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
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
Last Thursday, I was proud to launch the Scotland defence growth deal, which will increase the number of defence jobs in Scotland, invest in skills and make it easier for businesses—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises—to do business in defence. Alongside our commitment to increasing naval shipbuilding in Scotland, this will increase the number of high-skilled, high-wage jobs, and make defence an engine for growth in Scotland.
Douglas McAllister
I very much welcome last week’s announcement of a £50 million defence growth deal for Scotland. It will make Scotland an engine for defence growth. Be it through building ships on the Clyde or new engineering and innovation facilities, it will create good, well-paid jobs for my West Dunbartonshire constituents and people right across Scotland, from the west coast to the east coast. Does the Minister agree that after two decades of SNP failure, it is time for a Scottish Labour Government who will actually back Scottish defence jobs?
Luke Pollard
I do indeed. It is noticeable that when the Scottish Government have had an opportunity to invest in defence skills, they have chosen not to. They chose not to when it came to the welding centre on the Clyde, but the Defence Secretary stepped in. Alongside the Secretary of State for Scotland, we have issued a challenge to the Scottish Government to match our commitment to creating two defence technical excellence colleges, one for the east coast and one for the west coast. We say: put the effort into investing in a whole new generation of young Scots, and get the benefit of a rising defence budget in Scotland.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
There was a pork-barrel stench when the first defence growth deal was awarded to the Minister’s constituency. Over six months later, he has finally got around to making an award to Scotland, but for Scotland, the £50 million has turned into £20 million—and he wants the Scottish Government to foot the bill. Can he be clear with the House today about why, while there are no strings attached to the £50 million for the Welsh defence growth deal, there are strings attached to the Scottish defence growth deal, and does he expect the Scottish Government to top up the £20 million that he has allocated, so that it becomes the £50 million that every other area has got?
Luke Pollard
This is just the politics of grievance from the SNP. This Labour Government have allocated £50 million to support growth in Scotland, including £5 million for the Arrol Gibb campus in Rosyth and—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. You have asked the question; at least listen to the answer, even if you disagree with it.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman did not want to hear about the £5 million for the Arrol Gibb centre in Rosyth, the £5 million for the Clyde engineering campus, and the extra funding for a defence technical excellence college that will create defence skills. I hope that, on reflection, he will ask his Government in Scotland to back what Scottish Labour has backed: the funding for two Scottish DTECs.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Before I answer, I want to thank our British personnel who are working 24/7 in the middle east, at home and around the world to protect British lives. For our part, we are working flat out to settle the defence investment plan, which is a plan for the 10-year transformation of Britain’s defence, as laid out in the strategic defence review. We are fixing a military programme that, when we came into government, was over-committed, underfunded and unsuited to the threats and conflicts we now face.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I draw the House’s attention to my former role as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for defence technology. When I was at Sandhurst, when we would talk about punctuality, the colour sergeant would often say to us, “Three minutes early is two minutes late.” When it comes to the defence investment plan, it feels more like “on the bus, off the bus.” Can the Secretary of State confirm whether it will be published before the House rises on 26 March?
John Healey
We will settle this defence investment plan. Unlike the plans we have seen recently from previous Governments, it will be affordable and deliverable. The hon. Gentleman knows from his time in service—he gave an anecdote from Sandhurst—that over 14 years, Tory Governments hollowed out the armed forces; we are turning that around. We are putting £270 billion into defence in this Parliament, which is the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We are delivering for defence, and delivering for Britain.
Ian Roome
We are still waiting for the defence investment plan, and according to the strategic defence review, items should be deleted from that plan only on the advice of the national armaments director; service chiefs must advise the Secretary of State if anything is to be removed from the defence to-do list. Has the Secretary of State received any such advice? I understand that it is a draft plan at the moment, but it must be finished.
John Healey
This is a whole-of-Defence effort; we are working flat out to deliver the defence investment plan. It will put into practice the 10-year vision that the strategic defence review set out in June last year, as the hon. Gentleman mentions. When we have that completed, we will report that to the House.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The delay to the defence investment plan is obviously having a huge effect on our capabilities, and the plan is in danger of being overtaken by events. We are waiting for approval on the block 2 procurement of underwater uncrewed vessels and the mine countermeasures, hydrographic and patrol capability programme. The Prime Minister has confirmed that there are autonomous mine-clearing vessels in the Gulf. Are the vessels currently in the region deployable? What support ship will support them, given that HMS Stirling Castle left Portsmouth this morning, and will take at least three weeks to get to the region?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is the last person in the House to expect me to set out the detail of those sorts of operational arrangements in public. The defence investment plan is not holding up important investment decisions. We have awarded more than 1,200 major contracts since the election, and we have seen a significant increase in defence investment in businesses in his region of the east of England. I think the House would expect him to welcome that.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
This Government are making a record investment in defence, and steelworkers in my constituency will want to be assured that we are committed to using as much UK steel as possible as we invest. Will the Secretary of State commit to that?
John Healey
A principle of the investment that this Labour Government are making is that we will direct British defence investment first to British jobs, British businesses and British innovation, and we will ensure that the supply chains reflect that policy and political commitment, because we are determined that this increase in defence investment will bring a defence dividend to all parts of the country, including Wales. That is measured in good jobs and future opportunities.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
As a former Parachute Regiment reservist, I warmly welcome the Government’s clear focus on strengthening our armed forces and their defensive capability. Although the appetite for service remains high, the bureaucracy we inherited is holding back recruitment. Will the Secretary of State outline the steps that his Department is taking to support more working adults in joining the volunteer reserve forces?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have swept away some of the long-standing rules that got in the way of people being recruited into the forces. There is no shortage of those who want to join, including young people, but the system has too often been too slow and bureaucratic, and it has raised unnecessary barriers to getting a range of talent into our armed forces for the future.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments about the defence investment plan, and his leadership on increased defence spending. Does he agree that a defence finance and investment strategy is key to unlocking the capital that firms across the supply chain need, if they are to deliver for the DIP? Will he therefore update the House on when the DFIS will be published?
John Healey
I agree that the strategy is key; my hon. Friend is entirely right. This capital is matched by the biggest increase in defence spending from public investment and the public purse since the end of the cold war. We are ensuring that it leverages in not just additional sources of private investment, but record foreign direct investment. We have had £3.2 billion into this country since the election, and have had the most successful British exports year on record, winning fresh business, fresh contracts and fresh opportunities for British innovators and businesses.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am not sure that the Secretary of State heard the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), which was incredibly simple: will the defence investment plan be published before the House rises on 26 March?
John Healey
We are working flat out to conclude the defence investment plan. The hon. Gentleman was the Minister for Defence Procurement who left defence programmes overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats and conflicts that we face, so he will be aware of the scale and significance of the challenge that we are determined to meet.
James Cartlidge
There is a reason why that date matters: it is the date when purdah commences before the Scottish elections. Then we will have the Welsh and local elections. It is our understanding—and the Secretary of State is welcome to correct this—that the defence investment plan cannot be published during purdah. If that is the case, and if it is not published before the rise of the House on 26 March, we will not see it until well into May. That is why this question is so important.
I ask the Secretary of State the question again, because he has failed to answer it so far. It is a very simple, straight question, and it needs a straight answer. Will the defence investment plan be published before the House rises for the recess—yes or no?
John Healey
As the Prime Minister said, it will be published as soon as it is ready. This is not holding up major investments; there have been more than 1,200 major investments in contracts awarded since the election—and 86% of those contracts were awarded to British-based businesses, so we are boosting British security and the British economy at the same time.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Liberal Democrats share concerns about the whereabouts of the defence investment plan, and urge the Government to come forward with its publication. Last year’s strategic defence review also promised a defence readiness Bill, which would give Governments the power to mobilise industry and reserves in a crisis, and would require proper reporting on our warfighting readiness, so that the House and the country were not in the dark. At a time when senior military figures have warned repeatedly that Britain is not ready for war, my question is this: if the threat is urgent, why is the legislation not? If the Secretary of State cannot tell us when he will publish the defence investment plan, can he tell us when he will introduce the defence readiness Bill?
John Healey
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s interest in the issue. He will recognise that, as was pointed out in the strategic defence review, this is a question for the whole of society and the whole of Government. Preparation for greater defence readiness, and greater societal and economic readiness, is going on at present, alongside the work that we are doing in defence with other parts of Government to ensure that we can deliver the defence investment plan. We will then be able to deliver, in due course, a defence readiness Bill.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
Alongside the conflict in the middle east, the war in Ukraine continues to rage. Russia is taking more than 1,000 casualties a day, and has launched more than 55,000 missile and drone attacks against Ukraine in just the last year. At the latest meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group, the Defence Secretary announced a new air defence package, worth more than £500 million, of missiles and systems to protect Ukraine from Russian attacks. In the coming months, the UK will deliver an additional 1,200 air defence missiles and 200,000 rounds of artillery through the air defence consortium.
Patrick Hurley
The Prime Minister’s leadership on Ukraine has been exemplary. Does the Minister agree that that leadership has helped to secure US commitments on security for Ukraine, and that this demonstrates the importance of the US-UK defence relationship to international security?
Al Carns
The UK-US relationship remains stalwart. Our collective leadership on Ukraine has been second to none; the Defence Secretary’s leadership of the Ukraine defence contact group has stimulated billions of pounds of investment; and through what we are doing in Ukraine, we are delivering in support of not just UK security, but European security.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
In the last few weeks, the Prime Minister has been very clear about what he considers our role to be, under international law, if we believe that allies are being attacked. Does he see Ukraine as having exactly the same status as an ally? Does he believe that we are, of necessity, directly involved, given that it is under attack?
Al Carns
As the right hon. Member will know, we continue to support Ukraine with almost as much capability as we can. Through leadership of the Ukraine defence contact group, through capability and through industrial working groups backed by the United Kingdom and across Europe, we will continue to support Ukraine, and do everything possible to ensure the sanctity of Ukrainian sovereignty.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
At the election, military morale had fallen to record lows, and we promised, as a new Government, to renew the nation’s commitment to those who serve. That is what we are doing. We have delivered the biggest forces pay increase for two decades, and landmark investment to buy back and renew nearly 40,000 military family homes. Wraparound childcare has been extended for those serving overseas. When we say that we are a Government on the side of our forces, this is what we mean.
Luke Murphy
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer. As part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I was recently privileged to spend time in the High North, in Norway, with our Royal Marines and other armed forces personnel. It was a stark reminder of their service, and the sacrifice that they make to protect our national interests and our way of life. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the overseas allowance for personnel on temporary duty, like those in the Arctic?
John Healey
I will write to my hon. Friend with the detail, but part of the commitment that we have made to renewing the contract with those who serve has involved the extension of wraparound childcare to those serving overseas. It is part of making sure that we raise the quality of the experience of those in uniform. We can raise the morale of those who serve and, in doing so, we can help deal with the deep-seated, 14-year-long recruitment and retention crisis that we saw at the time of the last general election.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his answers. Personnel and families from Northern Ireland face exceptional costs if they are stationed here on the mainland. If they want to meet up with their family or go home again, there are extra costs for them. What has been done to ensure that personnel from Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged because they live so far away from their family, and to ensure that families can have the family time that they need to ensure that they stay together?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman will have welcomed the “get home” allowance that we made sure every one of our serving personnel could access at Christmas for the first time. We have delivered the highest pay increase for forces personnel for 20 years. The more than 10% pay rise over the first two years of this Government is part of making service life more affordable, including for those in Northern Ireland. I am proud to be the first Defence Secretary of this country who can say that no one working full time in UK military uniform is paid less than the national living wage.
Mr Speaker
Will we look at the Royal Gibraltar Regiment as well, Secretary of State?
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Our outstanding armed forces are in the middle east, protecting our people, our interests and our allies. The Royal Air Force has now conducted over 550 hours of defensive operations in five countries, and drones have been shot down by UK forces almost daily. We now have more jets flying in the region than at any time in the last 15 years.
Lizzi Collinge
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. About 10 days ago, we saw alleged attacks by both US and Iranian forces on water desalination plants in the middle east, which is in direct contravention of international law. Civilians in the middle east are reliant on desalinated water for survival, and targeting it is absolutely unacceptable. Can the Secretary of State confirm that UK forces operating in the middle east continue to operate fully under international law, and that we condemn operations that target civilian infrastructure?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right: Iran’s widespread strikes have shown a total disregard for civilian life. Because I strengthened British defences in the region ahead of this conflict with extra jets, radars and defence systems, from day one we have been co-ordinating defensive actions, with a sound legal basis, to protect British citizens and bases, and our allies in the region. I am proud of the skill and dedication that our armed forces are showing in the middle east.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I have constituents at RAF Akrotiri who have been deployed out of RAF Cosford in my constituency, and I have already had correspondence from concerned constituents and their families. The Iranian regime has a very potent chemical and biological weapons programme. I have asked the Defence Secretary this question before: will he confirm that there is CBRN—chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear—protective kit at Akrotiri and other UK armed forces military bases in the region? The Iranian regime also has a very potent submarine fleet—it may not be nuclear or Trident-led, as ours is, but it is nevertheless a significant threat in the region—so could he say what he is doing to address both those threats?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the range of threats that the Iranian regime poses, especially, as we have seen, as it hits back after the first wave of strikes. Those hits are widespread, they hit countries not involved in the conflict and they are directed at civilian, not just military targets. I say to his constituents living as well as serving in Akrotiri that when I was out there about 10 days ago I made a point of asking our base commander if there was anything further he needed from us back in Britain, and he said, “I have got everything that I asked for to protect ourselves.”
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
After having insulted Great Britain for our response in not joining his war and then claiming that he did not need British help after having “already won” the war, President Donald Trump has now sent an SOS to the world, including to the UK and other NATO allies, to help him protect the strait of Hormuz. I think it is in our national interests to stop the disruption to global shipping, because otherwise that will drive up the cost of goods and the cost of living for my Slough constituents and others across the country. Will the Secretary of State clarify what the Government’s response will be to the US President’s request? How will my right hon. Friend ensure the safety of British armed forces personnel if they are to engage in any such operations?
John Healey
As the Prime Minister said this morning, in fact—my hon. Friend is right—the strait of Hormuz is vital. It is vital to the international economy and to security. We are in continued conversations with European allies and the US. These questions are complex, and any plans must be multilateral, with as many nations taking part as possible. Without going into detailed operational options or discussions, I have already said that we have prepositioned in the region autonomous minehunting capabilities. We have counter-drone systems in action in the region, pulling down drones. Looking ahead, alongside industry, we are looking at additional innovative options, including interceptor drones for the middle east.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Ministers were all over the airwaves this weekend saying two things: first, that they would like to see a de-escalation of the conflict in the middle east; and, secondly, that they would like to see the strait of Hormuz secured for shipping. Why on earth does the Secretary of State think that those two aims are mutually exclusive? If they are mutually exclusive, how can he achieve both?
John Healey
Quite simply, we will do so by making a major contribution, as we are, to discussions about any multinational plans that may be put in place to safeguard for the future the commercial shipping that is the lifeline both of the international economy and of international security.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
British personnel in Cyprus, Bahrain, Iraq and across the middle east have been attacked by Iran and its proxies. In such circumstances, we must act quickly to protect our people and interests. Having served on Royal Navy vessels, I know it takes time to ready a ship, yet nearly two weeks passed before the Government sent a single destroyer— HMS Dragon—to help defend our forces in Cyprus. Why was that decision not taken sooner, and given that the Royal Navy had advised deploying assets earlier, which Minister took the decision not to act on that point?
John Healey
I strengthened UK defences ahead of the conflict. Once the scale and nature of the indiscriminate and widespread Iranian response became clear and the circumstances were changing, we altered and adopted further actions. The deployment of HMS Dragon was part of that. I took the decision to give that go-ahead on the same day the Chief of the Defence Staff offered that to Ministers as an option. The hon. Gentleman served as a reservist in the Navy—[Interruption.] Sorry, he served as a regular in the Navy. If he is concerned about the state of the British Navy, he really should look at the record of his own Government: they cut the total number of frigates and destroyers by a quarter; they cut minehunters by more than half; and they cut defence spending by £12 billion in their first five years. It is our job now to fix those problems. Whereas they were cutting and hollowing out our armed forces, we are rebuilding them for the future.
David Reed
This is an important point and, given the volatility of the international system, we must learn from our mistakes. In a written answer on 9 March, the Minister for the Armed Forces confirmed that discussions took place before the decision to deploy HMS Dragon. We know those conversations happened and that the Royal Navy put forward recommendations. When British personnel are under threat, those delays carry consequences. I ask again: will the Secretary of State tell the House which Minister chose not to act on that advice sooner, and, crucially, why?
John Healey
As I have said to the House more than once, and as the Chief of the Defence Staff said on the BBC the weekend before last, the day the deployment was put to Ministers as an option, in the circumstances of conflict that were changing at the time, we adapted our actions to protect British lives, to protect British allies and to protect citizens right across the region.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
We are ending the hollowing out and underfunding of defence that we inherited from the previous Government and spending more with British businesses. To deliver that, we are investing in skills: five defence growth deals worth £250 million; a £182 million skills package; £50 million allocated for five DTECS—defence technical excellence colleges—across England, one in Wales and two in Scotland; and £80 million in strategic priorities grants available to universities to expand the number of places in courses that will support defence.
Ms Minns
I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that my constituency was home to Europe’s largest munitions factory during the first world war, a legacy that lives on in MOD Longtown. When the Minister confirms that my constituency of Carlisle will be one of the locations for the six new munitions factories the Government are looking to build, what support will the Government provide to ensure that it is local people who will be able to take up the jobs at that new munitions factory?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for her lobbying in favour of Carlisle as a location. Having visited Longtown, I have seen her constituents’ dedication and passion in supporting defence, as well as the opportunities there. We are making good progress on our commitment to allocate resources in this Parliament for six energetics and munitions factories. We hope to make a decision on the first wave of those in due course. I will be sure to keep all Members involved, including those who have made a good case in the Chamber today.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
On that Chorley and Lancashire theme, it will not be possible to increase the defence skills in this country if the defence jobs of the future are not secure in that pipeline. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State talk earlier about British jobs, British industry and British innovation—he can probably gather where this is going, judging from the whispering on the Government Front Bench—so I was confused when there was bragging about ordering from British companies for defence as to why American F-35s were ordered, not British Typhoons. Given that we will need around 100 aircraft to maintain the workforce at Warton for Tempest in the future, I assume, whenever the defence investment plan is finally published, we will see an order of 25 Typhoons for the RAF within it.
Luke Pollard
In the hon. Gentleman’s haste to make an attack on the Government, he forgot to welcome the multibillion-pound deal we secured with Türkiye to build Typhoons in his constituency. We have had a 15% increase in defence in the north-west of England since the first year of this Labour Government, but he is right that we need to make sure we are investing in skills to deliver the defence industrial base. That is precisely why the Government are investing in skills and why we are supporting British businesses. He will also know that the F-35, as well as the Typhoon, contributes many jobs to the north-west—I believe many of them very close to his constituency.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
On 19 February, the Secretary of State and the First Minister of Wales announced a £50 million Welsh defence growth deal, making Wales a launchpad for the next generation of autonomous technology. Thousands of skilled workers in Wales will be involved in the design, testing and manufacture of these innovative technologies. This proves yet again that defence is an engine for growth in Wales and shows the power of two Labour Governments working together to deliver in the interests of Wales.
Gerald Jones
I welcome and fully endorse the Minister’s comments about the benefits of two Labour Governments working together for the people of Wales. In the 19th century, ironworks in my constituency made cannons and cannonballs for the Royal Navy; in the 21st century, skilled workers and businesses in Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare, such as General Dynamics, are ready to continue our area’s role in enhancing the nation’s defences. I seek an assurance from the Minister that businesses in the supply chain across the south Wales valleys will continue to play a key role in providing those skilled jobs in our communities to ensure that investment in the defence sector gives a necessary boost to the confidence of areas such as mine.
Luke Pollard
Having visited my hon. Friend’s constituency, I know what a champion he is, not just for large companies such as General Dynamics but for the wider supply chain. That is precisely why the Department has committed to increasing our direct spend with small businesses by 50% by 2028, ensuring that we are removing the barriers to small businesses being able to engage with the defence supply chain more and investing in the skills that those small and large businesses require to make the most of a rising defence budget. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend and his constituents in relation to General Dynamics shortly.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones) knows better than most that the Ajax programme is not only a national defence procurement issue, but specifically a Welsh one; around 400 workers in Merthyr Tydfil are connected to the Ajax factory. Workers have been hospitalised, troops have been put at risk and £6 billion of taxpayers’ money has already been sunk into the programme. While Ministers deliberate, those workers are left completely in the dark about the future of the project and their jobs. I cannot imagine how that must feel for them and their families. Will the Minister tell us when a final decision will be made on Ajax and what he has to say to the workers in Merthyr Tydfil who are waiting for clarity about their families’ futures?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he posed that question. What happened on Exercise Titan Storm was of serious concern to all Members of this House. It was for that reason that we paused use of Ajax and initiated a number of safety investigations into what happened and the impact on our people, and put in place measures to ensure that we could learn lessons. We have now received those reports and are analysing them, and I hope to be able to make further announcements in due course. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about the workers and not just the soldiers in uniform. That is why we are continuing a strong dialogue with General Dynamics and the local Members of Parliament on this issue.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
Let me be really clear: the UK’s priority is supporting British nationals and our partners in accordance with international law. The Prime Minister has made clear that any UK action must always have a legal basis. On 7 March, the UK notified the UN Security Council of the relevant actions, including our defensive counter-air operations, taken under article 51 of the United Nations charter. Military credibility and legal credibility go hand inusb hand.
Ayoub Khan
When nations commit war crimes, the UN charter makes it plain that other nations must not provide any support or assistance. Trump and Netanyahu started this illegal war and, in welcoming US aircraft on British bases so that they can be loaded with 2,000 lb bombs, the UK is clearly aiding and abetting that, in breach of international law. Right now, we are helping to escalate this conflict, which is bringing us to the brink of global recession. That is why the British public do not support our involvement in this war. Would the Defence Secretary like to explain why they are wrong?
Al Carns
Let me talk a little bit about crimes: support to Hamas; support to Hezbollah; support to the Houthis; support to various armed groups with lethal aid that has been killing British forces for 20 years. Are we going to apologise for protecting UK nationals? Absolutely not.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
Last month, satellite imagery of the Gaza war cemetery showed that Israeli forces had destroyed more than 100 allied graves using heavy machinery. This is a Commonwealth War Graves Commission site, and these are graves of British and allied personnel who served in the first and second world wars and made the ultimate sacrifice. Has my hon. Friend raised concerns with his Israeli counterpart? What steps will he take to prevent future destruction of Commonwealth war graves?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for her really important question. I am absolutely dismayed by the reports of damage to the cemetery by both Israeli operations and Hamas fighters. Brave servicemen laid to rest overseas should not in any way, shape or form have their graves defiled; neither should the courageous men and women who tend to the graves have to experience that. Together with our international partners, we have raised our concerns with Israeli authorities. We will continue to support the commission as it looks to assess and repair the damage when it is safe to do so.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
We are studying developments very carefully and remain in close contact with the United States and other allies. The UK’s position is clear: the best way forward for the region and the world is a negotiated settlement with Iran when it has given up its nuclear ambitions. Recent events have also underlined the importance of resilience, strong alliances and credible military capability in a world where regional crisis can develop quickly. A sustainable peace must reduce the risk of conflict, not simply pause it.
Monica Harding
My constituents are deeply concerned about further escalation in the middle east and the UK being pulled further into a conflict with no clear objective. They are also concerned about the impact on their energy bills, inflation and interest rates. President Trump is attempting to pull us into his war of choice, urging UK deployments to the strait of Hormuz and asserting that NATO’s future depends on allies committing to deploying assets. Will the Minister rule out the deployment of military assets to the strait of Hormuz, and will he do so as strongly as our German and Spanish allies have done? Does he agree that de-escalation is key, as any further military action threatens a sustainable peace? Does he also agree that a better way forward would be for the UK, as penholder on the UN Security Council, to present an emergency resolution to get the strait of Hormuz open through UN channels?
Al Carns
I have attended every staff college in the military—initial staff college, advanced command staff college and higher command staff college—and they all say two things: “First, you must have a legal mandate before putting people in harm’s way; secondly, you must think through to the end.” We will continue to work in a comprehensive and calm manner with our allies and partners to ensure that we can come up with a solution to the strait of Hormuz, and we will not rule anything out, because we cannot guarantee where this war is going to go.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Residents in my constituency are rightly worried about the ongoing events in the middle east, so will the Minister reaffirm for the avoidance of any doubt that this Government’s first priority is to keep their citizens safe, and that our decisions thus far and moving forward have been and will continue to be based on the collective self-defence of long-standing allies and on protecting British lives?
Al Carns
As we speak, there will most likely be fast jets flying in the middle east or around Cyprus, tracking, identifying and engaging with drones that pose a direct threat to our British interests, our allies and partners and, potentially, British citizens. I take my hat off to them, and I fully support them. We will maintain that defensive posture for as long as this conflict continues.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
The Royal Fleet Auxiliary makes a unique contribution to defence. We thank the maritime trade unions for their commitment to resolving the current pay dispute so that the RFA’s contribution can be recognised. The Ministry of Defence is implementing a workforce recovery programme for the RFA. This will improve the wider employee offer for those serving to ensure that the RFA can continue to perform its vital role. Since 28 February last year, officer applications are 30% higher and ratings applications are 26% higher. Outflow is down to 10.3% from a high of 13.4% in January 2023.
Kim Johnson
I welcome the Minister’s response. The RFA does play a very important role in the maritime sector. I welcome the Government’s progress in addressing the declining numbers in the RFA, but there is still a long way to go. MOD figures show that RFA seafarer numbers are still 12% lower than in 2019. Improving the pay and conditions of the RFA civilian seafarers is not only the right thing to do but essential to resolving the recruitment and retention crisis caused by the previous Government’s hostility towards public sector workers. Will the Minister commit to revisiting discussions with the Treasury if the current pay offer is rejected by RFA officers and ratings, particularly if they are drawn into the conflict in the middle east?
Louise Sandher-Jones
We are continuing close and productive conversations across Government and with the maritime trade unions, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on ongoing negotiations. However, as I have said, this Labour Government recognise the extraordinary contribution and unique role of the highly skilled personnel of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
Grahame Morris
I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), but I acknowledge that the Government have made substantial progress in addressing the ingrained recruitment and retention crisis they inherited affecting the Royal Fleet Auxiliary—the Royal Navy support ships. However, having resolved the previous pay dispute, the RFA’s overworked and underpaid seafarers have had to wait seven months before receiving a formal pay offer from their employer. I appreciate that the Secretary of State and his Ministers share the RFA trade unions’ commitment to a positive future for the RFA’s civilian crews, which is encouraging, but what reassurances can the Minister provide to the seafarers whom we rely on?
Louise Sandher-Jones
As we are continuing to work closely across Government and with the maritime trade unions, I do not wish to comment on the ongoing negotiations, but I can assure my hon. Friend that, as I said, this Labour Government and I recognise the extraordinary contribution of our seafarers and are working hard to deliver for the highly skilled personnel of our Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
Strengthening defence relationships with our allies is a central priority for the Government. We do that through joint operations, exercises, intelligence co-operation, deeper industrial partnerships and close planning with NATO and joint expeditionary force allies and other key partners. We have recently signed landmark defence agreements with Norway, Germany and France and have forged closer capability partnerships, including with Norway on Type 26 frigates and Turkey with Typhoon. The upcoming defence diplomacy strategy will help further enhance our international relationships.
Gordon McKee
The war in Ukraine has shown that rapid innovation cycles are critical to success. Minister Fedorov and others in Ukraine have helped to build a defence technology ecosystem that connects start-ups, engineers and units on the frontline, even allowing some of those units to operate quasi-independently to test out new technologies. Given that the strategic defence review recommended that the UK learn from its allies, how is the Minister using the defence relationship with Ukraine not just to support the Ukrainians in their fight but to learn from them so that we can strengthen the UK’s armed forces?
Al Carns
Since arriving in this House, I have been droning on about drones—it is one of the reasons I came into politics. There are three key lessons that we need to learn. The first is to adapt a process to give us a high-low mix of fifth-generation capability supported by cheap mass. That mass must be dumb hardware with sophisticated software. Finally, the software must be integrated across all domains and be driven by data and artificial intelligence. We will be able to achieve that only with a closer public-private partnership as we move forward.
Michelle Scrogham
The Government understand that “made in Britain” means good quality jobs for British people. Exporting those goods to international allies not only equips our allies with the best of British workmanship but puts billions of pounds into the UK economy. Barrow-in-Furness will build our AUKUS submarines, but what work is the Minister doing to ensure that UK small and medium-sized enterprises are well placed to benefit from AUKUS pillar 2 projects?
Al Carns
The first hundred pages or so of the SDR are about better industrial collaboration between the MOD and our industries. Work on AUKUS will create over 7,000 additional jobs at UK sites and across the supply chain, with over 21,000 working on the programme at its peak. We must do more to work with SMEs. The annual innovation challenge, for example, sees suppliers receive support for developing novel capabilities to demonstration phase. The UK winners in 2024 include two SMEs, one large supplier and one academic group.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
TEK Military Seating in Tunbridge Wells designs and exports military seating. It risks losing a £400,000 order to a customer in the United Arab Emirates because it lacks the permissions in the export licence, and my understanding is that the Department for Business and Trade is waiting for an answer from the MOD. Will the Minister please investigate?
Al Carns
I do not have the details of that specific case, but I am sure that the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry would love to do so.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Following the drone attack at RAF Akrotiri earlier this month, there has been growing disquiet within Cyprus and the Cypriot community about the continuing existence of the sovereign base areas. Given the absolute necessity of this defence relationship between the United Kingdom and Cyprus, will the Minister update the House on the Secretary of State’s visit to Cyprus earlier this month? Could he also say what reassurance the Cypriot Government need from us to ensure not only that the base is safe but that the future security of Cyprus is ensured?
Al Carns
Our sovereign base in Cyprus is not in question. When the Secretary of State for Defence visited Cyprus, the Cypriot national guard reaffirmed that our relationship is closer now than ever before. We must always remember the complexity of dealing with air defence. When it involves high and fast ballistic missiles combined with slow and low drones, it is a very complex problem for anyone to deal with, but we are trying to ensure that we come as close to 100% as we can.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
Given the present focus on the war in the middle east, there is concern that we should not lose focus on what is going on in Ukraine. On developing and strengthening our relationships with our allies, what are the Minister and his fellow Ministers doing to ensure that Putin does not take advantage of the current situation in the middle east, and that we ensure that Ukraine continues to get the full support, weapons and assets that it needs?
Al Carns
We continue to lead, both in the coalition of the willing and in the Ukraine defence contact group, which the Secretary of State attended recently, raising billions of pounds-worth of equipment support in weapons, air defence systems and everything through to female body armour. Ukraine absolutely remains a focus. This is not just about UK security; it is about European security, and that will not change.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I build on the excellent supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) about Ukraine and counter-drone warfare? Thanks to the support given by this Government and the previous Government to Ukraine, it has become a world leader in inventing and deploying cheap responses to cheap drones. As a result, there is now an opportunity for it to assist our allies that are under threat from drone attacks in the middle east and in particular in the Persian gulf. Will the Government do everything they can to facilitate that, and thus show that Ukraine does indeed have some cards to play?
Al Carns
The Secretary of State has been in discussions with the National Security Agency and with key individuals in Ukraine. I am a firm believer that the Ukrainians need the west now and that in the future we will need them, given some of the technological advances they have made. It is also worth doubling down on some of the capabilities and initiatives moving forward, ranging from the hybrid Navy to the Army 20-40-40 programme, the Defence uncrewed centre of excellence, the NMITE drone degree to enhance and increase education, industry and the military forces’ move towards uncrewed systems and, finally, the £4 billion on uncrewed systems within the SDR.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With all eyes on the middle east, this House expects, and I am determined to ensure, that we will continue to confront the growing threats in the High North, to fulfil our obligations to NATO and to step up support for Ukraine. I can confirm today that over the last month, we have delivered to Ukraine 3,500 drones, 18,000 artillery rounds and 3 million rounds of small ammunition. We face two conflicts on two continents, supported by an axis of aggression with similar tactics and similar technologies. I say this to the Ukrainian people on behalf of the UK: we will not forget the war in Europe, and our total determination to stand with Ukraine remains steadfast. We will welcome President Zelensky to this country tomorrow.
Bill Esterson
Evidence presented to the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee shows that if the war in Europe is expanded, Russian submarines pose a significant threat to oil and gas tankers, pipelines and installations in the North sea. What is the Government’s plan to address this significant threat to our oil and gas supplies?
John Healey
I praise my hon. Friend’s chairmanship of the Committee. He is absolutely right: as the strategic defence review said last year, Russia poses an immediate and pressing threat to this country. The UK and allies’ navies monitor, shadow and surveil activities of the Russian navy, and we are stepping up our surveillance of any activity close to our oil installations and pipelines.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
There are growing rumours that the Government plan to bring back their ill-fated Northern Ireland Troubles Bill to the Commons next week. If that is true, it will give us the perfect opportunity to debate the Prime Minister’s links with Phil Shiner, the disgraced lawyer who was convicted of fraud and struck off for making multiple false allegations against British soldiers. The Northern Ireland Secretary has told the House repeatedly that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution. Do MOD Ministers now agree that that is not just naive but simply untrue, especially after the case of Phil Shiner —a man universally hated across the British Army?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
There are two key roles that the Ministry of Defence plays within this legislation. The first is to ensure that we protect veterans throughout any legal process to do with Northern Ireland, and the second is to ensure that no one corrupts the system to try to rewrite history with a different narrative. There is a third role, which is to ensure that those families who have lost loved ones who were in the armed forces or the security services get the truth, reconciliation and justice they deserve.
Mr Francois
I was asking about the current Prime Minister, not the next one. After previously denying that the Prime Minister was instructed to act in a case against veterans by Phil Shiner, on 24 February the Veterans Minister had to come to the House and correct the record because the Prime Minister did, in fact, act for Phil Shiner in the al-Jedda case before the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. That case effectively opened the floodgates for prosecutions against British Army veterans, which the troubles Bill now threatens to do all over again. To save the Veterans Minister having to come back here again and correct the record twice, can she or this Minister simply tell us why Labour is led by a man who partly made a living out of helping to put British Army soldiers and even their commanders in the dock?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for the field promotion—he, obviously, has not had one. We have two roles: protecting veterans and ensuring that no one can rewrite history through the courts. We will push hard on that and deliver it for the veterans who deserve it.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for shipbuilding. That is precisely why this Government have brought together all Departments with a shipbuilding interest in a cross-Government effort to refresh our shipbuilding process, and why Defence is leading that work by delivering more orders for our shipyards, which includes not only the frigates being built in Rosyth and on the Clyde, but the fleet solid support ship. Work on that has started in Appledore in north Devon as well.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
The Government have reset the relationship with our nuclear test veterans and the organisations that support them, and we appreciate the vital contribution that they made to keeping this country safe. We remain absolutely committed to listening to their concerns and working collaboratively to address them.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
Absolutely. Octric does a superb job in keeping our country safe, securing an essential supply of gear for our military. Since Octric came into MOD ownership, it has already recruited 33 additional staff, and we continue to support the company as it seeks to grow and build, in support of our national security.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
John Healey
I hope the hon. Lady’s constituents and other Ukrainian families will be reassured by the response this afternoon in the House. Despite all eyes being on the middle east, we are determined to continue to stand with Ukraine and to step up our support for Ukraine alongside allies including the US.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the conversation that my hon. Friend and I had last week about the importance of more skills for her constituency. We are investing £182 million in a defence skills package and rolling out defence technical excellence colleges across the United Kingdom. I am very happy to meet her to talk about this further, because we want to see more British companies invest in skills.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Al Carns
The hon. Member is absolutely correct. We took a six-week programme of deep refit and rearmed in six days—a remarkable effort from both the industry and the Royal Navy. I doff my cap to what they have done. That ship is now sailing to the middle east. At times of crisis, we can move things faster. We made a decision as quickly as possible, and if we need to, we will do the same again. [Interruption.] Opposition Members will recognise that an air defence destroyer is designed to protect a moving aircraft carrier. We may want to look into the investment in ground-based air defence over the last five to 15 years, and the lack of capability that we were left with. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I need to hear the next question. I will not be able to if there is chuntering across the Chamber.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
John Healey
First, on behalf of the House may I congratulate my hon. Friend on receiving in Ukraine earlier this month the presidential Order of Merit for her work on this area? We are supporting a new tracing mechanism being used in Ukraine, and since September it has already identified an extra 600 children stolen by the Russians and forcibly held, and attempted indoctrination of the exact kind that my hon. Friend is campaigning against.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
John Healey
My hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry did not just mention the record export deal that we managed to secure with Turkey—£8 billion-worth that will be boosting the British economy, principally in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the north-west. The hon. Gentleman also fails to welcome the investment of half a billion pounds in new radars for the Typhoons. This is part of building up our UK defence base and part of a 15% increase under this Government in defence investment going to his region.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I know from my own time of service in the Army just how vital the Gurkhas are and their hugely high standards of professionalism. We in this country have a special relationship with them, which we must never, ever forget. I have met regularly, including recently, with representatives and will continue to do so, and I would love to visit her constituency.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
In Devon and Somerset, we are home to some of the finest units of the British armed forces, from Devonport to Lympstone to 40 Commando at Norton Manor and to Royal Marines Barracks Chivenor in north Devon. The geopolitical tectonic plates are shifting, and President Trump’s latest comments about NATO only underline the importance of a strong UK defence capability and strategic autonomy. It is often said that if you want peace, you must prepare for war, so after years in which successive Conservative Governments hollowed out our armed forces—QED—will the Minister outline how the Government intend to ensure that this country is properly equipped to defend itself in the event of a major conflict? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The answers will come from the Government side, not the Opposition.
John Healey
We invested £8 billion more in defence in our first year than the Conservative Government did in their last year, with a total of £270 billion into defence in this Parliament alone and a vision for the next 10 years set out in our strategic defence review.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
In just 18 months this Government have ended the disastrous 1996 Tory privatisation of military housing, which cost the taxpayer billions of pounds. We have repaired 1,000 military homes in the poorest condition ahead of schedule, and we have kick-started a landmark £9 billion repair and renewal of 36,000 forces homes. Does the Minister agree that this is more action in 18 months than the last lot managed in 14 years?
Louise Sandher-Jones
The last Government had 14 years to fix defence family housing and failed, delivering instead record low levels of satisfaction. We have reversed that disastrous privatisation of our military housing, we have a landmark housing strategy to renew or repair nine in 10 homes, and we are creating a new defence housing service. That is how to put the interests of British service personnel first.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My constituent, Vijay Odedra, has been telling me how his small business, CapnoTrainer, has been working with the Royal Navy to improve the fighting capacity and resilience of our sailors. While we wait for the defence investment plan, will the Secretary of State tell us what steps he has in mind to harness the innovation in our small and medium-sized enterprise sector?
Luke Pollard
I welcome the hon. Gentleman promoting a defence SME. There are defence SMEs in every constituency that do a good job. We created the Defence Office for Small Business Growth to support more SMEs in gaining defence contracts and to increase the direct spend that the Ministry of Defence has with them. I am very happy to meet him to discuss the SME that he mentions.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Office for National Statistics has confirmed that it is considering taking the veterans question off the census for 2031. Witnesses before the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill clearly thought that question provided important data about where our veterans are. Will the Secretary of State engage with the ONS to emphasise the importance of the veterans question?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is exactly right to point out just how valuable that question is. It should be asked. It is valuable in setting out data to enable us to go forward. I will absolutely take up that issue.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
In 2020, the now Prime Minister proposed legislation to ensure that any UK military action could take place only if there were a legal justification, a viable objective and the consent of the Commons. Does the Secretary of State endorse the principles outlined by his party leader, and will he therefore support my Armed Conflict (Requirements) Bill?
John Healey
I am very happy to look at the hon. Lady’s Bill, but in recent weeks the Prime Minister has reasserted exactly the basis on which any UK military forces are committed into conflict.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Many United States service personnel from RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall live off base in Bury St Edmunds. Three planes from Lakenheath were shot down in friendly fire over Kuwait last week. Fortunately, the pilots were rescued. Mildenhall is home to a large fleet of aerial refuelling tankers. I do not know whether it was a tanker from Mildenhall that was lost, but I do know that there are six grieving families right now. Will the Secretary of State join me in extending our support and sincere condolences to our brave United States families? Wherever they are, they are in our thoughts.
John Healey
I will indeed. My hon. Friend speaks for the House, and it is a message that I made sure the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, heard directly from me on behalf of the UK people.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State is a former distinguished Treasury Minister. Government is about taking decisions when things change. It is welcome that the Chancellor has addressed the heating oil crisis, but what will the Secretary of State do to make the Chancellor come to terms with the changes over the last few weeks, and to provide some additional support so that the defence investment plan will do justice to his ambitions?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the rising demands on defence. That point was reflected in the Prime Minister’s speech to the Munich conference last month, in which he said that
“hard power...is the currency of the age”.
We know that we need to spend more faster.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
Last month, I joined several Members from across the House in Ukraine for the fourth anniversary of Putin’s illegal invasion. The mood was very different from the previous year, after an extremely harsh winter and Putin’s bombardment of the power networks. Can the Secretary of State give assurances that we will not only stand by Ukraine with everything going on in the middle east, but help them and support them in fixing key infrastructure, so that 400,000 people in Kyiv are not living without power?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right, and I welcome the visit that he paid to Ukraine. We are indeed doing what we can to help Ukraine defend its critical civilian infrastructure targeted by Putin, and we are stepping up our military support to Ukraine in the way I have reported to the House today.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I have just returned from visiting Ukraine last week. It is clear to me that Ukraine still needs help with procurement of missiles, interceptors and sanctions on the shadow fleet, but the role of the US also remains critical. Does the Secretary of State think that it really helps persuade the US to stay strong on Ukraine, when, as a close ally, the UK U-turns over the use of our air bases to attack Iran?
John Healey
The decision to accept the fresh US request to use our bases in order to strike Iran’s missile location was clearly set out at the time. I welcome—the House welcomes—her visit to Ukraine. In our support of Ukraine, it is enormously encouraging that Members from both sides of the House are regularly in Ukraine to reinforce this country’s continued support for its fight against Putin.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Following last week’s welcome announcement of defence investment in Scotland, will the Minister provide an update on the plan to take forward Programme Euston at Faslane? Does he agree that the skilled workforce at the Methil yard in my constituency, which was saved by this Government, will provide excellent capacity to deliver that vital contract?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued advocacy. I have met him—and will no doubt meet him again very soon—to discuss this. We will continue to invest in shipbuilding infrastructure across the UK. As we approach decisions on Programme Euston, we will be sure to keep the House informed.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
There is widespread concern about the Government sticking to the decision made in 2016 to shut Army Training Regiment Winchester, which trains 20% of our troops. Has an impact assessment been carried out, and have the Government spoken with commanders at Pirbright and Winchester to ensure that they can not only maintain training capacity but increase it if necessary?
Louise Sandher-Jones
The Government undertake detailed impact work. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no impact on training capability. I am pleased to say that we are increasing the number of people who are starting training—no thanks to the previous Government.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
A new partnership between New College Lanarkshire and Cairnhill Structures—a steel-fabricating company in Coatbridge—begins today. The Engineering Futures programme aims to give local people a start in engineering trades such as welding, fabrication and computer-aided design, which are all essential to strengthen our skills base and increase the number of defence jobs. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to promote similar schemes across Scotland?
Luke Pollard
I praise New College Lanarkshire for its work. That is precisely why we wanted to invest in not one but two Scottish defence technical excellence colleges. I hope that the Scottish Government will be able to match the commitment that this Labour Government have made to deliver for young people in Scotland, as my hon. Friend says.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Further to the question from the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), offshore energy infrastructure needs to be protected. The strategic defence review did not specifically mention moveable assets such as platforms, floating production, storage and offloading units, or rigs. Can the Secretary of State confirm that they will be considered as part of our energy security, and what will the Ministry of Defence do to ensure their security now and in the future?
John Healey
On the contrary, the strategic defence review placed greater emphasis on the need to step up our homeland security and defence. That includes the critical undersea infrastructure on which we depend.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry mentioned Exercise Titan Storm in the context of Ajax. On 1 January, I asked the Ministry of Defence a named-day question—which was due an answer by 7 January—about how many noise and vibration injuries had been sustained up to Exercise Titan Storm. Before Defence Ministers leave the Chamber, may I ask for your advice on how best to elicit an answer, which is now over two months late?
Mr Speaker
Does a Front Bencher wish to respond? No? I will deal with it, then.
This is totally unacceptable. A named-day question should be answered: I cannot believe that something asked in January has still not been answered. May I ask the Secretary of State to look into that and ensure that questions are answered? It is not good enough. Members are representing their constituents, including people who are serving and those who may be serving in this contract. Please, I say to the Government, take this House more seriously. Members of Parliament are having a very bad time from Government, who seem to have a total disregard for us.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mark Pritchard
It is. May I thank you for your comments, Mr Speaker?
The next Defence questions will be on 10 May. We are all aware of the recess, but our armed forces personnel will be in harm’s way during that period—many of them are my constituents, and they are all represented across the House. May I look to you, Mr Speaker, to allow for urgent questions and particularly statements where necessary, as you always do, to be given by the Defence team in that period? There is a very long period of time until 10 May, given that we have armed forces personnel on duty right now.
Mr Speaker
I am not going to carry on the conversation. I think the right hon. Member has put his point on the record.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the next item of business, I should note the recent death of Phil Woolas, who served as the Member of Parliament for Oldham East and Saddleworth between 1997 and 2010 and held several ministerial posts. The thoughts of all of us former colleagues are with Tracey, his sons and the rest of his family and friends. I have to say to the Secretary of State for Defence that I know how close you were to him, and we really appreciated how you kept us all informed with your regular visits.
Strait of Hormuz
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the steps she is taking to secure the reopening of the strait of Hormuz.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her question. I should say that the Foreign Secretary will provide a wider update to the House tomorrow morning on the UK’s approach to the situation in the middle east, including the conflict in Iran, escalation in Lebanon, our consular response and her diplomatic engagement, including her recent visit to Saudi Arabia over the weekend, which will provide the possibility for further questions on a much wider range of issues.
Let me turn to the right hon. Lady’s question. Iran’s reckless actions in the strait of Hormuz are having damaging consequences for the global economy and putting the lives of those aboard civilian vessels in danger. Iran has struck several commercial ships in the last few days, and its actions have put a fifth of the world’s oil supply effectively on hold. A ministerial colleague will shortly update the House on the steps that this Government are taking to provide help to those affected in the UK who most need it.
Last week, we joined 31 other countries and the International Energy Agency in agreeing a co-ordinated release of 400 million barrels of oil, including 13.5 million barrels from the UK, which is the biggest-ever release in the IEA’s history. As the Prime Minister said this morning, we are working with all our allies and partners, including our European partners, on how we can restore freedom of navigation in the region as quickly as possible and ease the economic impacts. That is not a simple task, but we have to reopen the strait of Hormuz to ensure stability in the market.
The Prime Minister spoke with President Trump yesterday on the importance of reopening the strait of Hormuz. The Foreign Secretary was in Riyadh in recent days, showing support for our partners across the region who face continuing strikes. She discussed the impact of Iran’s actions with Gulf Co-operation Council Foreign Ministers and the importance of maintaining energy security and supply. As we speak, she is on a call with Secretary of State Rubio on this very crisis, and the Defence Secretary has just been answering questions on these issues.
I assure you, Mr Speaker, and the whole House that the Government will continue to work towards a swift resolution of the situation in the middle east to protect our people and our allies and to reduce the cost of living for working people in this country.
Priti Patel
This is a moment for Britain to stand tall and work intensively with our allies. With the despotic Iranian regime continuing to attack international shipping in the strait of Hormuz, urgent action is required to reopen safe shipping routes, protect lives and support trade and economic stability.
We all feel the economic cost of Iran’s actions. This morning, the Prime Minister told the press, not the House:
“We are working with all our allies…to bring together a viable collective plan that can restore freedom of navigation in the region as quickly as possible.”
I recognise that this is not straightforward, but where is that plan? What measures are being considered? The British public need to know what the Government are doing to protect our economic and national security.
There are currently no destroyers in the middle east. They can operate at a very long range and can take down projectiles, and they can also provide cover for minehunter vessels. When will the Government send one?
Under this Government, there are no minehunters at our naval base in Bahrain—a base designed to host a fleet of minehunters. Are the Government working urgently to bring minehunters back to Bahrain to strengthen capacity and capabilities at that base and in the region?
Are the Government working with our allies to assess the viability of striking targets that threaten international shipping, just as happened against the Houthi targets in Yemen?
What action is being taken to protect critics of the Iranian regime and journalists from acts of transnational repression by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?
Will the Government lead a diplomatic effort to ensure that Russia does not profit from this crisis? Will the Minister reaffirm that Britain will continue going further in its actions on Russia and oil refineries fuelling the war?
With our friends in the Gulf being so brazenly under attack from Iran, what assurances did the Foreign Secretary give them during her visit about Britain’s presence in the region and actions to protect our bases? Did she make any progress on increasing the number of British nationals who can return home, bearing in mind the disruption to flights that has taken place today?
This is a hugely consequential moment for the world. Britain cannot stand by and sit on the fence.
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Lady asks very important questions about the safety of British nationals, our allies and others, and about the economic impact. She has also rightly raised the issue of Russia and Ukraine. We cannot allow this situation to in any way become a bonanza for Putin in his war against Ukraine. I can assure her that we are absolutely committed to continuing our economic pressure on Russia. I spoke to my Ukrainian counterpart just last week to reassure him of that.
The Prime Minister has set out very clearly that the strait of Hormuz is vital, both to the international economy and to security. We are in continued conversations with European allies and with the United States. These questions are very complex, and any plans must be multilateral, with as many nations as possible taking part. I am not going to get into detailed discussions in the Chamber, but the Defence Secretary has already spoken about the resources that we prepositioned in the region—the Prime Minister has been clear about that, as have the Foreign Secretary and I. There are capabilities, such as autonomous minehunting, and we have been taking substantial actions to support allies and partners. After the GCC’s meeting with the Foreign Secretary, it set out very clearly that it thanked the UK for our solidarity with the countries in the GCC and our strong and long-standing commitment to their security, stability and territorial integrity. That was in the statement issued by Ministers after they met the Foreign Secretary at the weekend.
We have been very clear about our objectives. The first of those is to protect our people in the region. Secondly, while taking the actions necessary to defend ourselves and our allies, we will not be drawn into the wider war. We will continue working towards a swift resolution that brings security and stability back to the region, but crucially also stops the Iranian threat to its neighbours. We all want to see an end to this war as quickly as possible, because the longer it goes on, the more dangerous the situation becomes and the worse it is for the cost of living back home. That is exactly why the Prime Minister has set out decisive action today.
We are taking measures to support UK citizens who will be affected by energy prices, whether on heating oil—which a ministerial colleague will speak about shortly—the energy price cap, or our continued investment in energy security and capability in the UK. We cannot allow our energy security to be at the whims of the ayatollahs, Vladimir Putin or anyone else. As I have set out, we have acted alongside other countries to release emergency oil stocks at a level that is completely unprecedented, but ultimately we must reopen the strait of Hormuz to ensure stability in the market. That is not a simple task, so I repeat that we will work with allies, including European partners, to bring together a viable and collective plan to restore freedom of navigation.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Joint Maritime Security Centre has designated the Persian gulf situation as critical, and Nautilus International, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the UK Chamber of Shipping have designated the strait of Hormuz, the Persian gulf and the gulf of Oman as a warlike area way into next month. Protecting the safety of seafarers and UK-flagged vessels is paramount, so will the Minister continue to commit to upholding the international convention for the safety of life at sea?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise these issues. The extraordinary, reckless actions that Iran has been taking threaten not only those international shipping routes but the crews serving on board those vessels, who should be foremost in all our minds. Coming from a city with a proud merchant navy tradition, I am only too aware of the sacrifices made across multiple generations. I have been speaking closely with a range of partners in recent days, including across the Mediterranean—with our partners in Malta, Cyprus, Greece and elsewhere—and we are working very closely through the Department for Transport and other agencies to ensure that the safety and security of shipping is maintained and restored.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Households across the UK are fearful of rising prices at the pumps and for heating their homes. The closure of the strait of Hormuz by Iran will worsen the serious situation, yet it should have come as no surprise. In response, President Trump’s position is both irresponsible and inconsistent. One week, he says that he has no need for UK warships to support his unilateral action, because he has already won; the next, he says that we must send ships. One day, he suspends sanctions on Russian oil in a desperate, dangerous attempt to bring down oil prices; the next, he says that he might bomb the Iranian facility at Kharg island “for fun”. The UK should be leading on the world stage at a time like this, not following Trump like a poodle, or succumbing to his bullying, as the Conservatives and the Reform party have advocated. Can the Minister state what specific actions the UK is taking with our reliable allies to press the US, Israel and Iran to scale back hostilities? Will the Minister commit to seeking agreement at the UN Security Council on a collective approach to open the strait?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman has clearly set out his concerns. The Prime Minister has taken a clear and level-headed approach, in Britain’s national interest, to this crisis, taking each decision as it comes and always prioritising the protection of our people, