The introduction of the CBAM argument led Ms Finnegan, the Sinn Féin MLA, to say just this week in the Assembly debate:
“While the challenges facing businesses as part of the changes remain, doing nothing is simply not an option. Failure to implement the ETS would result in the costs being incurred through the carbon border adjustment mechanism”.
That proves that this argument changed minds. This was the deciding argument for Sinn Féin. Interestingly enough, it was Sinn Féin, and the SDLP and the Alliance Party, who succumbed to the arguments of the UK Government. It was an interesting turn of events that those parties succumbed to that type of argument. But that is mainly to do with their total allegiance to anything that advances the cause of the EU, even above the interests of their own constituents, as has been evidenced in many debates in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I also raise the fact that not only was the CBAM argument introduced at a very late stage but, in messages to party leaders, and certainly my party leader, the issue of the SPS agreement and the EU reset negotiations was also raised, and it was explicitly said that this would be put at risk if this SI was not passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly. These are very serious matters. Raising issues such as these as threats and blackmail, at the last minute and without any proper consideration, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out in the other place, or indeed when the matter first came before the Northern Ireland Assembly, is totally unacceptable.
It is an outrage that these matters should be considered in this way, especially when we consider what is at stake for Northern Ireland, because this is a discriminatory measure. It is a measure that disproportionately affects Northern Ireland, as has been said. I am not going to repeat all the arguments that have been set out on the economic detriment to Northern Ireland—they have been powerfully set out already—but given our dependence upon maritime transport, it is absolutely clear that this is going to have a knock-on, detrimental effect on businesses, on consumers and on every aspect of life in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
Does the noble Lord have any information as to whether the Government have considered this scheme under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, given that we are told that the exemptions for the Western Isles come from a duty under, I think, the Scotland Act? Surely, the discrimination that is evident here is contrary to that UK internal market Act.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I thank the noble Baroness, who raises a very important point, because when the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper was published, and was heavily sold in order to get the restoration of the Assembly and the Executive and so on, great emphasis was put upon this guarantee in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act that this would ensure Northern Ireland would not be put at any detriment by the introduction of new measures and so on. So, I echo what the noble Baroness has said and ask the Minister to address that specific piece of legislation, which is meant to protect Northern Ireland as part of the UK internal market. The sad reality, of course, is that that is overridden. Not to pre-empt the Minister’s answer, but I suggest he will probably say that it is overridden by the superior obligation to the EU under Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That is the real answer, even if he does not say it, and until we address that point we will not get any satisfactory resolution to the problems that we have.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. On the issue of the Scottish exemption, he really needs to come forward and explain, on this issue of economic unfairness, what the rationale is for excluding Northern Ireland. What is the rationale for comparing Northern Ireland with the Irish Republic in saying that a 50% reduction is satisfactory, given that this is what applies on trade between the Irish Republic and Great Britain, when Northern Ireland businesses are in competition with their British counterparts on the mainland? This is the comparison that needs to be made. Traders, consumers and businesses in the rest of the United Kingdom do not have to concern themselves so much—hardly at all, most of them—with any maritime transport issues, but Northern Ireland is utterly dependent upon that, so the issue of why the Scottish islands are exempt and Northern Ireland is not needs to be addressed.
There is an issue about where the money is going from this. There is no reference to the fact that this money will be used in any particular way. It is important that the Minister clarifies how the revenue is going to be used to help in relation to decarbonisation, if at all. I want to ask the Minister about the time to prepare, since the order was published on 13 January. It seems to me that there is an inordinate rush to get this through. What is the reason for that? Would one solution not be to give more time for consultation before this is brought into full implementation?
I want to ask about the maritime decarbonisation fund, with £271 million in funding to support shipping and coastal communities. Will Northern Ireland have access to that fund? I want to ask about state aid provisions in this regard, because under the Windsor Framework we are under the EU state aid regime, not the UK state aid regime. Is there any impediment to access to that fund for operators in Northern Ireland as a result of those state aid obligations? I would like a clear answer, because there seems to be some confusion on the issue and it would be helpful if the Minister would spell it out.
This is a very important debate. It raises a number of issues, not only substantive ones to do with the economy and trade. Those are important, but it has exposed a wider issue about the political process, which has been very helpfully and skilfully brought to light by both the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in introducing their Motions. It will do damage to the political process in Northern Ireland. This type of manoeuvring by the Northern Ireland Office is extremely unhelpful to the Assembly set-up, which is fragile and difficult enough.
It seems that the NIO engages with the Assembly only on its terms and when it is in its advantage to push its particular arguments. It does not seem to operate as a voice for Northern Ireland within the Cabinet or Whitehall machinery, and that really needs to be looked at. We were promised that there would be an engagement unit set up between the Cabinet Office and the Northern Ireland Executive under the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper. What has happened to that? It seems that the NIO picks and chooses whatever it wishes to raise as issues but does so to implement its view of what should happen, rather than advancing the cause of Northern Ireland within the Whitehall set-up.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this draft order and the many noble Lords who have expressed concern. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, have both set out their concerns, which I share because I live in the Isles of Scilly. Although the Minister briefly mentioned the Isle of Wight, the comments made about the difficulty of getting to and from, and living in, the islands—I include Northern Ireland in that—are well known. We have been fighting the Government for years to try and get some benefit for the Isles of Scilly and Isle of Wight, in some kind of support for transport—which is ships, of course. Although the Scottish Government were clever in sticking with what they have, we have so far failed.
Some noble Lords may say, “Well, you’re talking about little baby ferries”—those that go across to the islands I mentioned—whereas this order is at the moment limited to 5,000 tonnes. That is true, and none of the ships that go to the Isles of Scilly, except cruise ships, weigh more than that. However, we are also told by many, and I am sure it is true, that when the European Union reviews all these related regulations it will wish to reduce the limit from 5,000 tonnes to much less, so that could affect the freight and passenger ships to the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly. Let us be clear that, at the moment, the costs of services to these islands are very high. The cost of freight to the Isles of Scilly probably means that it comes out at about four times what you would be paying on the mainland for a bag of cement or a tin of baked beans. It is very serious.
The second issue I have with this draft regulation is the timing, as my noble colleague has just mentioned. The timing is quite serious if we are to come up with some alternative means of propulsion. It is fine to say that they can all be electric, and electric ships exist—but not everywhere. In parallel to electric ships, you need a lot of power to ports, but, at the moment, we seem to have a shortage of power. We have had many debates here about the high-power demands for AI, railways, buses and everything else like that. To say that ports must have enough power available to service all the ships that are going to come in in two or three months is cloud-cuckoo-land. We are talking just about ferries—nice though it is to talk about ferries to Ireland. Cruise ships have also been mentioned, as have general cargo and container ships. All kinds of different craft that could reach the 5,000 tonnes or less in the future need to know what the future limits are going to be and to assess what they will do in terms of rebuilding, refitting, or whatever.
I conclude by asking my noble friend the Minister what information has been given to the industry about the need for and the availability of shore power. I also ask him whether he thinks it would be a good idea to ring-fence some of the shore power availability to some of the bigger ports, and whether there is enough generating capacity. I hope my noble friend will be able to tell me that.
I support other noble Lords who suggest that this regulation should be delayed until we have much better proof of alignment with the EU and are given a much longer-term feed-in notice so that the industry, be it ports, shipping lines or anyone else, can adapt and avoid being fined, because that is not what we want for this business. I hope also that we can continue to have a good debate and get some exemptions for Northern Ireland, which I fully support, and for the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, my noble friend Lord Moynihan and from other noble Lords regarding the situation facing Northern Ireland’s ferry services and the shenanigans that are certainly coming to light today. Having been raised in the Republic of Ireland, I well remember our reliance on maritime trade to keep the country supplied. I therefore appreciate the pressures described today and suspect those pressures have only intensified in the current era.
I want to turn my attention to a rather smaller stretch of water, near my home in the New Forest; namely, the ferry routes to the Isle of Wight from Portsmouth, Southampton and Lymington. I have used all three of these depending on whether my journey takes me to the east of the island, to Cowes, or to the west. The distances involved may be only four to 12 miles, depending on the route, but what truly matters is that there is no alternative means of travelling to or from the island. The Government seem to have forgotten—or, dare I say, ignored—the Isle of Wight.
As a result, the Isle of Wight will face immediate and disproportionate impacts from the proposed extension to the emissions trading system to domestic maritime vessels of 5,000 gross tonnes and above. The Government’s final-stage impact assessment argues:
“Expanding the UK ETS to include domestic maritime emissions is critical for maintaining regulatory alignment with the EU ETS … Without coverage, UK operators could gain a competitive advantage over EU counterparts, creating market distortions and increasing the risk of carbon leakage”.
There are no foreign vessels trading between the south coast of England and the Isle of Wight, nor between the mainland and the Scottish islands. It is therefore difficult to see how exempting UK domestic island services would in any way undermine the relationship with the EU.
The Isle of Wight has a population of about 142,000—higher in summer as tourism swells the numbers. The island is wholly dependent on its ferries for passenger travel, as well as for the movement of freight, being fuel, food and essential goods, and exporting fresh produce. These services are part of the island’s critical national infrastructure.
Lord Greenway (CB)
My Lords, following on from the noble Lord who has just spoken, it is my understanding that the new ferry on the Isle of Wight service which he mentioned has considerable battery capacity. During her voyages, those batteries can be charged, allowing her to operate without shore power when she is in port. She is an advanced ship, one of the first in this country.
The noble Lord has very well covered the Isle of Wight scene. Given the Government’s slavish following of the EU, I find it strange that the EU can derogate ferry services to islands until 2030 but we are not doing the same. Why not? It would save a lot of the problems we are discussing today. It would also give ferry companies more time to invest more in decarbonising their vessels.
I am not going to mention Northern Ireland, because I think that it has been covered very well. I would just like to say a few words about the emissions trading scheme, which seems rather a vague thing. Nobody ever mentions it; we do not hear anything about it. I only learned yesterday that there have been some problems with it—some malpractices, one might say. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of that, but it is something that we should take into consideration.
Traditionally, maritime regulation has come from the International Maritime Organization, based across the river. People think that shipping has not taken much notice of reducing emissions, but huge strides have been made and millions, in fact billions, of pounds have been spent. The main container operators are hedging their bets because there is no silver bullet to replace the internal combustion engine, so they are producing hybrid vessels that can run on normal diesel fuel, liquefied natural gas or methanol. Companies are also looking at ammonia. In the smaller fields, especially Norway, which has been very advanced in this area, there are electric ferries and hydrogen ferries. In order to cut down their emissions, the shipping companies are looking at all ways of reducing fuel use, even going back to wind—modern computerised sails, 100 feet high, can help to reduce fuel costs considerably with the right conditions.
Likewise—this is the only mention of Northern Ireland that I will make—somebody might have noticed a ship with something that looks like an old-fashioned factory chimney sticking up in the air. A German invention of the 1920s called the Flettner rotor has been resurrected. It is a rotating cylinder that has high pressure on one side and low pressure on the other and produces force to drive something. Bulk carriers up to 400,000 tonnes can have five of these things. At over 100 feet high, they can fold down when the vessel is working in port. They are coming into increasing use. The maritime industry has not been standing still. I heartily agree with the comments that the funds—call it a tax, if you like—gained from this system should be ploughed back into the industry and not disappear into the maws of the Treasury.
As regards shore power, which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned, we certainly have three ports that have it—Aberdeen, Portsmouth and Southampton—and the Government have been assisting with the UK SHORE unit, which has considerable funds available. A scheme has been put into operation in Portsmouth. The Government put in £20 million and I think that the local authority put in another £5 million. What happened? The two French ferries that use the port will not use it. Why? Because the cost of electricity is too high in this country. If that is not shooting yourself in the foot, I do not know what is. Certainly, there are many other ports looking into this. Take Dover-Calais, one of the major ferry routes in this country. Calais has already committed to funding three berths by 2030 and Dover is looking to form a partnership to try to do something similar. But I think Dover, as a trust port, has a problem in that it has to have an Act of Parliament to be able to deal with electricity.
Cruise ships have been mentioned. There are two berths in Southampton, but only one can be used at a time because of lack of capacity in the grid. The real problem, as I see it, is that we have to increase capacity in the grid. The Minister might be able to tell us that some things are beginning to take place, but I would have thought that, before investing billions in offshore wind, it would have been more sensible to have upgraded the grid, which would have avoided a lot of these problems.
This could well be the last time that I address your Lordships, as I shall be leaving shortly, so I would like to add my regret on another matter. I have been talking on maritime matters for over 50 years in this House. When I came in, we had a very sizeable merchant fleet and a sizeable Navy. What do we have today? In terms of trading vessels, we are number 31 or 32 in the world. That is a great regret and an utter disgrace.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, it is an honour and a privilege to follow the noble Lord in what may be his valedictory speech. It is perhaps a little disappointing that it was on this SI, which seems to have been based on false premises. A range of factors that were not available in the other place were introduced only at a late stage. Also, it has been sold on the grounds of the consent of the devolved institutions. Where consent is obtained through duress and blackmail, as we have heard detailed today, how genuine is it?
It is clear that this SI will be deeply detrimental to the ferry companies. Even at this late stage, they have not been given all the technical information that they need to implement it in full. They have been given a six-month window to introduce and implement it, when even the EU gave a three-year period for introduction and implementation for a similar scheme.
The SI is deeply disproportionate. Domestic ferries account for around 1% of the UK’s carbon footprint and, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and others, we are not even in a position to take action immediately to counteract that 1%. But this clearly goes beyond the implications for ferry companies. There are implications for passengers, haulage companies and companies in Northern Ireland and the Isle of Wight—and companies in Great Britain looking to send their goods there—because, inevitably, the only way this can be dealt with is to pass those costs on to the consumer and the companies concerned.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, highlighted, Northern Ireland relies on 90% of its goods coming in and out by ferry. That is not simply a convenient choice; it is a necessity. Let me give an example from my own life—I think the term in vogue today is “lived experience”. In the last two years, I have on two occasions had to get my electric wheelchair sent back to the manufacturer for adjustments. It happened once in London and once in Belfast. In London, I could get the wheelchair to the manufacturer in Birmingham; I could have arranged for it to be picked up or got a car to take it there. As it happens, I brought it there by train. In Northern Ireland, there was no such alternative. The only opportunity that I had was to ship it by freight to Birmingham. I suppose that I could have tried driving it there, but I would have got a little wet in the meantime. The reality is that that is the level of dependence we have.
This could not come at a worse time. Because of the conflict in the Middle East, we are faced with rising fuel and transport costs and a clear knock-on effect on the cost of living, with inflation set to increase. To be fair to the Government, they will say that those are all factors outside their control. But this measure is a self-inflicted wound on top of all those factors, which will impact different parts of this United Kingdom disproportionately. We are sometimes, somewhat erroneously, referred to as an island nation. That is not accurate. We are a nation of islands. There is rightly an exemption of 100% for the Scottish islands, but to have only a 50% exemption for Northern Ireland and similar problems for the Isle of Wight is not treating all parts of the United Kingdom fairly.
I had a number of questions, nearly all of which were covered by my noble friend Lord Dodds, but I will add one. There is widespread concern that there has not been much specific assessment of the economic impact on Northern Ireland. Will the Government give a commitment today that when they review the trading scheme in 2028 there will be a Northern Ireland-specific economic impact assessment? Many of us fear this will add to an already difficult situation for many companies and many consumers in Northern Ireland. The Government must face up to that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I offer the Green Party’s support for this statutory instrument and oppose the regret and fatal amendments. I will add some extra points to this debate that have not yet been made. We must look at this in the context of global shipping, which, back in 2018, represented around 2.9% of global emissions caused by human activities and is projected to rise by up to 130% by 2050, which, essentially, would blow our climate restrictions out of the water, to use an appropriate metaphor.
In July 2023, the International Maritime Organization committed to new targets for greenhouse gas reductions and was going to adopt a basket of measures globally last year. Since then, as in many areas, we have seen President Trump put a spanner in the works. That makes it even more important for the UK to hold the line and set the standard in being, as we so often hear people saying, a world leader. If we take steps to get the fossil fuels out of these vessels and adopt alternatives then this will be world-leading. These are steps that will address the cost of living. I refer noble Lords to the report out this week from the Climate Change Committee. It noted that delivering net-zero targets will cost less than a single oil shock across the economy. Relying on fossil fuels is an extremely expensive, risky economic choice, as well as all the other issues.
There has been a fair bit about the Isle of Wight, but I want to build on what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, said. I had extensive comments, but they have said quite a bit of what I was going to say. The key point to add is that this is expected to add £1 to £2 extra to a ticket. We have grossly expensive transport options for the people on the Isle of Wight and a grossly unreliable transport system. We need huge improvements and huge changes. I speak as someone who goes to the Isle of Wight quite regularly.
Today, there are no wheelchairs, prams or bikes permitted on the FastCat due to a technical issue. The Fishbourne to Portsmouth car ferry sailings have been cancelled due to a combination of forecast wind conditions and the “St Clare” ferry running on three out of four engines due to a propeller issue. There are big problems with the Isle of Wight’s transport provision, but this is tiny in the scale of the broader problems that desperately need to be addressed.
It is worth noting what can be achieved and what is possible. On 10 March, the “Baltic Whale” took part in its first commercial voyage from Scandlines, which aims to operate without direct emissions by 2040. On the Rødby to Puttgarden route, the freight ferry makes the 10-mile crossing in 45 minutes. It has a charge time at each harbour of 12 minutes. Other countries are making huge advances. Interestingly, the “Baltic Whale” makes far less noise, which is of huge benefit to the natural environment, to the wildlife in the Baltic Sea and to human life.
I go back to the Air Quality Expert Group’s 2017 report, Impacts of Shipping on UK Air Quality, as not much has changed. It noted that shipping makes “significant contributions” to emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide, as well as PM2.5 and PM10—particulate matter. That includes emissions of black carbon and carbon dioxide. All those have major impacts on public health. If we get away from fossil fuels, we will make important steps to improve public health.
Finally, I have a direct question to put to the Minister, where I will stop supporting the Government and ask a challenging question. Everything I have just said—and what this SI does—is contradicted by the UK cruise growth plan, which aims to increase the amount of cruise ships. I draw here on a very useful briefing from Transport & Environment from the end of last year. Cruise ships are already having a huge impact on air quality in ports and can be responsible for up to 96% of toxic sulphur oxide pollution at the busiest terminals. That is particularly an issue at Southampton. It is also a very big issue in Belfast. How can the Minister justify taking steps here that are both public health measures and climate measures while the Government are in other ways promoting more pollution and more health damage?
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, in common with my noble friends and Ulster Unionist Party colleagues at the Stormont Assembly, I cannot support this legislation, which is detrimental to Northern Ireland, given the Province’s huge reliance on sea transport. We note that ferry services for the Scottish islands are exempt from this provision. Perhaps if Ministers were chasing votes in Northern Ireland in May, as they are for elections in Scotland, the exemption might have been extended across the Irish Sea as well. The Irish Sea is nothing less than an economic lifeline for the Province, with around 90% of its trade and passenger movements coming via ferries and shipping routes.
I have raised the issue of the lack of competitiveness in air services between Northern Ireland and Great Britain on numerous occasions in this House. Flying to and from Belfast on domestic routes has become incredibly expensive. Given the ongoing events in the Middle East, prices will likely rise still further. Unlike most other parts of the United Kingdom, the use of sea transportation is therefore not optional for many people and businesses in Northern Ireland.
I fully appreciate the Government’s aspiration to advance decarbonisation through the use of alternative fuels. However, if the world has learned nothing else over the past two weeks it is that there will be a continued reliance on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future in the UK and elsewhere, whether we like it or not. As such, the consequence of this order is the creation of what can only be described as a carbon tax in Northern Ireland, which would not have to be borne in anything like the same degree by the rest of the United Kingdom.
Of course, this comes as the Province continues to struggle with the seemingly ever-growing burden of costs on its people following the imposition of the Irish Sea border. The previous Conservative Government claimed to have removed it by dreaming up the Windsor Framework. It did not work. In opposition, the Labour Party pledged to improve matters if it came to power. It has not. Indeed, we have yet more costs being slapped on the Province through the order to keep Brussels happy, because the EU sets the rules in Northern Ireland now, not our supposedly sovereign UK Government.
If this order was for any purpose other than pleasing Brussels, the Government could and should have chosen to direct its proceeds into the Northern Ireland economy, perhaps with an emphasis on supporting our shipping industry and its transition to alternative means of propulsion, but they have not done so. Instead, we have yet another example of Whitehall taking the simplest option, with all the damaging implications it will have for that part of the United Kingdom, about which it knows little and, I feel, cares even less.
Lord Redwood (Con)
I agree with the contributions from Northern Ireland. This order is discriminatory against Northern Ireland in favour of Scotland, and it will do considerable damage to consumers and business in Northern Ireland.
I also welcome the remarks of my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who told us that we are engaged in a much wider debate on this rather narrow instrument now that the Government are saying that this is an important part of the United Kingdom’s participation in a carbon border adjustment mechanism—or carbon tariff—and, through the ETS at European level, in a carbon taxation scheme, which is even dearer than the United Kingdom one we have inflicted on ourselves. I urge the Government to think again. This has carried very badly in every part of the United Kingdom, represented here, that will be affected by it.
However, it is part of a much bigger error that government policy is creating. Over the last decade, the United Kingdom has been a world leader in reducing its CO2 output and has been dutiful to a fault to treaty obligations that actually relate to more distant years. As a result, we have seen a catastrophic deindustrialisation, which has gathered huge pace and momentum in the last two years with the intensification of the net-zero policies this Government have welcomed and introduced. To extend part of this system to the maritime sector would cause further damage.
Many years ago, I had the privilege to lead a big international industrial group. In those days, the group had its headquarters and most of its main factories in England. We were proud of that. We struggled to compete, but we did compete. Where we had a problem, we remedied the problem. We needed to raise our capital efficiency, so we had to spend money and investment on better plant. We needed to train our staff and use our staff better so that it was a better organisation. We stayed in the market, and we stayed producing. For example, we were responsible for a large part of the ceramic tile industry in the Potteries, with its very distinguished tradition of innovation—and domination, at times—in that very important market.
While I was there, we managed to make the investments and stay competitive enough, although the Italians were very good. I watched with sadness and shame as my successors gave up the battle through no fault of their own. At our current energy prices, we are so far away from being able to do even something relatively simple in industrial terms, such as making good industrial tile for all the homes with bathrooms and kitchens that need it. That is replicated sector by sector now.
We have heard the Green case, feeble as it is, briefly sketched today in this short debate. My response to that is that practically every policy initiative this country has taken to reduce its own CO2 has contributed to an increase in world CO2. Why on earth is that good for the environment, let alone good for our economy? We will not get our own gas out of the ground, and so we import LNG, which generates three or four times as much CO2 in the process than using our own. It is crazy, and we must stop doing this.
We need to have better-paid jobs and more investment in the United Kingdom. We need to rebuild our maritime industry. We heard from a very well-informed noble Lord, who told us that over his lifetime, supporting what was once a great industry, we have seen it almost disappear and vanish. This great maritime nation cannot now carry its own goods, because it did not create the right tax and regulatory conditions to sustain shipping in this country.
I urge the Government to think again. This is a small part of a big crisis. This is undermining our capacity to do well and make the things we need in this country. Dear energy is a killer. This is part of a package of measures that lumbers us with energy so dear we cannot make things for ourselves.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Redwood. I give my wholehearted support to the fatal amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. In her amendment, the noble Baroness poses a concerning question: how did the Government feel justified to introduce special protections for the Scottish island groups but not even to pause to consider special protections for Northern Ireland, which is more structurally dependent on sea transport?
The question was asked to the noble Earl on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who said that his remarks would be based on a point of principle. It seems that the noble Earl has one principle in his pocket for Scotland and then moves to his other pocket to take out another principle for Northern Ireland. When he was asked specifically to justify it, he said it was not for him to answer for the Government. He was asked not about the Government’s position but about how he would justify it, because he supports this SI. He was asked specifically to justify his support for it, but he failed to do so.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I support the intervention of my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss on the question of Scotland and the Scottish intervention. I do so because it makes me profoundly uneasy. When I was reading the explanatory comments from the Government for this new SI, the emphasis is on the Northern Ireland protocol of 2020. The Windsor Framework is designed to correct quite explicitly the disproportionate destabilisation of,
“Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom internal market”.
One of the ways in which it does so is clear in paragraph 51. It says it insists on,
“Northern Ireland’s central place in the UK market, on an equal footing with counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales.”
Scotland is specifically mentioned there.
As my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss points out, this SI simply does not give treatment “on an equal footing” with Scotland. I know that Charles de Gaulle gave a famous and cynical statement about treaties: that they lasted as long as pretty young girls and roses. I have always assumed that this was not the view of this Government and that they are committed to international law. There is a real problem with what they are doing with this SI. It is not compatible with the central commitment in paragraph 51 of the Windsor Framework.
My second point is broader, and has already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. The fact is that the institutions in Northern Ireland are not in as stable a condition as they should be. When the Government talk in the Explanatory Notes about the actual impact of this SI on individuals in Northern Ireland being small, I absolutely accept that. The trouble is that the number of these SIs is mounting and every few weeks, we are back in this Chamber. By the time it comes to the next Assembly elections, there will be those politicians in Northern Ireland who will have momentum to say, “Look at this list of statutory instruments. Look at these things that have moved away from the Windsor Framework.” Those who have listened to this debate will realise that the Windsor Framework is not enormously popular within the unionist population in Northern Ireland. But that having been said, it was part of the means by which the institutions were returned, so what is at stake here?
Above all else, in the broader sense, it is the survival of the institutions of the Good Friday agreement. The Government, I am sure, are absolutely determined to see the survival of those institutions—a great Labour achievement. However, they will not be assisted in this task if they proceed to take solemn commitments in the Windsor Framework that they supported strongly in opposition, and just say, “That doesn’t matter. We could have a Scottish exemption now. We can forget the commitment in paragraph 51 that there would be no such thing.” The stability of the institutions of Northern Ireland in the longer term require the Government to rethink on this matter.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I feel a bit sorry for the Minister because he introduced what appears to be a bland SI and now finds himself in the midst of a debate covering a whole range of other issues, but I am afraid that I am going to add to his discomfiture. In his powerful address earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned—as have others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—the difference in treatment relating to what the other place was aware of, and what we and the devolved institutions are aware of.
It might be useful to kick off by telling the House precisely what information was given to the parties in Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland Office. It said: “I am getting in touch with you about the Assembly debate on the maritime emissions trading scheme legislation scheduled for 10 March. I hope very much that the Ulster Unionist Party will be supporting it. It is really important, and not getting the SI through would have significant adverse consequences for Northern Ireland’s economy. If we do not link, and all the other devolved Governments have agreed to pass this legislation already, the UK would risk losing CBAM exemption, exposing £7 billion of UK exports to EU CBAM, i.e. businesses would have to pay the CBAM which we are trying to get exemption from in our negotiations with the EU. The cost of this, if we are not successful, would be far greater than the impact of the maritime emissions charge. Northern Ireland would be uniquely exposed. There could also be knock-on consequences for the SPS negotiations. SPS and ETS linkage would be worth nearly £9 billion to the UK economy by 2040”. The Minister referred to that. It continued: “This would benefit Northern Ireland directly through trade and a level playing field with the EU. The costs of purchasing allowances for GB-NI voyages in the ETS is only around £10 million to £15 million per annum and the impact on consumer prices will be low. I would be very happy to discuss”, et cetera.
That information was put through over the couple of days before the Assembly debated and people may not be aware that, had the parties fully appreciated the realities, a petition of concern could have been launched which would have prevented the Assembly passing the legislation, but parties were influenced by information that was submitted to them that is false. I therefore believe the parties in Northern Ireland were deceived, which is a big issue in and of itself.
Let us move back to the realities here on this order. It is often said that if you look after the pennies, the pounds take care of themselves. In the document on the greenhouse gas emissions scheme and its analysis, estimates of the impact on consumers are at the back. It says:
“the overall impact is estimated to be small”.
I make the point that I have sat in your Lordships’ Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee and its predecessor for five years. We get a series of EMs through from Brussels and often the relevant government departments in Whitehall say that the impact is estimated to be small. If you add all these impacts together, it is not small; it is significant.
The document goes further. It says:
“Consumers in Northern Ireland may be more exposed to any cost pass-through, due to their relatively higher reliance on goods moved via domestic maritime than GB consumers, though the overall impact is … expected to be minor”.
For me, this is the clincher:
“The exact impact is difficult to quantify, given the lack of data about the contents of containers travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
That is nonsense. Every article that is in a container must be specified under the Windsor Framework. We know exactly what is in every container and, in fact, every container can be opened. Pallets can be taken out and, if the inspectors are not satisfied, it can be held at the ports. We already have to provide the European Union with the details of the contents of every container, yet the Government are saying in their own document
“given the lack of data about the contents of containers travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
That is fundamentally wrong.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and congratulate her on her indefatigability and persistence on these issues, although that is usually on the basis of debating the Windsor Framework, which we are not doing today. I commend my noble friend Lord Redwood on his tour de force speech, and the forensic interpretation outlined by my noble friend on the Front Bench Lord Moynihan. I have a rule of thumb: if I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I am on the right track. It may be that I am cynical, but he is right to draw out the issue of constitutional propriety and whether central government has shown proper respect for the devolved Administrations, particularly the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive, on this occasion.
We all remember that at the time of Brexit, a senior official called Martin Selmayr stated that the two imperatives for the EU after Brexit were that Brexit should be as painful as possible for the United Kingdom, and that the European Union should never have a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis the economy and commerce of the United Kingdom. Therefore, as a student and fan of true crime, I see all these pieces of the jigsaw puzzle coming together, because I have to repeat the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds: why the rush? Why are we in a position where what has been told to individual Members of Parliament by Ministers in the other place is different from issues that were raised in the Northern Ireland Assembly and its committees?
I read the deliberations of the committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as the Delegated Legislation Committee that met last month. The fact is that this is a pernicious carbon tax, and it does not present that sector with an opportunity to adapt in a timely way. It has a disproportionate impact on Northern Ireland, as we have heard: on supply chains, on inflation, on food prices and on transport costs. There is obviously an unfairness between the way that the Scottish island ferries have been treated and Northern Ireland. I challenge the Minister, once again—and going back to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn—as to what is the rationale for the different treatment between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Incidentally, Scotland does not get off scot free: as I understand, 145 gas and oil supply and support vessels will also be caught by this order. If the oil and gas industry has not already been clobbered almost into oblivion by the abysmal policies of this Government, and the zealotry of the Secretary of State in seeking to destroy that industry and reduce the employment prospects in Aberdeenshire and other places, this will be another nail in the coffin.
I must ask whether this is linked to wider negotiations with the European Union, in terms of the timescale and timeframe, because that is an important question about the propriety or otherwise of these proposals. At the moment, there is no evidence of likely behavioural change as we run up to the implementation of the order in July this year. As we have heard, the revenue that will accrue from this carbon tax, imposed disproportionately on Northern Ireland but across the sector, is non-hypothecated. As we know, His Majesty’s Treasury is always keen to see an income stream but not to disburse that back to a hypothecated source of the income.
I finish with some questions for the Minister. When will the Government produce clear, technical guidance on the scheme? What support will be provided to the industry to source alternative fuels in a timely and cost-effective way? What analysis has been done by His Majesty’s Government as to the availability of appropriate sector infrastructure to enable the maritime industry to transition to a low-carbon or net-zero regime? What estimate has been made of the costs of compliance annually, particularly the administrative costs, such as producing risk assessments? What impact will there be on the 145 oil and gas support vessels supporting operations in the North Sea? Why have His Majesty’s Government not included measures in the order to support retrofitting, or alternative quayside power supplies at ports, to facilitate the use of alternative modes of propulsion? That issue was raised very astutely by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. What discussions has he had, along with his ministerial colleagues, with the EU interlocutors on the timescale of this order, on securing the legal effect of it, and how might this impact on negotiations following the UK-EU common understanding in May 2025?
The Minister needs to listen to the widespread disquiet across this House and the consensus that this order is inappropriate to be laid at the moment. There are too many issues which are unresolved and too many questions still to be answered about the impact on Northern Ireland and the wider economy. I have to say to the Minister that he needs to pause the order and tell our friends in the EU that our pre-eminent priority is British interests, not the arbitrary timetable imposed by the European Union.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, who had more of a maritime emphasis, particularly in his questions. I acknowledge the strong contribution made by my noble friend Lord Greenway. The reality is that the SI before the House is not suitable in its current form. I will talk particularly from a maritime aspect.
Many of the leading international and, indeed, local ship owners in the industry are committed to net zero by 2050. The UK Chamber of Shipping called for the global shipping industry to reach net-zero emissions by 2050—prior, in fact, to the UK Government and the IMO. The industry has consistently supported the effective mechanisms to cut emissions. Across the sector, owners have invested in new technologies and pioneering innovation such as new hybrid vessels, and invested to enable shore power connections to meet commitments and lead the drive towards net zero. But the SI inflicts significant new expenses on the ship owner and operator, without the Government committing to invest the substantial sums raised in net-zero-related investment, as has been agreed by the EU.
An obvious potential use for the funds might be in shore power. Significant investments have already been made by ferry operators and cruise ship owners in ships that are already fitted to link up to shore power, with obvious benefit to the environment and the atmosphere. But, as we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Ashcombe, there is very little installed power in the UK. These significant costs on the owner are expected to curtail the scope for further investment on the ships side in measures and equipment that will reduce emissions.
Let us be very clear: there is an immediate impact on costs. The Government’s own impact assessment calculated, as we heard, the administration cost of the scheme at £179 million, far exceeding the estimated abatement investment of £22 million, implying that, for every £1 spent on decarbonisation, £8 is spent on admin and bureaucracy. Does this sound like good business sense?
The additional costs will impact on businesses and communities. We should not forget that these businesses and communities are located on islands or along the coast, which are already recognised, typically, as economically disadvantaged. Surely, the Government do not wish to further disadvantage these communities. Estimates show that, without exemption, annual fuel costs may increase by up to 25% to 30%. The EU ETS has increased intra-EU maritime and transport costs by around £1 billion annually, with ticket price impacts estimated at up to 15%. Similar outcomes are expected under the UK ETS.
We know that the challenges faced by the Scottish islands have been recognised, and they are excluded from the scheme; and I certainly support the view that the Isles of Scilly, in the case of a larger ship, and the Isle of Wight should also be excluded.
Introducing new monitoring requirements alongside responsible emissions from 2026 adds administrative burden, compliance burdens and risk, and working capital costs. At the same time, vessels cannot yet access alternative fuels, onshore power or adequate grid capacity to reduce emissions, none of which exists in meaningful degree in UK ports today. Without a clear commitment on the part of the Government to recycle the revenue from maritime, the UK ETS will simply divert capital from decarbonisation investment in vital infrastructure, shore power and alternative fuels—and, as has been noted, it may very well just disappear into government coffers.
The industry wants rule introduction to follow that of the EU in, for example, timelines, enforcement mechanisms and data systems, to avoid divergence that could hinder linkage. The recommendation of the industry is for a phased implementation for the necessary data reporting, like the EU did and the UK has, in fact, already done for the waste incineration industry. Phased introduction in allowances to surrender, which start at 40% obligation in the first year and are 70% in year two, rising to 100% in year three, would also be a suitable introductory system.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I too share the disquiet—without, I have to say, any knowledge of the subject—of most noble Lords who have spoken so far, but I, like others, will be voting so I have three questions for the Minister. First, what was said to the other House? Apparently, the other House was told that CBAM was irrelevant. Today we are told that CBAM is entirely relevant. Is it really appropriate for both Houses to have a statutory instrument put to them on different bases? I find that very unattractive.
Secondly, we are told that misinformation, or false information, has been given to other parts of the United Kingdom. That seems to me a serious allegation, one which the Minister needs to answer. Thirdly—I will not dwell on it, because it has been dwelt on—there is an obvious element of discrimination between Scotland and Northern Ireland. That really needs a sensible, understandable answer.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, this has been a characteristically impassioned debate, which is perhaps not surprising given the subjects of EU alignment, devolution and greenhouse gas emissions. It is inevitable that people are going to feel very strongly about this subject. If the noble Lord, Lord Empey, expressed his concern for the Minister in trying to reply to this debate, I would add that it is slightly difficult, as the only Scot who has so far spoken in this debate. In well over two hours, I think I am only the fourth person to vaguely talk in favour of this statutory instrument. I thank the Minister for both his time, when he gave us a briefing, and his introduction to these regulations. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for tabling this fatal amendment—even though we will not be supporting it—because it is incredibly important that we get the time to debate these matters.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said, it is incredibly important that this Parliament has a chance to debate these issues, not least because we are going to see an increasing number of them as we approach dynamic alignment with the European Union on ETS, as well as potential agreements on SPS and the electricity market. We have to find a way to allow this Chamber and those at the other end of the building to debate these things properly. I hope that the Government are giving some considerable thought to how effective parliamentary oversight on these matters can and will take place if and when these additional agreements are made later this year.
These regulations, it should be recalled, stem from regulations introduced by the Conservative Government in 2021 and the creation of the UK ETS following our departure from the EU ETS after Brexit. As these issues are devolved, they have had to be decided by the four parts of the United Kingdom. In answer to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I am the only Scot speaking here today, but it was the Scottish Government who effectively campaigned for the exemption for the Scottish islands. They are not my party, but they obviously campaigned very successfully on this matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, who is no longer in her place, was right when she said that these regulations stem from regulations introduced in the Scottish Parliament in 2018.
It is important to note that these regulations were agreed last month by both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd, and this week by the Northern Ireland Assembly, notwithstanding the comments from noble Lords about that process. It was voted for by the Northern Ireland Assembly by 44 votes to 23 this Tuesday. As I said, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, was quite right. My understanding is that the exemption for Scottish ferries is not a general maritime exemption; it stems from the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament eight years ago to protect specific lifeline services for small, isolated island communities. Clearly, protection for small island communities is very important. Will the Minister confirm that this Scottish exemption for island ferries will form part of the review in 2028? I feel it is important for us to know.
I also thank the Minister for clarifying that ferries to small island communities in Northern Ireland are already exempt from these regulations, as they do not involve vessels of over 5,000 cubic tonnes. As my noble friend Lord Russell clearly set out, we on these Benches strongly support measures to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases produced by maritime activities, but we none the less believe that these must be accompanied by port upgrades or cleaner fuel infrastructure, as well as by encouraging innovation and economic development in a cleaner maritime sector. I note, in passing, that those who constantly oppose measures to reduce climate change never seem to factor in the cost of non-action. We also support the general principle of aligning as closely as possible with the EU ETS to minimise friction on trade.
It is important to bear in mind, however, the impact that other noble Lords have set out on the economy of Northern Ireland and on the cost of living in these increasingly challenging times for the global economy, not least in terms of energy because of the war in the Gulf. It is also important to allow a full and transparent review of how the scheme works in practice and to correct any unintended consequences once it is introduced later this year. Given that the Government’s own impact assessment states that Northern Ireland
“could face disproportionate administrative burdens”,
it is important that we continue to monitor the situation extremely closely. Can the Minister say whether they intend to give regular reports to this Parliament, as well as to the devolved parliaments, on how the regulations are working in practice once they are introduced? Can he confirm that they will continue to consult closely the maritime sector, businesses and consumer organisations?
As there is currently a distinct lack of viable low-carbon alternatives for many maritime routes serving Northern Ireland, have the Government carried out any analysis regarding the extent to which additional ETS-related costs could be passed on to consumers by shipping operators and retailers? The EU ETS currently covers 50% of emissions from international voyages starting or ending in an EU member state, which, for example, currently includes container ships travelling from GB to the Republic of Ireland. It is therefore welcome that there is a 50% deduction for GB-NI routes, as it provides for a level playing field with Irish ports. However, if and when there is increasing—or indeed eventually full—alignment with the EU ETS, can the Minister say whether he expects this 50% deduction for both the Republic of Ireland and GB-NI routes to be removed? I appreciate that might be a rather complicated question, but I would very much appreciate his answer. Can he also say what measures the Government intend to put in place to avoid a cliff edge following the review of these regulations in 2028?
In conclusion, we support these regulations as we welcome the move towards greater alignment with the EU ETS, and we do not support either the regret amendment or the fatal amendment. None the less, we recognise the need for proportionality as well as strong transitional and review measures. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their valued, valuable and very wide-ranging contributions to this debate this afternoon. I am, I think, a fairly plain and straightforward person, but I have at times in the debate failed to get to grips with exactly what it is supposed to be about. It is about the decarbonisation of the UK economy, how the emissions trading scheme is probably the most efficient way of ensuring decarbonisation in our economy, and what should and should not be in that emissions trading scheme. We have also heard in the discussion how that trading scheme might be more widely based so that its decarbonisation effect is improved.
A part of that is of course the entry into the ETS of the maritime sector. For those who say that this statutory instrument is very rushed, I might have to go down a brief historical byway and mention that one can trace back this particular SI to a 2022 consultation on whether the maritime sector should be included in the ETS—a consultation under the previous Government, not this Government, I might add. The response to that consultation was a strong indication that, yes, the maritime sector should be in the emissions trading scheme. Since then, there has been a series of consultations with the maritime industry and many other people about exactly how that should be done, what part the maritime industry should play in its own decarbonisation and how it can contribute substantially to the UK overall trading emissions picture. I have to say that the UK maritime industry has done very well in its contribution so far to making that transition as effective as it can be.
Taken in that context, I am a little surprised at the regret amendment that has been tabled, because essentially this is a past Government regretting their own actions. Yes, there is plenty to regret about the previous Government, but to have the previous Government regretting themselves seems to be a step further forward than was previously the case.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
We have a problem with the Isle of Wight. One of the vessels has done everything that it could possibly do to decarbonise. It has no option to go anywhere else because the power is not there. It is a fully hybrid boat, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, pointed out with a great deal more technical ability than I have. These vessels cannot go anywhere else, so this is a straight tax that will end up primarily on the residents of the Isle of Wight.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a strong point about the power supply to the Isle of Wight. This is also the case with some other ports. Other noble Lords have said this in their interventions, including the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for whom I have a great deal of respect and admiration, through our long relationship with the Maritime and Ports Group in another place. He speaks with great authority and considerable knowledge and wisdom on this subject.
Shore power and an electrical supply to ports to enable decarbonisation to take place is a serious question. Both the port of Portsmouth and, in parallel, the port of Southampton suffer from particular cable connections from the substations in their area, which could, at a sub-national grid level, provide sufficient shore power and power for the electrical hybrid ships that may visit these ports. That can be effected by what is called a reopener of the arrangements for distributed network operations to ensure that this power can come forward at an early date. This is what Southampton has done. The power is likely to be forthcoming long before the 2037 date that the noble Lord mentioned. If Portsmouth has not done this yet, I would suggest that it does so. The power is there and readily available to get to the ports. It is a question of putting it in early, rather than later, to make sure that this transition can take place. That is part of a wider problem about grids and grid power in the country as a whole, which this Government are addressing urgently to make sure that we have the power to get ourselves across the transition in the way that we want.
Because of the time available, I will have to address some of the issues by writing to a number of Peers. In this debate, I want to emphasise that this is not a conspiracy to do anybody down or to try to isolate particular communities. Nor is it aimed at undermining the economic prosperity of the country. It is a decarbonisation measure that has to happen as part of our general decarbonisation route to net zero. It would be anomalous if the maritime sector were to be excluded from that decarbonisation route and if we were not to take measures, which I have known about for a long while, to make sure that that decarbonisation route is as effective as it can be in how it aligns with the EU ETS and eventually with the CBAM process. At present there is some problem of alignment because the EU CBAM process is proceeding earlier than the UK CBAM process. These need to be aligned in the longer term. As has been mentioned in this debate, the prize for that alignment is a substantial bonus for UK trade—£9 billion or so over a longer period. It would be remiss of this Government if they did not have that largely in view in what they are undertaking as far as this SI is concerned. Indeed, the Government do have this in view.
I can certainly say to noble Lords that the effect of this SI will be seriously reviewed in 2028. It is likely that, should everything come into proper alignment with CBAM and the EU, some of those shorter-term exemptions and changes will come jointly into alignment for the net benefit of everybody, including Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the UK. That alignment will mean a joint overall benefit all round.
Lord Empey (UUP)
The noble Lord did not address the main point in the debate at all, or the fact that his document says:
“The exact impact is difficult to quantify, given the lack of data about the contents of containers travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
That was not mentioned. This is not benign; if it were, there would be 100% reductions and everybody would literally be in the same boat. This will have no practical impact on reducing pollution, because it is an impossibility for the next 15 years.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
It is not an impossibility for the next 15 years. Getting an accurate picture of trade always involves a range of calculations—you cannot get it exactly right. However, so far the impact of this proposed order has been assessed at below 1% of those costs; the Government do not recognise the figure of 6% put out by some parts of the industry. That is set against the gain that could come from those bodies being in the ETS, the alignment with CBAM in future and so on.
I might add that, although the product of this particular entry into the ETS has not and will not be hypothecated—indeed, no British Government have ever hypothecated anything that has come into their coffers—what we need to judge it by is how much money has already gone out. Just last week, £271 million went out to further support the maritime industry in its transition to a low-carbon basis. The SHORE fund has several hundred million in it, including £18 million that has already gone to Northern Ireland. All of these are paying back the money that is going into the fund in the future, for the benefit of the maritime industry and its transition.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, at the beginning of this debate, when I was being nice to the Minister and thanked him for the meeting he asked for with me, I said that I did not want to spoil his career prospects and that I thought that, if it had been his decision, he might have chosen to withdraw the SI at the beginning. Now, by the end of this debate, perhaps he would have been even more keen to withdraw it.
This has been an extremely good and wide-ranging debate, as the Minister said. It has brought together two or three key issues—I will not go over them again. It is the first time I have had an SI dealing with not only Northern Ireland but other parts of the United Kingdom, and it has been very good to see so many of the Government Benches full. If one benefit of tabling a fatal amendment is to get a lot of Labour Peers to come here and listen, it is probably worth it.
I thank in particular those Peers who do not normally speak on issues related to Northern Ireland. My fatal amendment is very much geared to the inequality of Northern Ireland and the way it is treated differently from Scotland. It was particularly good to hear from the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Ashcombe, on the wider aspects of the SI in relation to the Isle of Wight and the Scilly Isles. It was also good to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Mountevans and Lord Greenway—I am very sorry if this might well have been his last speech in the House—who brought their genuine experience of shipping.
If there is any lesson to learn today about speeches, it is that we should all, including me, follow the example of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who, in her two very short interventions, hit the nail right on the head about how this issue has been handled. Despite the meetings on this side, what happened over the past few days in Northern Ireland was a very bad way for government to be working. The way that the Northern Ireland Office has completely ignored the wishes and needs of Northern Ireland, in terms of business opportunities and what will happen with this carbon tax, has been quite deplorable. Worst of all, as has been said by a number of Peers, was the way the statutory instrument was dealt with in the other place: absolutely different information was given right up to the very last minute. The MLAs were cajoled, blackmailed and treated by the Government as if they were pretty stupid and would not understand that they were being told things that were different from what had been said in the other place.
I thank all Members who have spoken. Of course, all the Northern Ireland Members know the issue and how strongly people will feel its effects. The unfairness to part of the United Kingdom, which comes up over and over again in this place, is becoming ridiculous and quite unsustainable if we care about the union and equality between all parts of the union. Having said all that, I really do not want to waste people’s time when they have sat through and listened. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government believe that the UK should be a country where every person has the opportunity to fulfil their potential. That is why we are so committed to removing the barriers that stop people thriving and becoming all that they can be. Doing this will benefit not just the individuals, it will benefit our country. So I am delighted to be here today to move Second Reading of the Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill. It makes a major contribution to tackling the poverty that limits children’s chances in life, and often for life.
There are now four and a half million children in poverty—900,000 more than there were in 2010. To put that in context, if we picture a classroom of 30 children, at the moment around 10 of them will be living in poverty. Some 2 million of our children are in deep material poverty, lacking the basic essentials such as a warm home or healthy food—things without which no child should be growing up. It is shocking enough that so many of our children have to live through childhood like that, but it is even more shocking when we consider the hugely detrimental consequences that growing up in poverty has on children’s health, education and future employment prospects.
Just one in four children in families with the lowest incomes gets good GCSEs. As adults, those who grew up in poverty are more likely to be unemployed or to find themselves in low-skilled, lower-paid jobs. Those who grow up poor clearly do not lack talent; what they lack is opportunity. As a result, our country is missing out on their gifts and their contributions. We are determined to break this link between children’s backgrounds and their future success. That is why, since coming into office, we have taken significant steps to help families tackle poverty and give every child the best start in life: increasing the minimum wage, expanding free school meals for over half a million children, investing in social and affordable housing, and funding more Best Start Family Hubs. We are now pulling the single most cost-effective lever available: removing the universal credit two-child limit, which will lift 450,000 children out of poverty.
This is the right move to extend opportunity, and it is right because our system should not be penalising so many of our children for the circumstances of their birth—circumstances their parents may not have chosen or expected. Life is unpredictable, and crisis can hit anyone regardless of the choices they have made or the size of their family. Marriages break up; parents lose their jobs or get sick, or injured, or die.
That unpredictability is reflected in the fact that half the families who will benefit from lifting the two-child limit were not on universal credit when they had any of their children. These are people who found themselves in need of help after decisions about family size had been taken. It simply is not right to draw dividing lines in the way the two-child limit sought to do, especially when over half the families affected by the two-child limit are already in work, and, of those who are not working, a significant number are affected by serious health conditions or caring responsibilities.
Illness, disability, bereavement, unemployment, becoming a carer—these things can hit any one of us, and have probably hit many of us in this Chamber already. Our welfare state exists to pool risk, to give all of us some protection from the impact of life’s slings and arrows. Some will look only at the cost, without looking at the cost of failing to offer support. We simply cannot afford to sit on our hands and wait for the costs of poverty to spiral. Without intervention, 150,000 more children will be pulled into poverty by 2030. That is 150,000 stories of missed opportunity, of deeper inequality, of lost productivity. But if tackling poverty is vital not just for the lives and opportunities of children, it is vital for our economy. Every pound we spend lifting children out of poverty saves so much more in future health, education and social security costs.
Few investments will reap rewards as great as investing in the next generation, in our future workforce. Failing to act on child poverty will cost Britain far more than investing now. That is why removing the two-child limit is part of our wider child poverty strategy. We committed in our manifesto to making good work the foundation of our approach to tackling poverty. Parents are doing all they can to support their children. Parental employment rates are already high but, with almost three-quarters of children in poverty being in a working family, too many parents find themselves in jobs where they are still struggling to support their families.
Meanwhile, too many of those who are not in work face barriers to entering the labour market, whether that is down to health, disability, a lack of childcare, poor skills, public transport not working in their area, or all kinds of other barriers. We want every parent who can work to feel the benefits of secure, rewarding jobs that enable them to get on in life, to support their families and to set an example to the next generation. That is why we will deliver a step change in employment and skills support for parents, helping them to balance work and caring responsibilities through high-quality, flexible jobs and improving access to affordable childcare.
The expansion of childcare comes alongside other measures in our child poverty strategy to drive down working poverty, including raising the minimum wage and creating more secure jobs by strengthening rights at work. The measures and the strategy will lift 550,000 children out of poverty. These interventions will lead to the largest expected reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since comparable records began. Together, all this represents a strong start. It kick-starts action and ambition over the next 10 years, responding to the immediate pressures families face now while delivering change to fix the structural drivers of child poverty.
But we do not underestimate the scale of the challenge: to build a society where every child grows up safe, warm and well fed, not held back by poverty but helped forward by government. So we will monitor our progress using two main metrics. First, we will use the internationally recognised and well-established “relative low income after housing costs” measure to monitor overall child poverty. Secondly, there will be a new measure of deep material poverty, which we have developed to assess families’ ability to afford the essentials. This takes account not just of their income but of the cost of essentials, their overall financial situation and the support they receive locally. It is not just the number of children in poverty that matters; it is the depth of that poverty too.
We are committed to ensuring that removing the two-child limit, along with other measures in the child poverty strategy, delivers the results children need and deserve. To support this, we have published a monitoring and evaluation framework alongside the strategy. That sets out how we will track our progress and the success of these policies, as part of an ongoing commitment to transparency, accountability and continued learning. This includes focused analysis to understand what drives child poverty and the impacts of the changes we are making, so that we can build on our successes and continue to make the case for further intervention. We will publish a baseline report in the summer setting out the latest statistics and evidence, with annual reports thereafter to monitor and evaluate progress.
This Government will not stand by while millions of children face the long-term harm that poverty brings. Families in poverty cannot afford to give their children what they need to grow and to achieve their potential. We will boost family incomes through employment and social security, drive down the cost of essentials and strengthen local support services. We are investing in the future of our children and will hold ourselves to account on delivering the impact we promised through this Parliament and beyond. We will remove this cruel policy, which has pushed 300,000 children into poverty.
I look forward very much to this debate and especially to the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lady Antrobus and Lord Walker of Broxton and the noble Baroness, Lady Teather. Between them they bring an amazing wealth and breadth of experience and knowledge to our House. I am delighted that they have chosen this extremely important Bill to make their first contribution to our proceedings. I beg to move.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I too am pleased to contribute to this important debate and look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Antrobus and Lady Teather, and the noble Lord Walker of Broxton. We welcome these wonderful people to our House and look forward to their contributions.
I feel I must set the scene and set it out very clearly. I say from the outset that we on the Opposition Benches do not support this Bill; in fact, we oppose it. That does not mean in any way that we do not care about children and families—quite the contrary. We believe there are other ways to support them that mean that money can be used differently to achieve the objective of improving their lives. I state publicly that I respect the consistency and tenacity of the Minister and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in their campaigning in this area. We respect it. We may not agree with it, but we give credit where it is due.
We are far from alone in opposing the Bill. On this question, we stand with a clear majority of the British public. Polling consistently shows that more than 60% of people in this country support retaining the two-child benefit cap, with that support stretching across voters of all major political parties. What this debate increasingly appears to be about is not responsible public policy but political party management. As events over the past year have made clear, this measure is not being brought forward because the public have demanded it. Indeed, they are clearly opposed to it. We should all pause and consider why hard-working taxpayers are being asked to shoulder the financial consequences of the Government’s inability to manage their parliamentary party. That is not responsible government; it is a deeply troubling response from the Government to unrest.
Many across this Chamber will have their own principles and reasons for opposing this policy, but I begin with a simple illustration of what this policy and this debate mean in practice. Let us take the London Borough of Hackney. There, 29% of children live in households affected by the two-child limit without an exemption—the highest proportion anywhere in the country. As of August last year, there were 92 households in Hackney on universal credit with five or more children where the youngest child was born after the 2017 cut-off date. Unless they qualify for one of the limited exemptions, those households fall within the scope of the two-child limit. In other words, they already receive less than the maximum universal credit they would otherwise be entitled to. Yet even with the cap in place, these households receive on average £5,152 per month in universal credit. That is more than the take-home pay of someone earning around £88,000 a year. Across the country, the welfare bill for five-child households within the scope of the cap is already around £720 million per year. That is with the two-child limit still in place.
Set that against the reality faced by many working families. In Hackney and communities across the country, there are parents in work earning far less than that level of take-home pay who would love nothing more than to have a third child. But they sit down at the kitchen table, look at the household finances and make the heartbreaking decision that they simply cannot afford it. At the very same time, their taxes are funding households down the road who receive an income from universal credit that, in effect, exceeds their own. If this cap is removed, those households will not face the same choices about how many children they can afford.
I ask the Minister a simple question: how can that possibly be fair? How can it be right that working people supporting our economy and paying the taxes that fund the system must carefully limit the size of their own families while being asked to fund a system in which those not in work face no such constraint? That is the fundamental question of fairness at the heart of this debate, and it is why a clear majority of the public vehemently support the cap.
There is a wider point about economic development. More than this, what separates us on these Benches from the Minister and her Back Benches is our view that a handout is not the same as a hand up. The evidence is clear that the most effective way to tackle poverty is to provide people with the means and the incentives to provide for themselves. The single biggest factor in a child’s life chances is whether parents work, and removing the cap reduces the incentives to work altogether. That is clearly not a route out of poverty. Of course support should be targeted at those who need it—we have no argument with that—but it should not create a model where households on benefits are rewarded in a way no working family ever would be. That undermines both fairness and the incentive to work. As I have said, work is the only meaningful way that we will solve the problem of child poverty in the medium and long term.
When the incentive in place is to get more on benefits than working, why would you go to work? I am concerned by the view expressed by Labour Back-Benchers and the Government that increasing the generosity of the welfare offer in some way solves the issue of poverty. This approach does nothing but provide a sticking plaster to mask the fact that a dramatically increasing number of people rely solely on the state for their subsistence. This comes at a major and increasing cost to those who work and contribute, as the Spring Statement disturbingly underscored when it revealed that welfare spending will rise by 5.8% this year to an absolutely staggering £330 billion—around 11% of GDP.
My party has been clear. We would reinstate the two-child cap. Only last week my right honourable friend, Kemi Badenoch, the leader of our party, set out why. The savings from this policy could be redirected toward one of the more fundamental responsibilities of any Government—the protection and defence of the realm. Again, I stress that it does not mean that we do not care about children and families, but those savings would allow the recruitment of 20,000 additional soldiers and fund the accommodation, equipment and support they need to do their jobs properly at a time when the demands on our Armed Forces are growing and the world is becoming more uncertain. That is a central priority.
After the extraordinary spectacle of recent weeks, when the world has seen the Government unable and unwilling to defend British sovereign territory, the case for properly funding our Armed Forces has become more urgent than ever. Our defence should not be an afterthought. It should be the first duty of the state.
That is why it is so troubling that money that could be strengthening our national defence is instead being spent to manage the Government’s internal policies and politics. The country is being asked to foot the bill not because the policy case has been won but because the Government and the Chancellor have chosen not to pursue the welfare reforms they themselves once supported because they are too weak to get them past their own MPs. Do His Majesty’s Government have any plans to review the welfare state and to change it to a system that incentivises people to work, rather than live permanently on benefits? The defence of the nation should always come before the management of the governing party but, unfortunately, the policy we are discussing today is a manifestation of just that.
Ultimately, this debate comes down to three simple principles: fairness, responsibility and the Government’s priorities. It is about fairness, because it cannot be right that working families who get up every day, pay their taxes and carefully weigh what they can and cannot afford for their own children, are asked to fund a system in which those same choices do not apply. A welfare system that loses sight of that basic sense of fairness will quickly lose the confidence of the people who sustain it. It is about responsibility, because tackling poverty cannot mean simply writing even larger checks from the state. Real and lasting progress comes from helping people into work, strengthening incentives and ensuring that welfare is a safety net, not a substitute for independence. A system that blurs that distinction ultimately fails the very people it claims to help. It is about priorities, because every £1 spent by the state is a £1 taken from taxpayers and other priorities. At a time of enormous pressure on the public finances and growing threats in the world around us, the Government must be honest about where those resources should go.
This Bill fails on all three counts. It weakens fairness, it risks entrenching dependency rather than tackling its causes and it diverts scarce resources away from the fundamental duties of government. For those reasons, and in the interest of fairness and sound policy, these Benches cannot support the Bill. We urge the Government to keep the cap; it is what the country wants and what the country needs. I know the Benches opposite will not agree with me one little bit—I am under no illusions about that. I remind the whole House that you cannot make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor and you cannot help the wage earner by punishing the wage payer.
Baroness Teather (LD) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech here during this Second Reading debate. Supporting children and tackling the impact of poverty and disadvantage have been core themes of my work, both in the other place and in my charity and NHS board roles since.
I will turn to the substance of the Bill in a moment and say some personal words about myself at the close. First, I hope noble Lords will indulge me in offering some heartfelt thanks. I am indebted to the many people who have guided me so patiently in my first few weeks. Having done my apprenticeship at the other end, this place is at once both familiar and very different. I am still navigating by reference to glimpses of green carpet that border red, meaning getting anywhere is taking me twice as long as it should.
I am particularly grateful to Black Rod’s team and to the doorkeepers, who made heroic efforts to support my husband, who is a wheelchair user, at my introduction, as they have today. He is here to listen, along with my parents, and I am very grateful to them for being here. I thank the clerks, the Lord Speaker, the attendants and my supporters—my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lady Kramer—and the youthful staff team in the Lib Dem Whips Office, who are a daily source of facts, sanity and humour.
The Bill is hugely welcome. While some might say that it is not before time, I want instead to recognise the work done by the Minister in this House—the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock—and the Secretary of State in the other place to bring this Bill forward. I served as Children and Families Minister, and I recall the uphill task of co-ordinating child poverty strategy across departmental silos and coalition “differences of opinion” as somewhere between cat herding and global hostage negotiation—skills that might yet come in handy if we end up in protracted ping-pong here.
I am strongly of the view that the removal of the two-child limit in universal credit is the right thing to do. I have always been a sceptic about arbitrary caps in welfare policy, which seem often to be performative rather than strategic. People are made vulnerable when policy cannot flex for the complexity of real life. More than 1.5 million children are currently affected by the two-child limit, denied what they need to thrive and growing up where hunger, cold and uncertainty are daily realities; missing opportunities to join school trips and activities; and leaving them more likely to be bullied at school—something I know from my most recent role leading a children’s charity dedicated to that cause. Poverty affects children in every community, which was the premise behind targeted support through the pupil premium, but this two-child limit falls on regions unevenly and disproportionately on families from Black and ethnic-minority communities, baking in inequality and damaging life chances for decades.
Removing the two-child limit will make an impact on hundreds of thousands of children. But in the spirit of a maiden speech, I suggest gently that mitigation of its forerunner, the benefit cap, which interacts with the high cost of rented housing, might also be needed. This might be, for example, by reviewing the cap annually in line with the cost of living or disregarding child benefit from the total.
I want to say something about language and narrative. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s UK poverty report this year describes the impact of an increasingly toxic public debate on those living in poverty, saying that the
“values of compassion, justice and equity … are too often missing”.
Stigma and scapegoating really matter. Money fills the electric meter, buys the school uniform and pays for breakfast, but it is language that limits expectations, hardens attitudes and severs relationships.
I spent most of my decade-long civilian sabbatical away from politics leading a UK charity in the refugee sector, the Jesuit Refugee Service. I learned much at JRS about the way destitution and homelessness eat away at dignity, but also about the transformative power of relationships and community. Towards the end of my time at the charity, we started a new project to train staff in mediation skills, encouraging them to listen and engage in conversations locally and to learn from people with different, even opposing perspectives about our work. It was experimental in form, but the othering that we had witnessed had been so devastating that we were convinced that we must not contribute to it further.
Our potential to create change and solve problems in this polarised age depends on how well we collaborate with people who do not always share our worldview—resisting the urge to stereotype and being open to the idea that working with people we do not agree with might yield new solutions. One of the great joys of my first few weeks here has been the warm and fascinating conversations with noble Lords from different parties. This cross-party opportunity is a seam that I hope to mine.
I finish my remarks by sharing with noble Lords something very personal. I have spent most of my adult life working with and for people who are sidelined—those who struggle to get their voices heard and their experiences understood. Then, four years ago, I suddenly lost my voice. A random neurological hit knocked out a nerve to my vocal cords, leaving me struggling to speak. It took two years of speech and language therapy at Guy’s Hospital and specialist voice rehab to teach my body to adapt to this state and return a singing and useful voice—help for which I am deeply grateful.
The words of the Letters Patent read by the clerk at our introduction to this House confer on each of us a voice in this place. I understand the privilege of this gift—it is something that my body knows to be true. So I pledge to use my voice here to create space for all those whose voices continue to be silenced and whose experiences are missing from our deliberations. I hope to use my voice to enjoy as many cross-party conversations and collaborations as tea in the Long Room will sustain.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow my noble friend Lady Teather’s eloquent maiden speech, and I congratulate her on it and welcome her thoughtful remarks. In her speech, her expertise and experience as a former Minister for Children and Families shone through, and her long-term commitment to work with charities and the NHS show her deep understanding of poverty in all its forms, particularly for refugees. I am sure we in this Chamber will very much welcome her experience and insight to the work we do here, particularly at this challenging time. I also pay tribute to her effective campaigning, having founded the APPG on Guantanamo Bay and chaired the APPG on Refugees when she was an MP. I am sure she is going to make valuable contributions to the work of this House as an enthusiastic and energetic colleague. Her voice will certainly be heard here, I am confident of that. It is a great pleasure to welcome her to these Benches; I wish her further success in the future and in her career in this House.
As we consider the Bill before us today, it is important to recognise the deeply egregious effects it seeks to remedy. The two-child limit is unjust and unfair and is a major driver of child poverty. It is discriminatory and hits hardest those who have the least and suffer the most, punishing children and setting siblings’ interests against one another within families. Some 25% of families affected are single parents with a child under three years old. Children of these families are doubly disadvantaged, having only one parent who is fully employed trying to make ends meet. Some 20% of all households affected by the two-child limit have at least one disabled child and 87,500 families affected lose around £3,500 per year.
Behind these figures, the reality of child poverty is about deprivation and misery. As a former teacher, I have seen it all too often: hungry children finding concentration in school impossible; teachers feeding the most desperate from their own pockets; parents missing meals so their children can eat; children and parents who have never known a holiday; the grinding anxiety and stress of trying to make meagre funds stretch even further and, quite honestly, just never having enough money. The humiliation and stigma of being poor compared to classmates and friends too often ends up in children being bullied in and out of school, for the old, cold and worn-out clothes that single out the poor or for not being able to go on school trips and visits or join sports and leisure clubs because your family simply cannot afford it. All this leads to a lack of confidence, feelings of inferiority and isolation, and subsequent poor attainment. It means that, by the age of 30, those who grew up poor are likely to be earning about 25% less than their peers. They are four times more likely to experience mental health problems, with growing consequences for worklessness and the benefits bill. They are more likely not to be in education, employment or training. I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, thinks this is a route out of poverty; I certainly do not.
This pernicious policy was justified by the previous Government on the basis that it would make parents claiming benefits face the same financial choices as those supporting themselves through work. The argument was that the policy would achieve fairness. However, such evidence as there is points entirely to the contrary. No evidence has been produced to show that the policy has achieved its declared objectives. If the previous Government did not produce that evidence, I fail to see how those who were part of it can stand up and defend it.
Half the families who will benefit from the removal of the two-child limit, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has said, were not on benefits when they had children, but catastrophes happen to families. People lose their jobs or become ill; families break up; people die or family members need extra care. This is why we have social security, as these misfortunes do not happen just to the poor; they happen to us all. Based on the arguments that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, has put, only a household wealthy enough to withstand all life’s disasters could responsibly decide to have more than two children.
It has been argued that the two-child limit will encourage families to increase their income by finding more work, but, for many, especially lone parents, the difficulty of finding affordable childcare means that they cannot increase working hours but need to make their meagre income go even further. All too often, it is their children who suffer. Expert institutions have attributed the rising tide of child poverty to the two-child limit policy. Some 59% of families affected by the two-child limit are in work, so, again, the false dichotomy between people having children on benefits and people at work does not stand up here.
Abolition of the two-child limit has been a common cause between many Members of this House and campaigners outside Parliament. I pay tribute to those who have worked to get this policy changed, and I very much hope the Bishop of Durham is listening, because he, too, was a key campaigner on this.
It is good to see that action is now being taken to remove this policy through the Bill, but there is still some way to go to eliminate child poverty, including the removal of the punitive benefit cap, which we hope will soon follow. A successful country invests in its children: the people who will deliver our nation’s future. Our country has failed to do this so far, and a record 4.5 million children are in poverty.
The Bill, though long overdue, is a welcome step forward for the nation’s children. We look forward to the full implementation of the Government’s child poverty strategy, and in this spirit, we are pleased to support the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I warmly welcome the introduction of the Bill and the opportunity today to comment on it. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, on her truly excellent maiden speech, and I look forward to the maiden contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, and the noble Lord, Lord Walker, as well as of other noble Lords.
I count myself very fortunate to have never experienced true poverty myself, but I have spent much of my working life living in communities where poverty was very real—both the absolute poverty of one of the poorest nations in Africa, where I worked for several years, and the relative poverty of inner-city Sheffield, where I was vicar for a decade before becoming Bishop of Leicester.
I have seen first-hand, therefore, that poverty is not just about material resources but also has a much wider psychosocial impact. Amartya Sen argued that poverty should be understood not as low income but as capability deprivation: the lack of real freedom or opportunities to live a life one has reason to value. Martha Nussbaum expanded Sen’s framework by proposing a list of central human capabilities—such as life, bodily health, imagination, emotion, affiliation, play, and control over one’s environment—which all societies should secure for every citizen as a matter of justice.
Added to this is what some have called the poverty-shame nexus: the mutually reinforcing relationship between material hardship and the emotional experience of shame. People in poverty can experience shame through various mechanisms: social stigma, being judged as lazy, undeserving, or morally inferior; institutional interactions—for example, public services that treat people disrespectfully; or cultural norms that define success and worth in material terms. Research has found that people internalise stigmatising narratives about poverty and, as a result, have lower self-esteem and self-worth, and avoid social interaction with others.
Universal credit and its system of sanctions arguably institutionalise the poverty-shame nexus. Although I accept that its introduction in 2013 brought a necessary simplification to welfare payments, I nevertheless believe that the system of sanctions in particular has an implicit moralising message. Claimants must continually prove that they deserve support because they are both “poor enough” and “trying hard enough”. I have spoken with people who describe the feeling of being “presumed guilty until you are innocent”, on the assumption that every person looking for help might be “cheating the system”.
It is my belief that the two-child limit to universal credit has only added to the poverty-shame nexus. The assumption would appear to be that if you are on universal credit and have more than two children you are somehow not being responsible. Yet I have three wonderful children—I am sure that many other noble Lords also have more than two children—and I confess that I did not make a financial calculation ahead of deciding to have a third child. I wonder how many of us did. Surely, then, we have a duty to lift the sense of shame from others, not reinforce it.
Bishops on this Bench have consistently opposed the two-child limit right from its introduction. Indeed, as has already been mentioned, the former Bishop of Durham introduced a Private Member’s Bill seeking to abolish the limit in 2022. For us, this is part of a much wider calling to combat poverty in all its forms, addressing its causes and wider effects. I know that noble Lords on all sides of this House share that concern. Our differences are more to do with how, rather than whether, it is done. Yet I dare to hope that, once this policy is changed, we can work together to find other areas whereby those who are caught in poverty are enabled to contribute their gifts and skills to wider society.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I thank you for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate on this universal credit Bill and the removal of the two-child benefit limit. This matter is personal to me. When I was 11 years old, state help in the form of child benefit became incredibly important to my single-parent household after my parents separated. My weekly trek to the post office to collect it—in cash, of course, in those days—helped us through a difficult period. Quite simply, it put food on our table. Mine was a middle-class family, and those who rely on support such as universal credit are not a static group, as has been said. Circumstances change: people face bereavement, job loss, or, as in my case, family breakdown. At moments of crisis, that support can be essential.
In fact, both my parents worked in this place as law reporters before the Law Lords moved to the Supreme Court. At no time did anybody imagine I would end up on these Benches. That I have joined the Labour Benches is probably less of a surprise. I have a proud heritage of Labour councillors from my grandparents’ generation, including the chair of Newton-le-Willows District Council, then part of Lancashire: my great uncle, Joe Noon. He taught me to play dominoes and to respect my Labour heritage, and he succeeded in both.
I also give heartfelt thanks to all the staff of the House, the clerks, officials, security and catering staff, and especially the doorkeepers, whose quiet professionalism sustains the dignity and daily functioning of this institution. I also thank Black Rod for his warm welcome and Garter for his guidance. I am deeply grateful to my noble friends Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Coaker for introducing me, and to my noble friends Lady Smith of Basildon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, not only for their generosity in time of support but for the confidence they placed in me.
I come to this House with a background that spans practice and theory, service and scholarship. For 20 years, I served in the Royal Air Force, including operational tours in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and in the Royal Navy. Those experiences shaped how I understand conflict—not as an abstract concept, but as something that has lifelong and often multigenerational impacts, both on combatants and civilians. Those conflicts still haunt me in many ways, but they also strengthen my determination to engage with politics in relation to defence and security. I wanted to walk towards that fight, not away from it, including standing as a candidate for the Labour Party in the 2015 general election, after I left the Air Force.
After 2015, I turned to academic research. I completed a doctorate examining the politics of air power between the wars in Whitehall. Some of the men who shaped the early Royal Air Force sat on these Benches. I studied their papers in the archives in Victoria Tower. I never imagined that I might one day follow them into the Chamber.
Indeed, 100 years ago, just this Tuesday, Lord Thomson of Cardington, the first Labour Secretary of State for Air and a subject of my research, spoke in an air policy debate in this House. With striking prescience, he warned that, should another European war occur, Britain’s ports and industrial centres would be exposed to devastating attack from the air and that the RAF would be central to national defence. Lord Thomson was tragically killed in the R101 airship disaster on its maiden flight in 1930. I hope that is not an omen for my maiden outing. However, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography described him as a
“a clear and vigorous speaker, and his cheerfulness and good temper gained him many friends in the house”.
That seems an excellent example for me to at least aspire to follow.
My subsequent academic work has focused on contemporary warfare. I am co-director of the Freeman Air and Space Institute at King’s College London. I have written on many subjects, including organisational culture, air power, missile defence and deterrence in this increasingly dangerous and divided world. I commend my noble friend Lady Carberry on her speech in the International Women’s Day debate, when she highlighted continuing toxic behaviours in the Armed Forces—an issue that I have not and will not shy away from raising.
I began by explaining why the Bill has a personal resonance for me. It matters so much more for the 450,000 children it will lift out of poverty. I saw the impact of financial hardship on children while volunteering in food banks for four years.
To finish, some might wonder why a defence and security academic would choose this debate for her maiden speech. Yet the connection is clear: as we have seen time and again, global conflict and instability directly affect the cost of living. Defence, security and economic well-being are deeply intertwined. Britain’s ability to contribute to a more stable world depends on the credibility of our Armed Forces and the deterrence they provide. We are all affected by defence and security.
Your Lordships will have different perspectives and backgrounds from me. I am looking forward to working with and learning from you.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the wonderful maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Antrobus, which came from both the heart and the head—there is no better combination. As she said, she comes to your Lordships’ House with a background that spans practice and theory, service and scholarship. She is too modest to say just how eminent her record has been in all those spheres. Her speech demonstrates how valuable her contribution will be to the work of this House, at a time when conflict is engulfing so much of the world. I very much look forward to the wisdom that she will bring to debates on these matters.
My noble friend was also able to bring her personal experience of growing up in a single-parent family to bear on the subject of today’s debate. In doing so, she demonstrated the value of the knowledge that comes from lived experience—something that has helped to shape the Government’s child poverty strategy. She brought home very powerfully why it is wrong to suggest that the money spent on the abolition of the two-child limit would be better spent on defence, as the leader of the Opposition said recently. My noble friend’s speech made it clear how the security of the realm and the security of individuals in poverty are intertwined.
This brings me to the Bill. Let us rejoice as we read the death rites on what one eminent social policy professor described as the “worst social policy ever”. As we have heard, what UNICEF UK describes as a “transformative” measure will reduce both the numbers of children in poverty and the depths of poverty. As one mother responded, “Finally all my children will be seen as equals”. I pay tribute to those in government and in civil society who made sure it happened.
The Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner recently observed that,
“without this step, it would be difficult to imagine an effective overall approach to combating child poverty. It is an important investment in the rights and wellbeing of children”.
He criticised the stigmatising preconceptions about people receiving social security that have marked some political and media reactions to the Bill. These reactions have suggested that somehow spending money on lifting children out of poverty is illegitimate—part of what is dismissed by the Opposition as the “ballooning benefits bill”. This ignores an estimated £50 billion a year hacked off that bill as a result of Tory cuts and restrictions, while official figures show that spending on working-age benefits as a percentage of GDP has not increased and is not projected to increase.
Arguments about the costs of the Bill also ignore, as we have heard, the cost of not acting, in terms of the impact of poverty on public services—notably, health, education and children’s care—and on future employment prospects. We are talking about preventive spending and investment in our children.
It is all too easy for the Opposition to hide their contribution to the worsening of child poverty behind the argument that the answer lies in paid work, full stop. This is despite the fact that, as we have heard, three-fifths of those hurt by the two-child limit have a parent in work and that an estimated 70% of the additional funding will go to that group. More fundamentally, there is a widespread consensus built on academic analysis that removal of the two-child limit is the one most effective measure open to the Government to reduce child poverty at a stroke. To quote CASE at the LSE,
“changes in parental employment, whilst important, will never deliver change to child poverty rates on the scale we need to see. We can only get significant and lasting reductions in child poverty by investing in our social security system. There really is no other way”.
Research by Public First suggests that, when provided with information about the cost-effectiveness of abolition of the limit in reducing child poverty, voters’ support for the measure increases significantly. The same is true of the overall benefit cap.
I am afraid that, here, I have to introduce a note of dissent, which I am sure will not surprise the Minister. It echoes the powerful maiden speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Teather. The Bill’s impact assessment estimates that in 2029-30 around 50,000 households will not gain and 10,000 will only partially gain because of the cap. I find it depressing that the same arguments are used about needing the cap to ensure work incentives as under the previous Government. Yes, the cap may push some parents into paid work, but by driving parents into deep poverty it creates stress and anxiety about making ends meet that makes them less effective jobseekers. This is not, as Ministers assert, in the best interests of children. Indeed, I remind my noble friend that, when the cap was introduced, the official Opposition supported the removal of child benefit from the cap on the grounds that it is received by equivalent working families and that, therefore, in order to create a more level playing field, it should not be included in the cap. Could this be looked at again, please, from the perspective of the best interests of children?
I also urge that, when the threshold limits are reviewed next year, a decision is made to uprate them annually in line with the UC standard allowance, so that we do not see more families pushed into deep poverty by the cap each year. As it is, they have been uprated only once since 2016, when they were cut. They are now worth £5,409 less in London and £4,702 elsewhere as a result.
Two other concerns have been raised about some families who will not benefit or fully benefit from the Bill. The first, raised by CPAG, of which I am honorary president, and Advice NI, relates to some families who, having migrated to UC through the managed migration process, may lose some of their transitional protection. The other, raised by Resolve Poverty, concerns families who may lose as a result of the knock-on effect on their council tax reduction. I do not think that either is mentioned in the impact assessment and I wonder whether my noble friend can throw any light on the numbers likely to be involved.
To return to the good news, the Bill will, in the words of a mother of four quoted by CPAG,
“make a world of difference”.
As the cornerstone of the first UK-wide child poverty strategy since 2010, it symbolises what a Labour Government can do to build a good society.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for introducing this Bill. Her passion for this policy is evident and I am sure that she is very glad finally to bring it to us 615 days after the current Government took power. The Green Party called for the end of the two-child benefit cap during the 2024 election and has continued to do so subsequently.
As the noble Baroness said, this policy was introduced by the Cameron-Osborne Conservative Government in 2017, deliberately choosing to put children into poverty—children who had done nothing to deserve that situation. It was a cruel policy and it is very good news that it is finally going. I offer congratulations to the many campaigners who have worked for this day, including Labour Back-Benchers in the other place. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who, I have no doubt, has been working very hard on this and rightly identified where the Government urgently need to go further, which is where I will particularly focus.
This is a missed opportunity, as it fails to act on the household benefit cap. According to Z2K, the charity that aims to fight poverty, at least 150,000 children in larger families will see no benefit at all because they are subject to that separate benefit cap. The household benefit cap means that many larger families will be trapped in deep poverty. In a case study cited by Z2K, Maryam is a lone parent of three who fled domestic abuse and now relies on universal credit. She has been affected by the two-child benefit limit and the benefit cap and is left with just £25 a week for the family to live on after rent. Even with today’s Bill, her income will not increase at all. If the benefit cap was lifted alongside it, it would allow her to meet her basic living costs and escape severe destitution.
There are also the families affected by disability. The Government’s child poverty strategy highlights that children living in families where a household member is disabled are at particularly high risk of both poverty and deep material poverty. Yet, under the changes in the universal credit legislation, financial support for seriously ill and disabled people under universal credit will be reduced by £215 a month. For a disabled family with three children affected by this, that universal credit change will wipe out 62% of the benefits from the two-child limit abolition. Policy in Practice, which did some very valuable work, found that one in 10 households currently held back by the two-child limit will not gain at all when the policy is reversed and one in 10 families will see only part of their potential gain as they become benefit-capped through the policy.
I am citing those figures, and I am sure others will come up with other figures, because there are no official figures on this. In fact, I asked the Minister in a Written Question in December for the Government’s figures on how many families who would have had money from the end of the two-child benefit cap would be hit by the household benefit cap. The Answer that I got on 5 January was:
“The requested information is internal analysis that is being quality assured to official statistics level. Plans to publish this in due course are ongoing”.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness can tell me how that is going.
Looking at the overall situation, the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that, without further policy action, child poverty rates will have crept back close to the 2024-25 level by the end of the forecast period in 2029-30, leaving a change of just 0.4% in those poverty levels. Another thing aside from the overall benefit cap is the local housing allowance, which is currently wildly inadequate.
I have two final brief points. I welcome the three maiden speakers today and look forward to those from whom we have not yet heard. They are obviously interested in child poverty but I urge them to think about branching out, as they find their feet in this House, into other areas that impact it. I spoke yesterday in the Moses Room about financial regulation. That is crucial to child poverty and a threat to the security of us all. Please think about engaging; do not just leave it to the banking insiders but pick up issues such as that as well.
Finally, to respond directly to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, I am slightly surprised that, as the Conservatives are very into history, their leader has not really looked into the history books on the Boer War. British society and this place became very concerned that poverty, poor diet and poor housing meant that young men were not fit to fight for Britain, because of child poverty. If you are going to recruit 20,000 more soldiers, how will you do it from a society blighted by child poverty?
Lord Babudu (Lab)
My Lords, I look forward to hearing the remaining maiden speech, from my fellow newcomer and noble friend Lord Walker of Broxton. I congratulate the noble Baronesses who have delivered excellent maiden speeches already. Before I get to the substance of my contribution, I declare an interest as the executive director of Impact on Urban Health, part of an endowed foundation that funds organisations that have contributed to the Government’s child poverty strategy, including Child Poverty Action Group and Changing Realities.
In preparing for this debate, I was heartened to read of the extent of cross-party consensus on the need to address child poverty. Given how it has risen over the past 14 years, we must be clear that the current approach is not working. Building on contributions from other noble Lords, I will speak briefly about how people come to be on universal credit and run up against the two-child limit, who ends up in that situation and what it costs.
First, on how it happens, as we have heard, around half of those affected by the two-child limit were not on universal credit when they had their children. This is a circumstance that can befall so many of us—a break-up with a spouse, the loss of a job or a worsening of health. These are routes to universal credit for so many. Who ends up running against the two-child limit? It is women, in large part. Of the 450,000 households affected, more than half are headed by single mothers and only around 6,000 by single fathers. Black and ethnic-minority households are up to three times more likely to be affected than white households and 40% of affected households have a parent with a disability. The approach we are taking disproportionately affects women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities.
What does it cost? We have heard from other contributions that the proposed changes will have a cost of around £3 billion a year, in the end. That is a lot of money by any means, but, stepping back, what is the broader cost of letting this limit stand? Extensive research by Child Poverty Action Group, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Department for Work and Pensions has shown that those affected are more likely to experience poor physical and mental health and less likely to be in employment, education or training or to earn a decent wage in the long run. In several ways, this limit costs people the opportunity to live in good health, to earn well and to contribute to society. We are losing tax contributions and well-being.
I am incredibly sympathetic to the need to control our welfare bill. I sat on the Commission for Healthier Working Lives because I believe that work plays a hugely important part in enabling people to live well. But we must not forget that the majority of those affected by the two-child limit are already in working households. In due course, I will speak to the changes I believe we need in welfare more broadly, but today I want to be clear about one thing: this is not the way to build a healthier society or to save money. It ultimately costs us money. We know that we do not want children to live in poverty and that it is scarring their lives.
We have this opportunity. Removing the two-child limit is simply the most effective way to achieve meaningful progress on reducing child poverty. Other approaches have not been working since the limit was introduced and with the opportunity to achieve the biggest reduction in child poverty within any single Parliament, I urge noble Lords to signal their support for His Majesty’s Government and grasp this opportunity with both hands.
Lord Walker of Broxton (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it was once pointed out to me that this place was designed to intimidate and I am indeed terrified right now, especially given the fabulous maiden speeches before me. That could not be more at odds with the kind and helpful welcome that I have received from every corner of this House—Black Rod, the clerks and officials, the doorkeepers, the catering staff, the police, and my gracious supporters and noble friends Lady Smith and Lord Blunkett. In fact, the cordiality of noble Lords who I have met on all sides of this Chamber has been lovely. I hear the vibe in the other place is somewhat different, so thank goodness I failed to obtain a seat there. In fact, it has been quite an unexpected and circuitous route for me to be standing here today, but here I am and I intend to contribute to the very best of my abilities.
I never met either of my granddads. They both worked hard down coal mines and died too young. My mum and dad met at school in West Yorkshire. Given their backgrounds, they knew all about graft. They tried no end of things to better themselves, from peddling strawberries on a Welsh roadside to running a late-night fish and chip shop and sending out chain letters, all before landing on the idea in November 1970 of selling loose frozen food from a tiny shop in Oswestry. Dad worked the stock and Mum the checkout. He wanted to call the business Penguin; fortunately, Mum won that debate and Iceland was born. As a kid, I had the privilege of being able to sit around the dinner table and listen to their conversations about what it takes to build something brick by brick—the highs and the lows, and the need for persistence and resilience. I promised myself that I would make the very most of what good fortune I had been dealt.
That resolve has carried me to the summit of Everest. It has helped raise large amounts for charity and driven me to campaign on many environmental and social issues from palm oil to plastics, from infant formula to ethical credit. When making my own way in the world, I was adamant about one thing: I did not want to sell frozen peas for a living. Instead, I qualified as a chartered surveyor before moving to Poland, starting a property company and becoming the entrepreneur I had always dreamed of. We made many mistakes, somehow survived the great financial crash, and today my firm Bywater is the leading low-carbon mass timber developer in the UK.
Joining the family firm was never really on the cards, but when my dear mum was diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer’s, I realised that my own time might be limited and I wanted to protect the amazing legacy she had created with Dad. I can tell you that high-volume, low-priced food retailing is a bit different to collecting rents. It is cutthroat and all about value. I hope the value that I can bring to this place is some high-street realism, shining a light on what I have learnt as a retailer and an entrepreneur, amplifying the voices not just of business but also of the millions of weekly customers that we serve across 1,000 communities around the UK.
In many ways, Iceland is a barometer of Britain and, right now, those communities are struggling. The cost of living crisis means the basic affordability of everyday items is out of reach for many. That is why in my new role as Cost of Living Champion to the Prime Minister I will be relentless in pursuing outside ideas and fresh thinking, and asking uncomfortable questions.
Recent events in the Middle East have made this both more important and more challenging than ever. But I like a challenge, so I am pushing No. 10 to use its emergency powers to protect consumers from opportunistic rip-offs by convening a weekly COBRA-style committee of regulators to act in real time to protect consumers. I want to bring in the energy companies and petrol retailers to hold them to account.
As well as affordability, poverty comes from a feeling that you cannot access basic services—a sense of an unequal system creating financial injustice and of Westminster politicians not listening. To cite the economist Amartya Sen for the second time in this debate, it is about a lack of the agency to develop all of one’s potentialities. The only way we can tackle this is through collaboration between business and government. Business needs to act with the utmost kindness, respect and obligation to all its stakeholders, not just its shareholders. On the flip side, government needs to remember well that it is only private enterprise that generates the wealth our nation so desperately needs to fund public services, and to spend that money wisely.
Speaking of which, that little shop I mentioned in Oswestry was started with a £30 loan from my grandma. It grew into what is today the biggest business in Wales, which, in the last 20 years alone, has proudly contributed more than £1.3 billion to the UK Treasury. I directly thank our team of 30,000 amazing Icelanders for making that possible. Shopkeeping is tough, but it is noble.
I turn to the topic of the debate. We see the impact of poverty in our stores every day as customers struggle to put food on the table to feed their families. We have taken up many initiatives of our own to try to help, from boosting Healthy Start vouchers to creating interest-free microcredit schemes which prevent the most vulnerable from falling into the hands of predatory loan sharks. We have also led many successful campaigns, such as making infant formula more affordable or becoming the biggest recruiter of ex-offenders in the UK, which is good for society, business and the economy.
Ultimately, there is a limit to what any business can do, so I am delighted to support this Government’s actions to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty by removing the two-child cap. Socially, morally and fiscally, it is undoubtedly the right thing to do. Alongside this targeted intervention, remembering that a Government’s responsibility is to spend wisely, we must also reattain our fiscal prudence with our country’s welfare spending. I support the Labour Party, not the benefits party. It should strive to provide a safety net for those in real need, not those making a lifestyle choice. In particular, we must prioritise getting many more of our young people out of the NEET cul-de-sac and back to participating in society; otherwise, we are complicit in destroying their life chances. Acting on this is also a moral obligation.
I conclude by paying special thanks to my own family: my irrepressible dad, who has supported me at every turn, and my mum, who I know is looking down from the gallery in the sky today. Finally, I thank my two daughters, and my wife, Rebecca. She is the kindest, strongest, most beautiful person I know. I thank her for putting up with me. I hope that noble Lords will enjoy putting up with me too.
Lord Bird (CB)
I say “well done” to the noble Lord, Lord Walker. I was confused when I was asked to follow the noble Lord and, in the tradition of the House, to praise him. I thought to myself, “I don’t know anything about Walkers crisps”. That was the only Walker I knew. Then I thought, “Ah no, it is Johnnie Walker”. For a while I was confused, but I got there in the end.
What really excites me about what the noble Lord is doing, as well as putting a lot of people into work, is the idea that he extended the hand to people who had been banged up. He has given jobs to people who were in prison. I am glad that the noble Lord is in competition with Timpson. I think, in a way, he is a bit ahead of it and maybe it is going to have to catch up. It is a good bit of competition. The only problem I have with the noble Lord—and I really do have a problem—is: where was he when I needed him? I remind noble Lords that I am an ex-offender.
I turn to the Bill. What a wonderful Bill, to get rid of something like this. We may like it or not; we may or may not be with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, wanting to give hand ups rather than handouts. I have to say that the noble Baroness stole that from me; she knows that. I was the first person in the United Kingdom to use those terms, and I stole them from Bill Clinton, who stole them from Jesse Jackson. Is that not interesting? Is it not wonderful that we can talk about a hand up, not a handout? The whole of my working life, since starting the Big Issue 34 years ago, has been about giving people a hand up, not a handout.
My mother had six children. Every year that she had a baby, she got poorer—and poorer and poorer. Big families are not good for the bottom line. They are not good for you. But the problem with this Bill, and where I fall out with our Conservative friends, is that while it may punish mum and dad, it really punishes the children. To me, if we need anything in life today, it is to be behind our children. Our children are being undone before us: mobile phones and social media are undermining them. Our children are really at the sharp end of things.
I come from the pre-social security period. We were brought up with very little help from the state—in the 1950s and 1960s, there was none of that. We got five shillings per child: that was about one pound and 10 shillings for a family of six boys. Because Britain is a low-wage and low-investment economy, British capitalism is really good at making slithers of money out of jobs that are low-paid. It is very difficult now for a lot of people to nobly go out to work and earn enough money to feed themselves and their children, even though they are doing a 40-hour week. We are a low-wage economy because we are a low-investment economy.
Capitalism is quite happy with that. It does not matter if you make millions of pounds out of slithers of profit, or whether you buy and sell things that are worth £50,000 each. This is the thing that I came into the House of Lords to try to sort out: I came in to dismantle poverty, not to make the poor more comfortable, nor to keep them outside as though they were a different species. I have listened to the debate so far. I am not sentimentally attached to the poor; I do not cry over them. I think there are too many people who cry over the poor and who do not do anything. I want to get the poor out of poverty. I want to get the poor into a situation where they can make decisions about their own lives, where they can have the kind of life that they want, where they can get rich and socially mobile and get out of poverty. There is only one cure for poverty and it is not the state. The only cure is social mobility. If you get social mobility, you are out of it.
The funny thing is that most people in Britain, even Conservatives, will be a few generations away from the coalface. They will have morphed their way to better times. The problem is the inheritance of poverty—for example, 90% of the people I have worked with in prisons and on the streets come from poverty inherited from their parents. Until we work on that, we will not get anywhere.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, it is common for noble Lords to start their speeches by saying that it is a pleasure to follow either a noble Lord or a noble Baroness, and that is generally true. There are certain circumstances when it is not true. A number of speakers in this House are just so impressive, often speaking without any notes, that it is a very daunting prospect to follow them—and the noble Lord, Lord Bird, is undoubtedly one of them.
I pay tribute to my new noble friends Lady Antrobus and Lord Walker and the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, all of whom made speeches of quality, with a passion and fluidity that show that they will make major contributions to your Lordships’ House in the months and years to come.
Turning to the Bill, I am very pleased that we have got to where we are today on the removal of the two-child limit, but I cannot disguise my regret that it took so long. Be that as it may, as of next month, the two-child limit will no longer apply. In a typically powerful opening speech, my noble friend the Minister highlighted how many children will be taken out of poverty by the final year of this parliamentary term. Add in the introduction of breakfast clubs and the extension of free school meals, and that figure will rise beyond half a million. Even more impressive is that all that is before the Government’s child poverty strategy properly gets under way—a 10-year plan aimed at delivering a lasting reduction in child poverty by tackling its structural causes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, spoke about the value of work, but during her party’s time in government, it completely failed to ensure that parents in work could keep up with the cost of living. In the Tories’ last year in office, 3.2 million children in working families were in poverty—up from 2.1 million when they came to power in 2010. More than any other policy, the two-child limit introduced in 2016 was responsible for driving child poverty to its current record high. To be honest, we should not be too surprised, because one of the last acts of the Labour Government who demitted office in 2010 was the Child Poverty Act, part of which was to establish a child poverty commission to tackle structural issues around child poverty. It took the incoming Tory and Lib Dem Government two years to introduce it, but they called it the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Bird said, social mobility is of course very important, but the focus was meant to be on child poverty, and it had that name. Four years later, “Child Poverty” was dropped and it became the Social Mobility Commission. I think that reflected the fact that child poverty simply was not a priority for that Government and subsequent Tory Governments.
More than 60 children’s charities and other campaigning groups have welcomed the Bill. Tellingly, only right-wing organisations such as the Institute for Public Policy Research, the Centre for Social Justice and the self-styled TaxPayers’ Alliance—I am a taxpayer, but it certainly does not speak for me—have questioned the repeal of the two-child limit. Often, arguments in favour of retaining the two-child limit are couched in language such as a “benefits bonanza” or “welfare junkies”, appallingly pejorative terms that demean many people who are in receipt of state support while in employment, doing jobs where their pay is so low or unpredictable that they need extra help just to survive.
I say to my noble friend the Minister, with whom I worked on the shadow education team and for whom I have huge respect, how much I welcomed her use of the term “social security” in her speech. Can we please ditch the terms “welfare” and “benefits” and put “social security”, the description that we used to use, in their place? That is exactly what state support for families living with poverty is. Why should we not use the proper term? We can find a term that is not demeaning or in any way pejorative to people in need of help.
At Second Reading in another place, the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions questioned the affordability of the repeal of this legislation, something that has been repeated today. I would flip that coin and ask: what about the affordability of not ending the limit, which my noble friend Lady Lister called preventive spending? Can the cost of lower educational attainment, poorer mental health and a much higher likelihood of being NEET ever be tolerated? Shamefully, I have to say that during the 14 years of Tory and the Tory-Lib Dem Governments, it too often was. We can say that it will not be tolerated any longer, because this Government are developing the child poverty strategy to which I referred earlier. That will result in children receiving the social security and social solidarity that they deserve and having better health and education outcomes, enabling more of them to build careers that will provide stable lives for families of their own. That will be the hugely beneficial outcome of this Bill, which is in itself hugely welcome.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, before I begin my substantive contribution to this debate, I want to pay tribute to those who have made their maiden speeches this afternoon. It has been wonderful to learn so much more about each of them and inspiring to hear them.
This Bill represents one of the clearest and most immediate steps we can take to reduce child poverty in this Parliament. Few policies in recent years have had such a direct and concentrated impact on larger families as the two-child limit. Its removal is therefore not just symbolic; it is practical, targeted and necessary. Around 470,000 households are affected by the two-child limit, impacting between 1.6 million and 1.7 million children. Six in 10 of those households include at least one adult in work. These are working families, as many have mentioned this afternoon. The parents rise early, commute long distances, juggle childcare and shifts, and contribute daily to our economy and our communities. Yet despite those efforts, many remain in poverty. That is a reality of in-work poverty today.
Families lose around £3,400 for each third or subsequent child not covered by the child element. For households already balancing tight budgets, that loss is not abstract; it means difficult trade-offs between heating and eating, falling behind on rent or relying on food banks. Behind every statistic is a family trying to provide stability and reassurance to children while quietly carrying the financial strain. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has consistently identified the two-child limit as a key structural driver of rising poverty among larger families. Its research shows that children in families with three or more children now face poverty rates exceeding 40% after household costs. Poverty among larger families has risen markedly since the introduction of this policy, widening inequality between children based purely on their family size.
Joseph Rowntree Foundation modelling demonstrates that removing the two-child limit would significantly improve living standards for the lowest-income households. Scrapping the limit would more than halve the projected real-terms decline in income for the poorest third of households compared with retaining it. Government analysis similarly indicates that hundreds of thousands of children would be lifted out of relative poverty.
The Bill also sits within a broader effort to support families and strengthen living standards. It complements the expansion of free breakfast clubs, saving parents up to £450 a year, and the extension of free school meals to all children of households on universal credit, benefiting half a million more pupils. That broader approach matters because poverty is rarely the result of one single factor; it is shaped by wages, housing costs, food prices, childcare pressures and access to opportunity. Addressing it therefore requires income support and practical support, nutritious food at the start of the school day, predictable childcare that enables parents to work, and a social security system that reflects the real cost of living.
The heart of this legislation affirms a simple but vital principle that no child’s opportunity should be limited by the number of siblings they have, and that working families deserve stability, dignity and fairness. The measures before us today will not solve every challenge faced by families, but they will make a real difference to the lives of many children across this country—a responsibility worthy of this House. For those reasons, I support the Bill.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friends Lady Antrobus and Lord Walker of Broxton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Teather—it is always great to see a member of the Brent family on the Benches—on their brilliant maiden speeches. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at Second Reading. The two-child limit was introduced by the Conservative Government in 2017 and its consequences for child poverty were felt immediately. On taking office, the Labour Government inherited an economy in a fragile state and have worked deliberately and responsibly to create the conditions in which bold action on child poverty could be taken. The Bill is the result of a Government who have prioritised why they came into power.
Let us be clear about what this policy has done to families across our country. The Child Poverty Action Group has described it plainly. This is a “tax on siblings”. It severs the fundamental
“link between what children need and the support they receive”.
Government data in July 2025 shows that more than 1.6 million children live in households affected by the limit—that is one in nine children in England, Scotland and Wales. That number grows every year. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s UK Poverty 2026 report is sobering. For 2023-24, it showed 4.5 million children living in poverty in the United Kingdom. That is a scandal. The Bill is a vital first step, not the last.
The case for this Bill is not just economic; it is educational. Children growing up in poverty already start behind their peers, and the gap widens every year. The Education Endowment Foundation has found that pupils eligible for free school meals are, on average, 18 months behind their classmates by the time they sit their GCSEs. The Social Mobility Commission has shown that children from the poorest households are significantly less likely to achieve the grades needed to access higher education or skilled employment. Poverty does not merely limit what children can afford; it limits what they could become. When we remove the two-child limit, we are not simply putting money into households; we are unlocking potential that this country cannot afford to waste.
For children growing up in households affected by the two-child limit, the barriers begin long before the school gates. Families are unable to afford school uniforms, school trips and even basic stationery—the small things that determine whether a child feels that they belong. Teachers report children arriving hungry and unable to concentrate. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that a 10% rise in family income during childhood leads to measurable improvements in educational attainment and earnings in later life. In other words, poverty is not a temporary inconvenience; it is a force that shapes a child’s trajectory for decades. The Bill is an investment in the education of future generations. The IFS, the Resolution Foundation, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and CPAG alike all say that lifting the limit is the single most cost-effective lever the Government can pull to reduce child poverty.
Then, there is the so-called rape clause, which requires women to prove non-consensual conception in order to secure exemption for a third or subsequent child. It is degrading, traumatising and utterly incompatible with a just society, and I am proud that this Bill will consign it to history.
The Bill before us is not a merely a policy change; it is a moral statement. It says that we will not hold children responsible for the circumstances of their birth. The Resolution Foundation puts the figure as high as 500,000 children lifted out of poverty when the two-child limit’s removal is combined with expansion of free school meals. CPAG has estimated that the long-term cost to society of entrenched child poverty stands at £39 billion a year in lost tax revenue and increased demand on public services. We spend more managing the consequences of child poverty than it would cost to prevent it.
The Bill does not stand alone; it is the centrepiece of the most ambitious child poverty strategy in a generation. Taken together with measures in the Government’s child poverty strategy, these are not tinkering at the edges. This is structural change, addressing the root causes of poverty that has been allowed to deepen over the last 14 years of austerity. This is a rare moment of consensus across major research and advocacy organisations throughout this country. Ending the two-child limit is the single most cost-effective action this Government can take. The moral case is unanswerable, and the time has come. I end by quoting Cicero:
“What society does to its children, so will its children do to society”.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate our maiden speech-makers today and join in the general welcome to them. I draw from the noble Lord, Lord Walker, a very wise remark when he reminded our governing party that it is indeed the Labour Party, not the “Benefits Party”. While I think that all of us here share the passion and the ambition to lift families out of poverty and to make sure that children can have fulfilling lives, in the strong words of the Minister, I think it is more difficult than just making a modest extension in benefit provision for certain families in our society. If only it were that easy, I am sure parties would have done it a long time ago. What we are embarking on, surely, is a very ambitious programme which is trying to help, without interfering unnecessarily, all those families in which the children do not get that right opportunity.
Some children in poor families are let down because there is simply a lack of money. They have loving parents, and if there were a bit more money, they would not have to make such invidious choices about meals and support for the children at school, and trips and outings. Others are let down by adults in their lives who control them, abusing them or spending the money on too much alcohol and drugs, and not concentrating on providing them with the stable financial background they need. Some children are born into families in which there may be plenty of money or too little money, but they lack those other important things. They lack love. They lack support. They lack ambition for the children. They do not provide the guidance that good parents and good grandparents try to provide.
The state cannot be everybody’s parent, nor do we want it to be. The state wisely says that the Government, or a local authority, will intervene and pre-empt the parents only in extreme cases. We are talking about influencing, encouraging and supporting the parents. That can be done by many of us. Everyone here has been on a remarkable journey in their lives to date. Many have overcome considerable difficulties, from background, resistance or opposition, and have achieved great things already, so the more we can get out and talk and engage and encourage, the more it is possible that we can turn on a light in young minds and that they can see that something is possible that the adults around them have not told them about. Or maybe we can enthuse their teachers, who need to put ambition into their lives. There is nothing wrong with ambition; it can be a force for good, and it is releasing children from poor backgrounds if we can communicate to them that maybe they can achieve great things too.
The noble Lord, Lord Bird, said it very well in his remarks on social mobility. But of course, we are interested only in one-way mobility: we want people to be able to move up. We are not so keen on people moving down, and we try to cushion or help if they move down too quickly. The more people we promote, the more people fall below the average; that is the way arithmetic works, but we want to live in a more prosperous society. There will always be people who are relatively worse off, but if it is around a much higher average living standard, then there will be so much more happiness in the world around us.
I say to the Government, given our shared ambitions to get more people out of poverty and give more encouragement to young people, that there are many other things than this Bill that they could or should be doing. The first thing is that it has to be much easier to get a job. Unfortunately, over the last 18 months, there has been a big rise in unemployment, and the combination of high taxes on jobs and on those businesses that need premises in our high streets—the shops and the entertainment and leisure businesses—has contracted the number of job opportunities. This will make it much more difficult for the Government to fulfil their ambitions, because this cannot be done without the good will and success of the entrepreneurs, as represented so ably here today by the noble Lord, Lord Walker.
The strand in Labour which is about the promotion of work and better working conditions is wholly admirable. Whenever I have been fortunate enough to run larger enterprises or be involved in their management, I have always been very encouraging of that strand in Labour. I have wanted people to be better paid, but it must be through bonuses or working smarter, so that the company can serve the public well without going bust. I have always wanted people to see that there is the chance of promotion. Most of us started with jobs we did not really want to do and had to work our way up. That is what ambition is all about.
The Government must think of a much bigger, bolder strategy. Paying extra benefits is not going to do it.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I welcome strongly the Government’s decision to abolish the two-child limit. Scrapping it remains the single most effective step that we are taking to reduce child poverty in this country.
As we have heard, abolishing the policy will lift about 450,000 children out of poverty by 2030. When combined with the other measures in the Government’s child poverty strategy, this could lift more than half a million children out of poverty by the end of the decade. This is something that we should be celebrating and shouting from the rooftops. It is an incredible achievement and one of which the Government can be proud.
This is not an abstract statistic. It represents hundreds of thousands of individual children who will grow up with better security, better health and improved opportunities. One noble Lord has asked how the Government can justify the expense and mentioned the £3 billion figure. Quoting the £3 billion figure ignores the costs of child poverty—the poorer health outcomes, the lower educational attainment, the greater pressure on public services and the lost economic potential. Put together, that is an estimated £39 billion. The £3 billion saves the country as a whole £39 billion. How can we not wish to pursue that policy? It is not reckless spending. It is highly targeted and cost-effective, with serious and substantial long-term benefits.
Others have argued that taxpayers should not be expected to support larger families. Many of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, were about large families. The reality is that, now, only a limited proportion of families have four or more children. Of those families, the great majority are working hard to provide for them. Those who are unable to get jobs are still not to be dismissed as the feckless poor—that is the narrative which is always produced to try to prevent decent human services. The two-child limit has no measurable impact on family planning or the fertility rate.
Every child is to be celebrated and cherished, regardless of their birth order. They deserve enough food, a safe home and a fair start in life. When children are supported to thrive, they do better in school, remain healthier and contribute more fully as adults. That benefits not only those families but all of us—society as a whole. It is important—I think the point needs to be made to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—to note that this is not only about families out of work. As other speakers have explained, the majority of those who are caught by the current policy and will benefit in future are families who are in work.
Unfortunately, I am going to join my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and raise the issue of the benefit cap. I do not think this policy will achieve all its objectives unless and until we remove the benefit cap. It was introduced by the coalition Government and it continues to place immense pressure on many families. I should have started by paying testimony to and welcoming the excellent maiden speeches that we have heard today, but it is worth mentioning that the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, can claim credit for opposing the introduction of the benefit cap when she was in government. I am sorry she is not here, but I acknowledge her important contribution to this debate.
To conclude, if we are serious about tackling structural poverty, we cannot remove one barrier, that of the two-child cap, while leaving another firmly in place. Lifting the benefit cap would complement the abolition of the two-child limit and ensure that the gains we make today are not undermined by other restrictions that fail to reflect the rise in the cost of living.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I support this Bill, though I am disappointed that some oppose lifting people out of poverty while constantly supporting greater spending on the welfare of corporations and the super-rich.
Eradication of child poverty could boost the UK economy by around £40 billion a year. Children in poverty struggle to realise their full education and employment potential, which leads to lower earnings and contributions to the public purse. They are more likely to have healthcare problems, make greater demands on public services throughout their lives and have shorter life expectancy. Lifting children out of poverty makes perfect economic and moral sense.
The £3 billion expenditure will boost the spending power of the poorest families and stimulate local economies. The real cost to the public purse would be much less, because it would, in large part, return to the Government in the form of VAT, other indirect taxes and lower demand on public services. The Opposition can support redistribution of income and wealth by, for example, calling for alignment of the taxation of capital gains with wages, which would raise £14 billion. There would be plenty there to cover the costs of this measure, but they do not actually call for redistribution.
I am concerned that thousands of children will not receive any improvement from this Bill because of the overall benefit limit, which is set at around £22,020 a year for most families and £14,753 for single adult households. Some 119,000 households have their universal credit capped and 82% of benefit-capped households include children. Can the Minister explain the impact of the overall benefit cap on child poverty and its relationship with the Government’s strategy for reducing or eradicating child poverty?
Child poverty is linked with parental poverty, so we need a strategy for that. The median gross wage of a UK employee is £31,056, or £25,880 after income tax and national insurance. Graduates take home even less. Inevitably, 14.2 million people live in poverty, and 25.3 million people live below minimum income standards. In other words, they lack the income to meet material needs and to enable participation in society. This comprises 48.6% of children and 35% of working-age adults. Some 81.6% of children in lone-parent families are growing up in households with inadequate incomes.
Those who oppose the Bill should be reminded of the horrific consequences. For example, the UK has a higher rate of infant mortality compared with peer countries, because many women cannot afford good nourishment, not only before but also during pregnancy. Due to poor food and living conditions, British five year-olds are up to seven centimetres shorter than children of the same age in Europe. One in four young people in England has a mental health condition, and illnesses such as rickets and scurvy have returned. Altogether, some 7 million children are growing up in households which lack the income needed for a dignified standard of living. So, there is a clear need for an effective strategy for parental poverty eradication.
Trickle-down economics has long failed. Average real wage has hardly moved since 2008; workers have no say in how wealth generated by their brain and brawn is to be shared; there are no curbs on profiteering; some 3 million people are malnourished or are at risk of malnutrition; and the poorest 20% pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the richest 20%. Due to the visible hand of successive Governments, the bottom 50% of the population has less than 5% of the wealth, and the bottom 20% has only 0.5%. Such an environment cannot banish child poverty. So can the Minister say something about how the Government are going to develop a comprehensive strategy for the eradication of parental poverty?
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as an old-timer in this place, I congratulate my noble friends Lady Antrobus and Lord Walker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, on their brilliant, inspiring and moving maiden speeches.
A Labour Government are about nothing if they are not about reducing poverty and inequality in our society: breaking down the barriers that separate rich and poor and opening opportunities to all, whatever our background. That is why I am so pleased to be speaking in this debate and in support of the Bill, which sees the Labour Government removing the two-child limit on universal credit. I am pleased that it is just one part of the Government’s comprehensive child poverty strategy, which aims to lift 550,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, said there was a fundamental question in this debate. I say the fundamental question is why we have so many children living in poverty in this country. It is shocking that in 2026, in the world’s sixth-largest economy, around 4.5 million children live in relative poverty. It is even more shocking to consider than in 2010, at the time of the last Labour Government, that number was 2.3 million, having fallen from 4 million in 1997—figures I took from a paper prepared by the noble Baroness, Lady Teather. Our own national history shows us that child poverty can be tackled in a meaningful way if the Government of the day are willing to act. Those who oppose the Bill today are on the wrong side of history.
However, even if the Government’s objectives in this Bill and other measures are achieved, we must acknowledge that we will still have a long way to go. The scale of the challenge now makes the task of acting all the more urgent and necessary. A family of four, two adults and two children, living in relative poverty, is, according to statistics I have read, getting by on no more than about £400 a week. That is £400 to pay for heating, electricity, travel, food, clothing and all the costs that any family incurs before you consider anything that might be considered a treat. I need hardly remind noble Lords that that is a figure which is little more than the daily allowance which each one of us is entitled to receive for one day in this House. As others have said, we know that the costs of child poverty do not end when a child reaches the age of 18. They can blight an entire life, with a child growing up likely to earn less, work less and suffer greater ill-health if their life started in poverty.
When I was a local authority leader, I introduced two measures in particular aimed at tackling child poverty and the barriers to health for young people: free healthy school meals for all primary school children and free swim-and-gym use for all residents. As well as giving that hand-up to young people in my borough, we sought to grow our economy to lift even more people out of poverty. That is also the mission of this Labour Government. Today, though, we are talking about that all-important task that government at all levels faces of putting a supportive arm around those most in need. The people this Bill will help are those who need that supportive arm. They are not the feckless or work-shy, as some might claim. As we have heard, 60% of those families who will be supported are already in work, but just struggling to get by.
As the third child in my family, I am not sure how I would have felt if I had known that the state and the Government did not value me in the same way as my siblings; but this is the position we have put too many children in over the last decade. We live in challenging and uncertain times, particularly for children and young people who see a future marked by increased costs for educational opportunities and a significantly changing work environment with the revolution of AI—before we even get to thinking about their security at home and in this country. The mark of any society must be the way in which it looks after its most vulnerable. We rightly protect our older residents. At the moment, we protect some children, but now is the time for us to show that we care about every child who lives in poverty.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap, which also gives me the opportunity to congratulate the maiden speakers and say that I look forward to their participation in our work here.
I would like to associate myself with my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott’s remarks. As the Minister will be aware—but possibly not all noble Lords—my noble friend’s life before she came here, working for three decades for the charity Tomorrow’s People, was dedicated to helping people furthest from the labour market to get and keep a job in order to live an independent life. She knows better than many, and from long experience, that this approach is the best route out of poverty.
At the heart of this debate lies the principle of fairness. Across the country, millions of working families make difficult financial decisions every day about the size of their family and what they can afford to provide for their children. It is reasonable that the welfare system reflects the same considerations. A two-child limit ensures that the system remains sustainable and focused on supporting those who need it most, while also maintaining fairness between households who rely on benefits and those who support themselves entirely through work.
We must also consider the broader responsibility of government to manage public finances carefully. Welfare spending is the largest category of UK public spending, and policies such as the two-child cap help ensure that support remains available for the most vulnerable, both now and in the future. In difficult economic times, choices about public spending are never easy, but responsible government requires that we strike a balance. The Government’s first duty is the security of this country and the British people. We know that defence spending has to increase to fulfil that duty.
The OBR calculates that lifting the cap will cost the taxpayer £2.3 billion this year, rising to about £3 billion by 2029-30, which is unsustainable in the current economic climate. With an estimated 29 million households affected, the cost per household per year is projected to be £80 to £100, which would be an additional challenge at a time when so many are struggling with costs. Our duty is not only to provide support but to ensure that the system remains fair, sustainable and credible for the taxpayers who fund it.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I compliment the maiden speeches of my noble friend Lady Teather, the noble Lord, Lord Walker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus. They were a credit to this House and we look forward to further contributions, which I am sure will come from all three noble Peers. I thank the Minister for her excellent summing up of what is happening and what we hope to happen.
These Benches support the Bill and I am very much disappointed with the Conservative Benches for opposing it. It is an improvement on an overdue measure that I have long spoken in favour of. It removes one of the ugliest features of the social security system—the two-child limit in universal credit. My noble friend Lady Teather spoke eloquently on this when she said that more than 1.5 million children are affected and denied the essentials they need to thrive. For my party, this change goes very much to the heart of who we are. We exist to build and safeguard a society that is free, open and fair. We want a society in which no one is enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. That is why opposition to the two-child limit is not a new or convenient position for us. I say this as a chartered accountant who would love to balance all the books, but a fair society does not balance the books on the backs of the children.
There is a moral case for this change. The two-child limit has always rested on a deeply flawed premise. It effectively says that a third or fourth child is somehow less deserving of support than older siblings. But children do not choose the circumstances of their birth. We should know that. They do not choose whether their parents face illness, bereavement, separation, disability, insecure work or rising living costs. They do not have much say in being born, either. Yet this policy has punished children for circumstances entirely beyond their control.
On the scale of the problem and why it matters, we are debating this against the background of child poverty. About 4.5 million children in the UK are living in poverty—nearly one in three. Child poverty is not an abstract statistic; it is hunger, cold homes, anxiety, missed opportunities and diminished life chances. It is also increasingly deep poverty. Millions of children are now living well below the poverty line. The burden falls disproportionately on larger families, lone parent households, households with disabled people and many ethnic minority families. The Bill matters because it begins—only begins—to unwind a policy that is one of the major drivers of rising deep child poverty.
On what the Bill does and why the Liberal Democrats support it, the Bill removes the two-child limit in universal credit so that support is available for all eligible children in a household, not only the first two. It applies across Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with commencement from assessment periods starting in a few weeks’ time on 6 April 2026. We on these Benches support the Bill because it is the right thing to do for children and families. It is targeted and effective. It is good value in public policy terms. The Government’s own assessment and the evidence cited in various briefings make it clear that removing the limit is among the quickest and most cost-effective ways in which to reduce child poverty.
There is a practical case. This is not only social policy but economic policy. Children who grow up in poverty are more likely to experience worse educational outcomes, poorer physical and mental health, and fewer opportunities in adulthood. That means that child poverty stores up pressure for the NHS, schools, local services and the welfare system itself. It also means lost productivity, lost skills and lost tax revenues. In other words, child poverty is not only a moral failure but an act of economic self-harm. If the policy is removed, there will be gains in household income and significant reductions in relative poverty and deep material poverty. The Bill is a down payment on healthier families, better outcomes and a stronger country.
I state, because of some of the comments from the Conservative Benches, that between 2010 and 2015, the proportion of children in absolute poverty before housing costs dropped from 18% to 17%. Under the Conservative Governments between 2015 to 2023, this proportionately increased back to 18%. That is their policy, and the Conservatives are putting that forward again.
The Bill asks a basic question: do we value each child equally? The Liberal Democrats believe that the answer must be yes. Children are not an afterthought to public policy. They are not a line in a spreadsheet—and I am all for spreadsheets. They are, as has been said, 20% of our population but 100% of our future. By removing the two-child limit, we will take a meaningful step towards a country that is fairer, healthier and more hopeful. We on these Benches support the Bill and will work constructively to build on it. For those reasons, these Benches support the Bill’s Second Reading and are disappointed with the Conservatives’ refusal to support it.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, in winding up for the Opposition, I say that we have had three remarkable maiden speeches this afternoon. I will make a few comments about each.
I am so pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, has recovered and regained her voice. I have no doubt that we will be hearing much of it. I hope that she will rejoin the Parliament Choir; I declare my interest as a tenor in the choir.
I applaud the clear energy, entrepreneurship and communication skills of the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Broxton. I acknowledge that he provides employment to many in the retail sector. I have no doubt that he will have much to offer from his high street experiences and, as he said himself, a fresh way of thinking, however that can be defined.
The noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, delivered an excellent maiden speech. She will be invaluable in using her experience and knowledge of the Armed Forces, both in the air and terrestrially, in contributing to the House. We have been very lucky this afternoon.
I thank all other noble Lords who contributed to this debate and set out their views with such conviction on what is—in my view and in our view on this side—a deeply mistaken policy. I say that as someone who is proud of the compassion that defines this country. The British people are generous, fair-minded and instinctively willing to help those in genuine need. That spirit of neighbourliness and of looking out for one another is something we should always cherish and protect. The noble Baroness, Lady Teather, is right: handling language and collaboration and getting these matters right are important factors in communities, where matters can be extremely sensitive.
However, compassion must also be balanced with fairness, as my noble friend Lady Jenkin alluded to. I am afraid that this policy tips that balance too far the other way. It asks those who work hard, pay their taxes and support the system to shoulder ever-greater burdens while expanding reliance on the state in a way that risks undermining the very foundations that sustain it.
It would be easy for me to say that raising the cap would be the right thing to do, and I was very pleased to note that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Redwood acknowledge that we all want to reduce child poverty—I personally want to, we all want to, but how we do it continues to divide opinion; that much I think we can agree on.
I was struck by the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, in his powerful speech. I believe his clarion call for greater social mobility is a key point: a hand up, perhaps, to a better future—or, indeed, to any future for those who are really wallowing in poverty, particularly children. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, echoed this sentiment.
As my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott set out, it cannot be right that parents who do the responsible thing, who go out to work, contribute to our economy, and carefully manage what they can afford for their families, are expected to fund a system in which others face far fewer of those same constraints. At its heart, that is the problem with the Bill: it seeks to address a serious issue but does so in the wrong way. In trying to demonstrate compassion, it risks undermining fairness and, without fairness, surely public confidence in the welfare system itself will begin to erode. Is it any wonder that an overwhelming majority of the country oppose this policy, as my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott said?
This policy comes at a time when our welfare system is facing what can be described only as a mounting crisis. At the Spring Statement, the OBR confirmed that welfare spending is set to rise by £74 billion over the next five years. Forecasts also show that spending on health and disability benefits alone will be £1.3 billion higher than previously expected. At the same time, the economic outlook is deteriorating. The OBR now forecasts unemployment reaching 5.3%, higher than the 4.9% peak predicted only at the time of the Budget.
Despite the Chancellor’s repeated claims of responsible fiscal management and careful stewardship of the public finances, the reality is that welfare spending continues to surge. The total welfare bill will rise by £18 billion this year alone, then by roughly £15 billion every year across the forecast period. In total, the OBR expects the Government to spend £333 billion on welfare this year—10.9% of our entire economy. By 2030-31, that figure is projected to reach £407 billion—11.7% of GDP. The think tank Onward has warned that on this trajectory welfare payments will, in effect, cost individual taxpayers around £3,000 a year by the end of the decade as Britain’s benefit system edges towards becoming unsustainable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, stated in her opening remarks that some think it is all about cost. Cost is a big factor, but it is not the only one, and I make the point that other benefits are there, including for larger families, to help with essential household needs, such as the household support fund directed through local authorities.
I understand the points the noble Lord, Lord Babudu, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, made about those being in work making decisions at that time about family size and then finding themselves out of work—that is an obvious and important point—and the need, which I feel strongly about, to support single-parent families.
My noble friend Lord Redwood eloquently iterated that there are other reasons why children wallow in poverty, such as dysfunctional family life and, as he said, which is very important, a lack of love. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, made the very important point about the need for better pastoral help for parents. Handouts are not just the key. In short, the system is lurching in the wrong direction. Costs are already enormous and continue to climb at the same time as unemployment is expected to rise. This is simply not a sustainable position.
We must remember who ultimately bears that cost. An additional £3,000 a year does not fall on some abstract entity called the taxpayer, but on ordinary working people—teachers, nurses, those who work in the retail sector and families who rise early, work long hours and try to balance their household budgets without the benefit of generous state support. These are not the super-rich; they are the people who make up the backbone of our country. Before we expand the welfare state still further, we should at least ask ourselves what burden we are asking them to carry. I am not convinced that the Government have asked a question more searching than how they can placate their Back-Benchers for another few weeks. My noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott was absolutely right to point that out. It has to be said, although I see the Minister shaking her head.
My noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott set out clearly the fundamental flaw in the Government’s logic. Ever-increasing welfare spending does not solve poverty; it helps conceal it. A welfare offer of this scale risks doing something else far more damaging. It will begin to erode the very foundations on which the welfare system depends. The system ultimately relies on a balance—a word we have heard this afternoon. Those who can work do so, and through their work they support a safety net for those who genuinely cannot.
However, that balance is now under real strain. Welfare spending is forecast to rise by around a fifth over the next five years, at the same time as one in five working-age adults is not in work. We are well aware of those statistics. That trajectory should concern all of us. The welfare state was never intended to become an alternative to work. If too many people come to rely on benefits rather than the rewards of employment, the model will simply cease to function. I was struck by the strong points made by the noble Lord, Lord Walker, in this area. The system depends on contribution as well as support.
Yet instead of confronting that challenge, the Government’s response has been to step away from reform and move in the opposite direction, expanding spending commitments that the public finances can scarcely sustain. A welfare system that discourages work does not reduce poverty in the long term but risks entrenching it. If we are serious about giving people the best chance of a secure and independent life, that is a reality we cannot afford to ignore. This policy tips that balance even further in the wrong direction and the Government should be really concerned about the long-term effects that it risks having on our public finances and the welfare system as a whole. Labour Back-Benchers, I fear, are too wedded to the idea of the welfare state. It is akin to somebody inching their way along the branch of a tree further and further until it snaps.
When we step back from the detail of this debate, the question before us is very simple: what kind of welfare system do we want for this country? Do we want a system that is fair to those who fund it, sustainable for the long term and focused above all on helping people into work and independence, or do we want a system that grows ever larger, more expensive and more detached from the principle that work should always pay? The British people instinctively understand that balance. My noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott pointed out the statistics and polling. They are compassionate, but fair. They believe in helping those who genuinely need support, but also that those who can work should do so and that the system should never place the greatest burden on those already doing the right thing. For that reason, and in the interests of fairness, sustainability and the long-term health of our welfare state, I cannot support the Bill and I firmly believe that the cap should be reintroduced as soon as possible.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am so grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I love listening to maiden speeches, when we get an insight into the range and depth of experience coming into this House. Today we heard three magnificent examples. If anyone outside is listening, that exceptional richness of experience is what this House can bring to debates. We have heard about defence and air power; conflict and resolving conflict; climbing mountains, both literal and metaphorical; the importance of business; the compelling relational power of tea in the Long Room and learning to play dominoes—I may be better at one of those than the other, but maybe time will tell. I thank all noble Lords so much for coming in and contributing.
In developing our child poverty strategy, we engaged extensively with all kinds of people, including families, campaigners and experts. The aim was to try to work out what would have the greatest impact on the day-to-day lives of children living in poverty. The message was really clear: remove the two-child limit. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Shah for pointing out the challenges we inherited and why it takes time for Governments to work through dealing with everything that comes out.
The Bill is supported by over 60 organisations, representing anti-poverty charities, which is perhaps not surprising, but also children’s doctors, teachers and health visitors—the people who know only too well the damaging effects of poverty and see its consequences every day. I remain very grateful for the work of the campaigning organisations, those professionals who support our children and all those who pushed for this change, including the Bishops’ Bench. I share the remembrance of the former right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who pushed for this in his time in this House.
The Bill is an investment to deliver a better future for children and for our country. Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, have set out the devastating impact that poverty has on children. Many, including my noble friend Lord Babudu, have pointed out that poverty is not evenly distributed.
Poverty imposes really significant costs on individuals and the country. Let me start with the Official Opposition, because they have set out clearly why they oppose this. It is my experience, in many years in and around politics, that, if you want to defend the indefensible, the first thing you do is set up some clearly false dichotomies. What have we listened to today? “It is children versus defence”. Of course it is not. If I were going to play politics, I would point out that, if the Conservatives felt that passionately about it when they were in government, maybe they should not have cut £12 billion from defence spending in their first term alone; maybe they should not have cut spending from the 2.5% the last Labour Government left, pushing us to raise it to 2.6% by next year; maybe they should have slashed child poverty. They were not choosing between the two things: they attacked both of them. Now, we could have that kind of conversation, or we could have a different kind of conversation. Let us take a step back and look at what actually happens with the policies.
What is the other false dichotomy? I think we fall into making a mistake if we try to set up social security versus work. I am not repeating the figure that 59% of families hit by the two-child limit are in work, in order to make a political point; I am pointing out that our social security system is there to help people in and out of work, and to help them get from being out of work into being in work. If the barriers get in the way of people being able to move into work, the system is not doing its job. Every time we start trying to pretend that this is contrasting people lying in bed all day with the blinds shut with those who go out to work, we do everyone a disservice. Please let us not have that conversation.
What we want to do is recognise that we have to enable work, encourage work and take away the barriers to work—that is really important—and that neither those in nor out of work are static populations: people move between those states, for a whole range of reasons. Our job is to make sure that, for those who can work, they stay in work as much as they can, for as long as they can, and, if they come out, to help them back into it when they can—but, if they cannot, to support them, because that is what we do by pooling risk.
The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, made some very interesting points. I parted company with him when he got to a certain point in his speech, but he made a really interesting point in saying that this policy is clearly not a panacea. The state cannot and should not pretend that it can solve all the problems families have, and the state does not raise children: families do.
The starting point, however, is that, if we want to tackle child poverty, as the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, said he does, the first thing we have to do is stop making it worse: stop tipping more children into poverty every year. The second step is to work out what the barriers are to people moving into work and developing in their lives. The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, mentioned some of those that are nothing to do with money, and the state can only do what it can to try to make it as easy as possible for families to do the right thing: investing in relationships education, supporting families —all kinds of education—and communities and relationships. What the state can do is tackle the things it can do something about. It is definitely not all about money, but it is not not about money: the statistics show really clearly, for example, the impact of poverty on family breakup and on parents struggling to do the right thing by their kids. We need to do both.
The next thing we need to do is create opportunities. I always hate disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Bird, because I know that he will come back at me, rightly, but we have to start to move not away from but beyond “handout versus hand up”. I absolutely agree with him that our job is to give people a hand up. He has done that in his time—as, indeed, has the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—but I would not contrast that with any support the state gives to those who are struggling when they need it. A lot of what we do is on both those things. Like my noble friend Lord Walker, I have a real interest in how we use my department to help those who are struggling to get into work. Just this week, I was at a conference talking to businesses that are helping ex-offenders into work.
Lord Bird (CB)
Is it not wonderful that social security can be used as a hand up? That is the point I am trying to make. I am not trying to make the point of work versus social security. I am saying that a hand up is absolutely marvellous. The greatest hand up that I got was a probation officer.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Indeed, and that probation officer clearly did a very good job: look where the noble Lord has ended up. Would that they were all that successful. I suppose that that is quite a high bar at which to set them, but I commend it. That is a really great point, and I am now violently agreeing with the noble Lord; but I will move on.
I want the social security system to do its job, and for most people its job is to support them into work, and in work, and to develop them in work. That is very much what this Government are seeking to do.
One of the challenges with universal credit is about assumptions. It was designed to move people into and out of work—to work in and out of work—and when it works it does so very well. All we are doing is making sure that the system works even better than it does. But the assumption that this Government are doing the wrong thing by spending money on tackling child poverty is fundamentally mistaken. My noble friend Lord Walker talked about the need to make sure we tackle NEETs, for example. We have one in eight of our young people not in employment, education or training. They did not start at 16.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
We are not saying that the Government should not spend money. It is about what you spend it on, and how it is spent to get the best outcome from what you are trying to do.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that, but I have looked at what the last Government spent the money on and at the results, and I do not like them, so we are going to do something different.
My simple view is that if we will the end of tackling child poverty, we have to will the means. We believe that removing this barrier is fundamental. Those young people who were NEETs at 16 did not start at 16: they started without the opportunities, without the education, and without the start in life they should have had. The evidence shows quite clearly that children who grow up in poverty are likely to have poorer mental health, fewer opportunities and less chance to do all those things we want them to do. What we are doing is enabling those people to have opportunities, giving them the start they need. If we can get that in place, the whole country benefits. Instead of supporting people not to work, we are giving them the chance to flourish as individuals and to make the contribution to our society that they will not get the chance to make otherwise.
Before I get myself into any more flights of rhetoric, I should answer some of the questions that have been asked. My noble friend Lady Lister asked about council tax reduction. I think she knows this, but just for the record, local councils are of course responsible for designing and reviewing their own council tax reduction schemes. My department has been working with the MHCLG to communicate the change to local authorities, and they have been encouraged to consider the impact of their schemes in the light of the removal of the two-child limit. In 2029-30 an estimated 560,000 families will see an increase in their universal credit award, with these families gaining, on average, £440 a month. The impact of transitional protection is included in the impact assessment, but not on the numbers of households.
The benefit cap was raised by my noble friend Lady Lister, and by the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Bennett, and by my noble friend Lord Davies and a few others. This Government want to preserve the fundamental principle that work is the best route out of poverty. We believe that leaving the overall benefit cap in place encourages personal responsibility while maintaining the incentive to work. Where possible, it is in the best interests of children to be in working households. Being in work substantially reduces the chance of poverty: the poverty rate of children living in households where all adults are in work is 17%, compared to 65% for children who live in households where no adults work. We will continue to protect the most vulnerable—those who are unable to work because of a disability or a caring responsibility are protected and exempted from that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about numbers. When I answered her Written Question, the impact assessment had not been published at that point. I can say that among households in scope to gain from the removal of the two-child limit in 2029-2030, approximately 50,000 are estimated to be capped before the policy change, and a further 10,000 households will be capped afterwards. In contrast, 550,000 households in Great Britain will gain in full from the removal of the two-child limit in 2029-30, as will an estimated 2 million children in the United Kingdom.
The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, and my noble friend Lady Shah raised the impact of poverty on children and schools—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but a number of us have made the point about the thresholds for the benefit cap and the fact that child benefit is taken into account. When we were in opposition, we said that child benefit should not be taken into account in the cap. Can she comment on that?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I have given the same answer about the levels a number of times. The cap has to be reviewed by 2027. The Secretary of State will review it at the appropriate time, certainly within the statutory deadline, and he will make the judgments he makes at the time. I am happy to convey the comments made on this to my colleagues in the department, but the Government have taken the view that they have on the cap. We will simply have to leave it at that, I am afraid.
On schools and education, it is striking that schools are using their stretched resources on services such as food banks and providing essentials to children. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that now one-third of primary schools run food banks, one-quarter are providing essentials, and 38% say staff provide for pupils and families out of their own pockets. We got the Children’s Commissioner’s office to do some research to support the development of the child poverty strategy. Children and young people spoke about how low income impacts their education and at times limits their career aspirations, including by restricting their access to extracurricular activities. This is an incredibly important point made by my noble friend Lord John, or possibly by my noble friend Lord Walker—I am sorry, I am getting very bad at names. We listened carefully to families when we did that, and the consistent message was that a whole range of benefits came from lifting the two-child limit. It is not just about money; it is about all the things that enables. This goes also to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood.
As for paying for this, the Government have always made clear how they will pay for things when they announce them. It was made clear that the removal of the two-child limit was fully funded by policies in the Budget, including reforming Motability tax relief, clamping down on fraud and error in tax and social security, and reforming the assessment process. Together, those measures will save £4.9 billion in 2030-31 versus the £3.2 billion cost of removing the two-child limit.
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, raised the OBR and the welfare cap. The Government are committed to ensuring that social security spending remains on a sustainable path. We set a new welfare cap in the Autumn Budget 2024 to make sure that it remains under control for the course of this Parliament. The forecast for social security spending is virtually unchanged from the last OBR assessment, increasing by only 0.1% in 2029-30 in the forecast. Welfare spending is forecast to rise by less than half the amount it did under the previous Parliament—just over 0.3% of GDP by 2030-31 compared with 0.7% previously—and health and disability spending is expected to rise by only 0.3 percentage points compared with 0.5 under the previous Government. This Government inherited a system which did not do all the things the Opposition say they wanted it to do. In fact, we saw growing numbers of people economically inactive as a result of ill health and disability. That graph went up. We have been working hard to bend that graph by taking the steps needed to do it.
On employment, parental employment rates are already high, but if we want to get more parents into work, it is important that we remove the barriers to getting them there. One of the key barriers is childcare. That is why we have announced 30 hours of funded childcare for working parents, saving eligible families using all 30 hours up to £7,500 per eligible child per year. When we talk about the parents in larger families being in work, one of the challenges was childcare again. We are extending eligibility for universal credit upfront childcare costs to parents returning from parental leave to ease that transition back to work, and we are providing UC childcare support to help with the childcare costs of all children, instead of limiting it to two children, so that parents who have larger families can afford to go back to work. It clearly is not about work or social security; it is about social security enabling work and supporting it, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, said so clearly. We know that there is more to do, which is why we are committing to a review led by the Department for Education across government about access to early education and childcare support and delivering a simpler system.
What is coming next? We have been clear that the child poverty strategy will not solve problems overnight. This is one step in a journey looking forward 10 years. We have already made a number of significant steps: investing heavily in expanding free school meals; introducing a fair repayment rate into universal credit; investing in support to help people with their energy bills; investing in support across the piece; raising the minimum wage; looking at what is happening with affordable housing; and investing in helping people to get into secure jobs.
The most important thing will be to monitor that, to make sure that we do it. There will be a comprehensive programme of analysis, making sure that we know the exact impact of the changes we are making. If the Opposition are worried, we will be monitoring the impact of what we do. This will enable us to work with government departments and the devolved Governments to consider what we do in future and to capture the data as we go.
This Government are determined to break down barriers to opportunity, to deliver economic growth and to raise living standards. Removing the two-child limit in universal credit remains the single fastest and most cost-effective lever we have to reduce the number of children growing up in poverty. It is at the heart of a wider strategy to drive down child poverty and set the next generation up for success. Far from being anti-work, this strategy includes our plan to make work pay, to improve job security and living standards, and to enable people to get on into work. We do not simply want to move people from being out of work into jobs from which they can never progress. If we want social mobility, we need to enable people to develop skills so that we can become a high-skilled, high-wage, high-investment economy, as we have been challenged to do. We have also announced increased universal credit support, getting people into work and into more hours because, above all, we believe in the value of every person and the contribution they can make.
The noble Baroness, Lady Teather, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester made some very interesting points. Part of what we have to do is to invest in communities and relationships. All we can do with money is remove barriers. What we need to do as a country is look at how we engage with our neighbours and our communities, and how we can support all those in our communities to develop and to fulfil their potential.
My noble friend Lord John said that a Labour Government are nothing if they do not do something to tackle poverty and inequality. That is exactly what we are doing here today. The Bill, along with the wider actions in the child poverty strategy, will help deliver the biggest reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since comparable records began in the 1990s. It is time to put this counterproductive and cruel policy into the dustbin of history, and to focus instead on building a system that gives children and their families the security and opportunities to build a better life, no matter their background. I commend the Bill to the House.
Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time and passed.
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Lord Stockwood) (Lab)
My Lords, this is a simple Bill, which I am honoured to bring to the House today. The Bill has two main provisions. It raises the statutory limits in the Industrial Development Act 1982 and the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991. These provisions ensure that the Government can continue to support British industry and British exporters with financial assistance.
This matters because we know that exporting firms grow faster. They are more productive. They offer better jobs and higher wages than businesses that sell only domestically. Yet we know that access to finance can be a major headache for these same businesses. It is particularly tough for those that want to export millions of pounds’ worth of goods. Getting the necessary financial guarantees can be the biggest hurdle to exporting abroad, but noble Lords will know that these exports hold the key to a company’s growth. Just a single deal could be what makes or breaks a company.
Export finance is having a tremendous impact on our economy. Some £14.5 billion of UK Export Finance support last year is supporting up to 70,000 jobs, including across key industrial sectors such as clean energy, advanced manufacturing, life sciences and the automotive sector. Through existing provisions in the Industrial Development Act, the British Business Bank’s northern powerhouse investment fund II has directly invested £115 million-worth of capital into over 300 small businesses. Similarly, in the Midlands, the Midlands engine investment fund II has launched a £400 million fund to drive sustainable economic growth by supporting innovation and creating local opportunity for new and growing businesses.
We want to take this further, so that we can drive more growth across even more regions. With the Bill, we will ensure that transformational levels of government support will be there for industry tomorrow. The Bill contains some technical provisions, such as changing the currency from special drawing rights to pounds sterling, and it allows the delegation of future increases to UK Export Finance to secondary legislation. I am sure that noble Lords will champion the assistance provided through the Industrial Development Act and UK Export Finance that has helped businesses to grow through trade, creating jobs and fostering economic growth. It ensures that we can go faster and further, supporting more businesses to be pioneers in the sectors that are front and centre of the UK’s economy.
In tandem with the new trade strategy, more businesses than ever before will be empowered to export with the financial firepower of the Government behind them. The Bill can mean only better prospects for those businesses, our economy and the UK, and will boost economic growth in the coming years. I am thankful to colleagues in the other place for their scrutiny of the Bill so far and look forward to the wisdom and expertise that noble Lords will bring to this debate today. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it is pleasure to follow the Minister, and I look forward to sharing some wisdom and expertise—at least I hope so.
I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction and for the opportunity to respond on behalf of these Benches. I say at the outset that we do not oppose the Bill. Updating financial limits that have sat unchanged for decades is both sensible and necessary as a piece of housekeeping. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the Government retain the tools to support British industry and exporters, where that support is genuinely warranted—the Minister gave some very good examples of that.
However, I will use this occasion to raise some broader concerns—not about the Bill in isolation but about what it may mean for the direction of the Government’s industrial policy more widely. The question we must ask is not merely whether the Government can provide financial assistance to industry but whether the cumulative effect of doing so—repeatedly, expansively and as a matter of instinct—risks becoming a substitute for the structural reforms that our economy needs.
Subsidisation has a seductive logic; it is visible and feels like action, and the Minister just called it transformational. However, we on these Benches believe that when the state steps in to cushion risk, it does not eliminate that risk; it merely transfers it to the taxpayer, while simultaneously distorting the market signals on which businesses depend to allocate capital efficiently. The Government should recognise that the misallocation of resources that follows is not always immediately apparent, but its effects compound over time.
The most powerful industrial policy this Government could pursue is one measured not in billions of pounds of guarantees and grants but in the burdens lifted from the shoulders of British businesses. We urge the Government to focus their energies there. Energy costs—in particular, the weight of environmental levies on businesses’ electricity bills—remain a serious competitive disadvantage for British industry. Unnecessary reporting requirements consume the time and attention of managers who ought to be focused on growth. I must mention the Employment Rights Act, which the Government’s own figures suggest will impose over £1 billion in administrative costs on business—a figure that, as businesses have warned, is widely regarded as a considerable underestimate. These are the frictions that erode competitiveness quietly and relentlessly, and no amount of export finance can compensate for them. Also, as we discussed in a Question earlier this week, they impact the quantity of foreign direct investment.
I will make a more fundamental point about risk. There is a tendency in industrial policy debates to treat risk as an enemy to be neutralised, yet risk is not merely a problem but a productive signal. It is the prospect of return that draws private capital towards genuinely promising ventures. When the state steps in to underwrite commercial risk too broadly or too readily, it does not simply help good projects that the market overlooked but sustains projects that the market had rationally declined to back. We should be cautious about inadvertently engineering away the discipline that risk imposes, because that discipline is part of what makes markets work. I appreciate that this was all debated in another place, but will the Minister explain the balance that he expects to see between private capital and UK Export Finance funding and how he expects this to work in practice?
That said, we are not dogmatic. We recognise that there are strategic sectors of the economy—the Minister highlighted some—where there is a case for targeted support, and that in some cases government has an instrumental role to play in getting exports over the line. We recognise that we live in a world of intensifying geopolitical competition. The rise of China as an industrial and technological power, the fragility of supply chains that was exposed so brutally during the pandemic, and the imperative of maintaining domestic capability in defence and critical technologies create a legitimate case for a limited role for government. We do not dispute that. What we dispute is the notion that broad, expansive subsidisation should always be the appropriate or default instrument and that it can substitute for the competitive fundamentals that underpin long-term industrial strength. A strong domestic industrial base is built on competitive energy, minimal regulations, a tax system that rewards investment and a labour market that gives businesses the flexibility to grow. Financial assistance of the kind that this Bill enables should sit atop those foundations and should not be deployed in their absence.
This Bill had its Second Reading in another place on 23 February. During a debate on my honourable friend Dame Harriett Baldwin’s eminently sensible and reasonable amendment relating to reporting requirements for UK Export Finance in relation to the steel industry, the Minister there argued that it was unnecessary because the steel strategy would be published in due course—I am sure the Minister knows what is coming. The steel strategy was originally promised last year. Without reopening the entire debate, but with costs mounting daily at British Steel—up to £370 million already according to a recent letter from the Minister’s colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, which I think is almost certainly a dramatic understatement, by the way—I ask the Minister to be more specific. When will we see the steel strategy?
It is worth heeding the very wise words of President Reagan, who once said that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help”. We will continue to press the Government on whether their industrial strategy is truly oriented towards building competitive strength or risks drifting towards a model of managed dependency where the taxpayer bears the risk, the market loses its discipline and British businesses are, in the longer run, no stronger for it.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, in my experience, smaller businesses rarely wake up in the morning worrying about statutory ceilings in the Industrial Development Act. What they worry about is whether they can secure the finance and insurance needed to win the next contract.
In my day job, I spend a lot of time around smaller and growing firms, particularly in the creative, technology and service sectors. These are precisely the sorts of businesses that increasingly make up the modern export economy. What they usually lack is not ambition—there is no shortage of that. What they lack is the financial tools that allow them to take on international contracts with confidence, manage risk and secure working capital.
That is why I broadly welcome the intent behind this Bill. Much of it is, in truth, a pragmatic adjustment. It updates the statutory limits under the Industrial Development Act and expands the capacity of UK Export Finance so that it can continue supporting British exporters at scale. In that sense, it is partially a piece of inflation catch-up. The limit for financial assistance under the Industrial Development Act has not been increased since 2009. Quite a lot has happened in the economy since then, and the scale of support required to compete internationally has inevitably grown. Updating these ceilings therefore seems sensible. However, raising the ceiling is the easy part. The more interesting question for Parliament is what happens beneath it.
UK Export Finance is already operating at considerable scale. In recent years, it has supported hundreds of businesses, thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of economic activity. Those are significant numbers, but the real test is whether the system helps the right kinds of businesses to grow and export. As we expand the capacity of these schemes, it would be helpful to understand how accessible they are to smaller firms, especially those outside the traditional large project and infrastructure sectors that export finance has historically focused on. Very often, these firms are not looking for a vast intervention from government. What they need is something more practical: the ability to ensure risk, unlock working capital and give a bank the confidence to support an export contract.
The Bill also makes future increases in UK Export Finance’s statutory limit easier. It allows the Government to raise the cap in increments of up to £15 billion through secondary legislation and removes the limit on how many times the mechanism can be used. I declare an interest as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in this House. That flexibility may well be sensible, but if Parliament is effectively creating the ability to expand the programme repeatedly over time, it seems reasonable that we should also have a clearer picture of how the portfolio is evolving. For example, it would be useful for Parliament to see a regular statement covering the composition of the portfolio, the share of support reaching smaller firms, the regional spread of activity and the level of financial risk and exposure being taken on—a dashboard, if you like.
The explanatory material also emphasises that UK Export Finance operates on a sustainable basis, with the aim of delivering no net cost to the taxpayer over time. That is an important discipline and, as the scale of the commitments grows, understanding how that principle is being applied in practice becomes increasingly important. Ultimately, the success of this legislation will be measured not by the size of the ceiling we approve today but by whether more British firms are actually winning business around the world tomorrow, so while I support the direction of the Bill, I would be grateful if the Minister could address two points.
First, how do the Government intend to ensure that the expanded capacity of UK Export Finance translates into wider access for smaller and newer exporters across the country? Secondly, given that the new mechanism allows repeated increases in the statutory limit, will the Government consider providing Parliament with regular reporting on the size, composition and risk profile of the portfolio so that this House can see clearly how that expanded headroom is being used? If the Government can provide reassurance on these points, many of us will feel comfortable supporting this sensible and pragmatic measure. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I speak as someone who served as a Trade Minister in Northern Ireland. I was also vice-president of the Institute of Export and International Trade for many years. The first committee I served on in your Lordships’ House was in about 2012. It held an inquiry into SMEs, and I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, just said. One of the interesting things was that at that time, UK Export Finance had just begun, I think, in its current iteration, away from the old Export Credits Guarantee Department, which still exists. That had only guaranteed companies in single figures, and they all tended to be the big battalions —Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace, et cetera. It has changed, and I have no issue with the perfectly sensible raising of the limits but, as the previous speaker said, it is about what you do with the raised figures.
It is supporting, allegedly, 2,700 companies in the current year. That is a tiny fraction of SMEs in the United Kingdom, which can be measured in their hundreds of thousands, and it has become increasingly challenging to get companies to export, because of the associated risks. We have only to look at our newspapers and television screens today to see some of those risks clearly and visibly exposed.
The scale at which it is helping SMEs is insufficient because it is not simply UK Export Finance putting money in its pocket and giving it to a company; it is guaranteeing it. A bank gives the money and then goes through its processes. That is where things start to unravel because the banks take their own attitude to lending, particularly to small and medium-sized companies. With a Rolls-Royce or BAE Systems, it is happy days. They are big companies with a lot of government contracts; that is easy stuff.
If we look at the need to resolve this matter, we have only to look at our balance of trade. This country has not had a balance of trade surplus since 1983. Look at the massive gap with China. I have asked on a number of occasions whether the departments will look at having a policy of providing information to companies on import substitution. It used to happen but if we are moving towards closer integration with the EU again, I guess that will be seen by them as a challenge to their way of doing things.
I agree entirely that raising the limits is perfectly sensible, but there must be a focus on getting our smaller businesses to export. There are challenges, and if simply we leave it to how the banks are going to measure these things, we will not get the breakthrough that we need. I therefore ask the Minister to take that back to his department because getting small and medium-sized businesses to get exporting into their minds, or even be open to the possibility of it, is the only way that we will fix our balance of trade. Relying on a diminishing number of large companies, which is the reality, will not be sufficient. We need the small, often family-owned companies. We know of the system with the two BMWs in the driveway—why take the risk? Why bother? But if we do not bother, we will not see those companies create the jobs for the next generation.
We are facing AI challenges and all the other things which we do not know how to measure at the moment. Will the Minister ask his department to look again at whether some kind of direction or advice can be given, not only to UK Export Finance but to our financial institutions as a whole, because that is the source of the guaranteed funding?
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on a three-clause Bill. I commend the Government on their brevity. It is a welcome change this week after the 220 clauses of the Crime and Policing Bill, the 178 clauses of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and the 1,200 amendments that we will be wrestling with again tomorrow in the assisted dying Bill.
As every noble Lord who has spoken so far has noted, the Bill does not change policy, only financial thresholds. That narrow focus accounts for the broad cross-party consensus. More fundamentally, industrial assistance and trade policy remain a rarity in modern politics. They are matters of broad common ground. Like the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I served as a Trade Minister, for Labour in Holyrood, and then as a trade envoy for a different Government—proof that trade and industry can be common ground, at least in domestic politics. Of course, updating the financial thresholds after 16 years is eminently sensible, likewise using secondary legislation to raise the limits in the future.
I want to use my time to make one substantive comment on each theme. First, on the industrial assistance aspect, my own interest here dates to 1997, when I was working on the devolution settlement in the early days of the Blair Government. I can reliably report to the House that in all those years of campaigning for a Scottish Parliament, the minutiae of industrial aid rules had not caught the attention of even the most assiduous policy wonk, so in government it proved quite tricky. How do you devolve powers over trade and industry without undermining the financial level playing field within the UK? Today, rightly, financial selective assistance and export finance remain reserved matters but in an elegant constitutional arrangement, Scottish Ministers can prepare cases for financial assistance of up to £10 million for a single project, subject to a Commons resolution.
Last night, after we finished, I took a look at the most recent Industrial Development Act annual report, laid before Parliament in July, on Section 8 spending, which is what we are discussing today. It reported that neither the Scottish Government nor the Welsh Government had any Section 8 spending, compared with £2.9 billion of live schemes in England. There are complexities about the coverage of Section 7 and Section 8 areas and I appreciate, given that I am the last speaker in the debate today—at least from the Back Benches—that the Minister will not have had time to digest material from his officials on this matter. However, I would be grateful if he could write to me about the factors that he believes are influencing the uptake of Section 7 and Section 8 spending in the devolved Governments. These complex distributional issues should not detract from the value of industrial assistance, which is supporting thousands of jobs across the UK and leveraging in billions of pounds of private capital.
I therefore turn to export finance. The Government can take pride that their export finance portfolio is larger than at any point in history. At 70% current utilisation and with a strong pipeline of commercial opportunities, it is right to provide ongoing certainty to British businesses around future export support. Here, I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, and others: on export finance, the devil is in the operational detail of the specific working capital and insurance schemes, and the ease of access to them by companies. I place on record that the Minister spent his entire pre-parliamentary life in the private sector, so he is well placed to ensure that bureaucratic creep does not diminish the effectiveness of support for exports—particularly, as others have recognised, for small and medium-sized enterprises. They are, in fairness, 88% of the beneficiaries of UK export finance, but we have to watch the opportunity costs for small firms caught in long, complex, unsuccessful applications that are deemed too high risk.
I come to my final substantive point. I ask the Minister to comment on the success of UK Export Finance in delivering its underlying mandate, which is to support exports at no net extra cost to the taxpayer over time. Therefore, echoing the question from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I invite the Government to comment on their attitude to risk. Are the higher thresholds that we are being asked to approve a choice to adopt a higher risk appetite with respect to the likely return, or are they simply an attempt to anticipate greater demand in the pipeline and in the future? I welcome any guidance on that point.
In conclusion, I welcome the steps announced by the Government this week to crack down on sanctions-busting. This is a point that the Opposition raised in the other place. The Minister has responded this week with a new licensing scheme where there are any high-risk exports that could be used in sanctions-busting situations. Finally, I commend the focus of UK Export Finance in helping British business to be part of supporting the reconstruction in Ukraine. On that basis, I support the Bill and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister called for wisdom and expertise. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, who displayed both of those, but I am afraid the Minister now has me.
The Minister set the scene in his admirably concise introduction, but I want to look at some of the numbers. They are big numbers—not quite as big as our trade deficit with China, but big numbers none the less. We have heard that the Bill increases the Government’s ability to provide financial support to industry and exporters by raising long-standing limits. It boosts the cap on selective industrial financial assistance under the Industrial Development Act 1982 from £12 billion to £20 billion, which is a big increase. The maximum amount by which the Secretary of State can raise this limit has been increased from £1 billion to £1.5 billion, reflecting inflation over the period since it was last adjusted in 2009.
As we have heard, the Bill also significantly expands UK Export Finance’s statutory commitment limit under the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991, increasing it from the current equivalent of around £84 billion to £160 billion, converting the limit from special drawing rights to sterling to create some simplicity, and allowing further rises of up to £15 billion through secondary legislation without restricting the number of times such increases can be made. It will be helpful if the Minister can confirm that those numbers are correct. He did not use them in his introduction, but it is important for the record that we have them.
These changes are intended to maintain uninterrupted support for investment, exports and jobs, ensuring that the Government can back key sectors such as advanced manufacturing, life sciences and defence, without hitting the old limits. By raising these thresholds now, the Government say that the Bill prevents constraints on viable projects at a time when businesses are making critical investment and export decisions, providing necessary headroom to offer support only where justified, while safeguarding taxpayers and sustaining the UK’s credibility. On the face of it, this is a sensible uprating, which we support. However, its passage through the Commons was not without query and I will raise some of those queries again for the Minister to perhaps recap the answers.
In the Commons, MPs from several parties highlighted that the Bill authorises very large increases in industrial assistance and export guarantees with relatively light ex ante control. There are weak safeguards, limited transparency and scrutiny over what are, or could be, very large sums, and there are potential ethical and risk concerns around how export finance could be used. Critics argued that this scale of contingent liability exposes taxpayers to significant risk, with Parliament largely limited to retrospective annual reports rather than regular, detailed scrutiny of which firms and sectors are being supported—I think that was the point the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, made about updates as to where the money is going.
In the Commons, cross-party amendments sought to block support where there is reason to believe that modern slavery or human trafficking are present in the supply chains. We on these Benches believe that it is unacceptable for any taxpayer-backed finance to underwrite that sort of exploitation, so it would be useful to know from the Minister how that will be overseen. Other amendments aimed to prevent UK Export Finance supporting goods which are likely to be re-exported to sanctioned destinations. It is very important that those safeguards are strengthened and any loopholes removed.
There are also questions about how all this fits in with the industrial strategy. The Bill certainly expands financial capacity, but what is the Government’s plan for which sectors and regions should benefit, particularly concerning steel, which is an ongoing issue, and other strategically important industries? Can the Minister confirm how the applications will be managed? Are they on a first come, first served basis? Does it stop when we run out of money, or will some sort of strategic overlay be put on to applications for drawing down on these funds? If it will, who will manage this overlay, and how will it be overseen and reported back to your Lordships’ House?
While we are talking about industrial assistance, I have spent the last eight years on the replumbing of the United Kingdom post Brexit. One of the many Acts I worked on was the Subsidy Control Act 2022. We would be very interested to know how industrial assistance will be managed within the Subsidy Control Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, also brought up the UK Internal Market Act, which was also part of the replumbing, and she asked some really important questions around that. There are constraints around what can and cannot be done, not least our own constraints, which were built looking at GATT and other things in the outside world.
Additionally, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for his really knowledgeable input on SMEs. I also have an observation that historically, the bulk of export finance money goes to larger firms; it does not go to SMEs. Although the Bill is being pitched as helping SMEs, there is no real indication in the Bill as to how that will be done. Experience shows that they will not be the major recipients of this uprating, so, like the noble Lord, I await the Minister’s views on this.
There is also this issue about government finance crowding out other finance, and how the process will be managed so that it is crowding in, not crowding out. It is really important that investment that would have come in any case is not being displaced. We really need to know that public money is going to be used genuinely as additional rather than substitutional. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these issues, but notwithstanding that, we support the changes being brought forward.
In conclusion, it is important to support investment, exports and jobs in sectors such as manufacturing, life sciences and defence, and it is vital that this support is extended to SMEs. On a broader note, a huge lever for UK exports would be to be included in the EU’s Security Action for Europe—so-called SAFE—financial instrument. As the Minister knows, this would give access to up to €150 billion of finance. Can the Minister update us on where we are on attempts to find our way into that programme? Of course, the looming threat of “Made in Europe” will do the opposite of what we are seeking to do here. It will exclude our businesses, our automotive businesses in particular, from exports. Clearly, the closer the UK is to the EU, the easier this will be to resolve—but, as the Minister knows, in this case, time is of the essence. The Bill is important, but sorting out our relationship with the European Union should be the priority. That said, we support the Bill.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions and feedback. I am also thankful for the general support for the provisions in this small but important Bill.
As aforementioned, the Bill will ensure that the financial assistance the Government have provided through UK Export Finance and the means available in the Industrial Development Act 1982 can continue. From the £1.5 million to support a Yorkshire manufacturer, to enabling Gloucestershire’s finest truffles to be exported across the world—and, indeed, to the Stockwood household—to £20 million in support of the aviation specialists in Surrey, all the way to over £8 million in support of a Scottish manufacturing SME, UK Export Finance is supporting growth and jobs across the whole country, and the Bill will enable it to go even further.
Additionally, financial assistance under the Industrial Development Act has provided £520 million of funding to generate private sector capital investments to support the continued growth of our life sciences sector via the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund. As I discussed in my opening remarks, these provisions ensure that the Government can continue to support British industry and British exporters, putting them on the strongest possible footing to contend in today’s increasingly competitive global landscape.
I now take the opportunity to address specific points raised in the debate, starting with my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley, who asked some important questions, and I am grateful for the advanced sight of his specific interests in today’s debate. On the issue of expanded capacity of UK Export Finance translating to wider access for smaller and new exports across the country, in 2024-25, that contribution to GDP was up to £5.4 billion, supporting 496 SMEs during that year. UKEF has also recently commissioned research from Oxford Economics, which showed that there are 115,000 businesses—predominantly SMEs, by the way—in the supply chains of the businesses which UKEF supports directly. These supply chains extend to all parts and regions of the UK.
Going even further in the support of SMEs, just in January, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade announced a commitment from the UK’s top high street banks for a further £11 billion package to lend more to small businesses and medium-sized enterprises supported by UKEF’s guarantee. All of this will boost UK exports and economic growth.
On the question of providing Parliament with regular reporting, to which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, also referred, UK Export Finance reports to Parliament every year through its annual reports and accounts, which are both cleared through the National Audit Office, comprising details of all the transactions supported, their impact on the UK economy, and progress against the business plan targets. This also includes statutory obligations requiring reporting on spending levels under Section 7 of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act.
In relation to the Industrial Development Act, I can assure my noble friend that nothing in this Bill will change the existing reporting requirements around the use of support under the Industrial Development Act or the regular existing reporting arrangements. Sections 11 and 15 of the IDA require the Government to provide Parliament with annual reports setting out how they have discharged these functions under the Act, and that will continue. The annual report is presented to Parliament and includes detailed reporting on the provision of funding to support businesses through numerous different schemes and funds. This covers both expenditure and commitments for a given year, as well as the total commitment to date.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharp, noted broader concerns about the burdens on business of regulations, energy costs, et cetera. Before I fully answer, I would like to say that we largely agree that the role of government is not to de-risk businesses. It is largely to create confidence in our growth prospects and set the conditions of success for the private sector. It is one of the reasons I came into government: I believe firmly in that and took my own earning potential down to zero seven months ago in order to do that. As my noble friend Lady Alexander says, it is a place where we often find much common ground and it is one of the reasons I am proud to be part of this Government, because this Government firmly believe in it.
As part of that, we have a clear industrial strategy, a trade strategy, a plan for small and medium-sized businesses, and a plan to make work pay to address long-standing barriers to growth. These are underpinned by new policy co-creation approaches, with new initiatives being developed to respond to all businesses’ top concerns. I spend much of my time on round tables, speaking to CEOs, SMEs and businesses to ensure that we get the requisite feedback to ensure we are making the right decisions.
On energy prices, last month we concluded an eight-week consultation on the British Industrial Competitive Scheme—BICS, as it is called. This scheme will reduce electricity bills for eligible manufacturing businesses by up to 25%. We are keen to ensure we go further within the macro environment for energy prices. It is absolutely critical that we remain competitive, and we are trying to do as much as we can in that area.
To the question of balance between private capital and UKEF funds and project support, UKEF exists to help UK exporters win overseas contracts, deliver them and get paid for doing them. It does this by providing competitive finance terms to prospective buyers, supporting working capital and trade finance to help exporters develop, and insuring against buyer default. UKEF does not provide grants, state aid or equity support. I reiterate: it does not provide grants, state aid or equity support. It charges a premium for its products and UKEF complements rather than competes with the commercial sector and helps crowd in private investment. It is clear to say also that UKEF remains a hugely profitable part of UK P&L.
On the question of the steel strategy and when it is coming, I recognise the importance of that question from the noble Lord. The steel strategy is imminent.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
Thank you for your vote of confidence. The strategy is imminent. We are hoping to announce something in the coming weeks. We recognise the importance of publishing the strategy for the industry. The Government are committed to putting the industry on a sustainable, long-term footing. It is vital for our broader strategic resilience as a country over the coming years.
To the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, about whether HMG have plans to provide information to businesses on import substitution, UKEF can provide support that is conducive to exports. Its overseas support is conditional on sourcing from the UK and shifting supply chains towards UK firms. UKEF’s customers support an estimated 115,000 UK businesses in the supply chain, which shows that, when UKEF promotes UK exports, the benefits cascade throughout the UK supply chain and throughout the UK economy. The Bill is not changing policy or the mandate underpinning this reality.
My noble friend Lady Alexander asked if I could write to her about the uptake of export support by the devolved Administrations. I will be happy to follow up with her on the specific statistics following this debate. On the further question on the UK’s success in delivering on its mandate, it operates at no net cost to the taxpayer over the economic cycle and has generated more than £850 million returned to the Exchequer over the past four years. Risk is carefully managed and monitored, with regular reporting to Parliament as part of its statutory obligation and HM Treasury oversight. I firmly believe that, as part of the portfolio of assets that we have supporting UK business, UKEF is one of our strongest and most prominent capabilities.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on whether the numbers he referred to are correct, I can confirm that they are. I am grateful to him for his role in advertising the great work that this legislation seeks to do in supporting UK businesses. On the question about the funding applications and the sector overlay that he mentioned, UKEF operates UK-wide, supporting exporters in every nation and region. Allocation is demand-led and based on commercial viability, as noble Lords would imagine, not on geography or sector. UKEF’s business plan includes an ambition that at least 80% of the businesses it supports will continue to be based outside London. That does not mean that London is not important, but regional development and support is critical to the whole of the UK’s success. On the question about the impending pressure of the “Made in Europe” policy, I firmly agree that it is critical and we are engaged on it with alacrity and pace.
In conclusion, I hope the arguments that I have set out satisfy colleagues that the provisions in the Bill are simple and straightforward. They are necessary to improve economic growth and will provide the Government with the means to give much-needed financial support to industry and businesses up and down the country. I thank noble Lords across the House for this informed debate and for their wisdom.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, can I ask him about SMEs?
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
I am sorry, the noble Lord should not be intervening because he is not on the speakers’ list.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
The question was well made. I can tell the noble Lord that it is important and that there is a whole strategy with UKEF and the Government to ensure that the opportunity that the Bill creates is articulated to the SME community as well.
With that in mind, I thank noble Lords from across the House for this informed debate. It is with great pleasure that I beg to move.
Schools (Recording and Reporting of Seclusion and Restraint) (England) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
That this House regrets that the Schools (Recording and Reporting of Seclusion and Restraint) (England) Regulations 2025 are accompanied by an impact assessment that underestimates the cost of implementation; and that they do not enable the best use of the information which will be recorded by schools.
Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing my attention to these regulations. The committee is the punishment battalion of the House of Lords committee system. I have served my time on it and know that you get a huge pile of papers every week and you absolutely have to read and understand them all—there is no escape. It is a huge amount of hard work, and I am very grateful to it. The committee picked up on the impact assessment, but that focused on private schools only. My concerns run wider.
I do not disagree with the directions that the regulations are taking to make schools safer and involve parents more, particularly when we have the prospect of more SEND children in mainstream education. Incidents that require seclusion are unplanned, cathartic happenings. Suddenly, a child is banging his head on his desk uncontrollably, and the teacher, whoever they are, has to know what to do. There has to be an effective system of support for that teacher and the child, and proper records have to be made. Schools ought to be self-critical and self-improving places, and parents ought to be involved.
However, good things absorb time, especially what should be teacher downtime and senior management team time. Good things cost money and good things, if not thought through, displace other good things. It is important to think through carefully the objectives, methods and impact when we are creating things such as these regulations. In the case of these regulations, that was clearly not done.
The fact that the impact assessment covers only independent schools is ridiculous. Most of the impact of these regulations is on state schools. That is where the cost for the system and for the Government lies. We are told that the training requirement is two staff in the school. Who have the Government talked to? It is clear that they have talked to nobody. My local secondary school has every staff member trained—of course they have to be trained, as they are the ones in front of whom these incidents occur. They have to be masters of de-escalation and understand how to call in the support system. Every single one of them needs to be trained to a standard.
As for the response, in an average-sized secondary school with about 1,000 pupils, there are 20 fully trained staff members who are capable of dealing with the details of an incident. To say two staff are needed shows that the Government are living in a different world. On the time to record, the impact assessment says 30 to 120 seconds. Having talked to schools, lawyers and others, I know that a simple incident would take an hour and a complicated one a day. There is so much to be done and there are lots of people who have to be brought into the discussion. Time has to be taken to help the teacher wind down, quite apart from looking after the child. There needs to be care taken to record fully and accurately exactly what has happened and time taken to learn from it.
On frequency, the impact assessment uses the rate of internal exclusions, but that process is not in any way connected to isolation or restraint. In a secondary school, there are maybe 50 internal exclusions a week, varying in severity from 10 minutes to a day. There may be two seclusions a week. There is just no connection between the two. There is no way that internal exclusions should have been used, let alone suggested, as a measure for how frequent isolation is.
We are looking, all in all, in the state system, at a cost in the order of £100 million per annum—that is the steady state; I am not talking about the initial cost for getting everyone up to speed. In alternative provision or special schools, we have a totally different environment, where the sort of outbursts that are rare in mainstream education may be anticipated, part of the makeup of a child and something the school has to adapt to over the long term. They require a different approach and a different set of regulations. That does not seem to be provided for in the regulations or discussed in the impact assessment.
When it comes to the detail of which incidents are and are not seclusion, it is hard to tell from what is in the regulations whether what you have in front of you is or is not covered by them. It is acknowledged that we have very little data on what is happening on seclusion, but the Government’s proposals for gathering further data are limited. Altogether, the regulations and impact assessment are lackadaisical, unserious and uncaring, and they are unconnected to reality. It is important that the Department for Education does much better.
It is not hard. All it takes is to do what I have done and talk to some heads, some lawyers and the school unions, and sense check what has been produced. That takes only a few hours. I would like the Department for Education to review the processes, especially the supervision, that generated the regulations and the impact statement we have in front of us. Understanding reality, having the courage to trust professionals, working out which strategies will yield the best results and getting the wording right are important to make sure that the impact of these things on schools is kept within bounds. As I said, a sense check is needed. Have a set of friends that you can turn to and ask for advice. What is really going on in schools? How will these proposals work in practice?
The impact statement says, and I agree, that there is a lack of good data. The department and schools should be collecting all the data they need to understand what is going on with seclusion and restraint, how it varies through the system and how best to improve practice. The Government should be asking all schools for a simple record of everything, including incidents resolved without the need to employ seclusion or restraint. This data is there in the electronic systems of schools—it is quick and easy to produce. With a total picture of what is going on, it would be much easier for the department to formulate policy.
When the department wants to look at things in detail and gauge what is required, by way of detailed research, having the overall picture will make it much easier to select the right examples and the right coverage and for the department to gain a real understanding of best and worst practice in the system. Having the overall data will enable individual schools to benchmark themselves and look at how they compare with other schools in the system, and that will help their improvement.
I very much hope that the Government will also improve their proposals for data collection. The Government have a commitment to high quality in schools. They should have a commitment to high quality in their regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I have spent many years working with young people, particularly the most vulnerable. We on these Benches support the main aims of this statutory instrument. The safety, dignity, and well-being of our children must always come first. When a young person is secluded, it means they are kept alone or physically restrained and their movement limited. It is a serious step. These sensitive situations must be handled with great care, and it is therefore right that we improve transparency. It is also right that parents receive a written record of what has happened, as soon as possible. The department is correct in recognising that seclusion can be just as harmful as the use of force. However, although the principle behind these regulations is sound, there are concerns about how the Government have gone about introducing them.
First, we should acknowledge the confusion that occurred during the rollout. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out, the original measure had to be withdrawn and replaced because the Minister accidentally signed the wrong draft. We ask our students to check their work carefully before handing it in. It is reasonable to expect the same standards here. As the committee rightly said, this kind of mistake should not have happened.
However, the bigger concern is the Government’s impact assessment. The Government estimate that the cost of recording these incidents will be between £1.6 million and £6.3 million a year, equivalent to the time of about 137 full-time teachers. Yet this estimate only includes 2,443 independent schools in England. Why? Because the Department for Education decided that state schools are not businesses and therefore left them out of the calculations. This is a serious oversight. There are more than 21,000 state schools in England—almost nine times the number of independent schools. By leaving them out, the Government have avoided confronting the true cost of this policy. In reality, the amount of teaching time required will be far greater than the figures suggest.
We should also look at the assumptions behind these figures. The department estimates that it will take two teachers between 30 and 120 seconds to record an incident and report it to a parent. Has anyone making these calculations worked in a busy school recently? The idea that two teachers can promptly and sensitively record an incident involving restraint and seclusion in one or two minutes does not reflect reality. As the committee noted, the estimated time is unrealistically low. In practice, this will mean that already overworked, overstretched teachers will have to work longer hours or spend less time on the other important tasks such as teaching and supporting their pupils.
Let me be clear: we fully support the aims of protecting students and ensuring that parents are properly informed. However, how the Government introduced these measures raises legitimate concerns. There have been unavoidable procedural mistakes and very optimistic estimates of the time involved. The impact assessment leaves out 21,000 state schools, where most of this work will take place. What practical support will be provided to teachers in state schools to help them meet these new responsibilities without the unreasonable burden on staff—who are already working extremely hard?
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this statutory instrument. We understand His Majesty’s Government’s intention. It has been some years since the last update on reasonable force policy, and there has never been a consistent and standardised measure across our schools on how seclusion and restraint are recorded and reported. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support the principle of introducing such a regime, as does the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley.
However, much like my noble friend Lord Lucas, we would like to probe the Government on the impact assessment and the updated statutory guidance that will come into force in April. We understand the rationale behind the need for new guidance after many years, and we appreciate that the grounds on which teachers will be legally permitted to use reasonable force will be the same. However, there are several issues on which we seek clarification.
The new guidance makes it clear that teachers must be
“adequately trained in its safe and lawful use, and in preventative strategies”.
While it stops short of implementing a national training standard, the impact assessment assumes that each school will be responsible for ensuring that training is completed in accordance with the principles of the guidance. The impact assessment attempts to outline how this will work in practice. However, our concerns resound with those of my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed.
As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted so well, the department has not accounted for schools in the state sector in its budgeting and suggests a cost of just over £350,000 to independent schools. Are the Government suggesting that there will be no cost to the state sector in implementing this change? If that is the case, can we please have clarification on how they get to their zero-cost calculation?
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity today to respond to concerns raised by noble Lords and to clarify areas of misunderstanding, including in some of the analysis during this debate. The question of how schools use restrictive interventions, including physical restraint and seclusion, goes to the heart of how we keep children safe, support staff and uphold the trust of families. These interventions can have real and lasting effects, which is why this Government have taken such care in revising the Use of Reasonable Force guidance for schools and strengthening the framework around its use. Yet it is equally true that there will be moments, rare but critical, when the use of reasonable force or another restrictive intervention is both lawful and necessary to keep a child or those around them safe, and we cannot shy away from that reality.
In such circumstances, staff must be confident in what the law allows, clear on how to act safely and supported by leadership that builds strong partnerships with families, and provides parents with a clear and timely picture of their child’s experience. This sits at the heart of our wider approach of calm, caring and predictable environments supported by early, support-first intervention, as set out in our recently published schools White Paper. In doing so we ensure that every school and every classroom provides a safe, supportive place where every child, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, feels that they belong and can thrive.
It was with these principles in mind that we introduced new regulations requiring schools to record and report all incidents of seclusion and non-force-related restraint to parents, strengthening consistency and ensuring that parents are informed about significant events affecting their child. The consultation that we undertook early last year provided invaluable insight. While I understand the frustrations of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, some of the words that he used about the department’s approach to engaging with schools, professionals and trade unions—that is widespread in the work that we do—were not fair and were significantly overstated.
During the course of that consultation, we heard clear concerns from parents, Ofsted and the Equality and Human Rights Commission about inconsistency in the monitoring of seclusion compared with physical force. There was real concern that this could lead schools to view seclusion as somehow easier or safer. That is not a message that any of us would wish schools to take, and the updated guidance directly addresses that risk. The revised guidance and new legislation equip schools to develop clear and inclusive policies, ensuring that safeguarding sits at the centre of decisions about restrictive interventions. It places strong emphasis on early help, understanding what sits behind behaviour, and using prevention and de-escalation strategies wherever possible. But it also recognises that when an intervention is necessary, staff must feel supported and able to act appropriately, lawfully and safely.
Importantly, every decision must take account of the welfare and needs of all children, including those with SEND, ensuring that responses are proportionate and rooted in an understanding of children’s needs and experiences. From April 2026, schools will be legally required, under these regulations, to record and report each significant incident of force, seclusion or non-force-related restraint to parents as soon as possible.
On the point about seclusion raised by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, it is worth reminding ourselves of the definition of seclusion in this guidance. In these circumstances, we are talking about non-disciplinary interventions. I understand his concerns, which I share, about the need to ensure that teachers have the wherewithal and ability, through either suspension or other disciplinary measures, to maintain the calm classrooms that every child deserves. However, the seclusion covered in these regulations does not relate to those disciplinary areas.
On disciplinary provisions, the Government, in the most recent schools White Paper, came forward with proposals for how we can better handle, for example, internal suspensions. Those are not covered here. For clarity, seclusion here applies only where a pupil is prevented from leaving a space and is detained alone, other than as a disciplinary measure. That reflects the Equality and Human Rights Commission definition, which describes seclusion as the withdrawal of a pupil against their will and their confinement alone in a space they are not free to leave. In response to points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in some of his communication, to be clear, seclusion does not include brief voluntary timeout, agreed calming arrangements or the planned non disciplinary use of separation or sensory spaces to support a pupil to regulate their emotions.
Schools must record all incidents of seclusion and non-force-related restraint. They may choose to record additional information, but such measures should not be described as “seclusion”. On the extent to which this process can be used for school improvement, we expect schools to use the data they collect to review their approaches and reduce the need for restrictive interventions through early, support-first approaches. Greater transparency will of course build trust with families and reassure the wider public about how such interventions are used.
I recognise the concerns raised about the evidence base underpinning the impact assessment. There is currently no national dataset on seclusion or non-force restraint. Therefore, internal exclusions were used as a cautious proxy because no better evidence exists. This is an imperfect measure, and the frequency of these incidents will vary significantly between settings—for example, in many secondary schools they are rare. However, in the absence of more robust data, it was the only viable approach. It may also be helpful to clarify that the monetised analysis of the impact assessment focuses on independent schools. Under Better Regulation requirements, as a department we must quantify the impact of new duties on businesses, and independent schools fall within that definition. State-funded schools do not do so, and so are not included in that element of the assessment. That is not to say there will not be an impact on state-funded schools—I will come to what that might be in a moment —it is simply to say that the approach taken in the impact assessment was in line with the Government’s Better Regulation requirements for how impact assessments are put together.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others also raised concerns about the department’s estimate of the time it will take school staff to record incidents. Although the evidence base is limited, I reassure noble Lords that this estimate assumes that schools already have or will put in place efficient and streamlined record-keeping systems. Our contacts with schools suggest that is the case in very many cases, and many do so already as part of wider safeguarding responsibilities. Our guidance is designed to support schools rather than add unnecessary burden. It is worth emphasising that many schools, as I already suggested, rarely use force or restrictive interventions. This has been fully reflected in our assessment of burden.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive reply, much of which I completely agreed with. I take issue with only two points.
The first is the restriction of the impact assessment to independent schools. In understanding how regulations work and the effect they will have on the system, and sharing that information with Parliament, surely the policy should be that the coverage should be extended to include state schools, which will bear the great majority of the consequences of these regulations. Not to share that with Parliament, as the committee observed, is surely not the right way of going about things.
Secondly, when it comes to data collection, most schools will have this data. Data collection is just a matter of turning a switch or two in the central system so that that data then flows into the governance system, with no extra recording and no extra actions needed beyond adding a few fields to the data already going to government. I really do not understand that that is difficult. However, I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Schools (Recording and Reporting of Seclusion and Restraint) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Lucas
That this House regrets that the Schools (Recording and Reporting of Seclusion and Restraint) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2025 are accompanied by an impact assessment that underestimates the cost of implementation; and that they do not enable the best use of the information which will be recorded by schools.
Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee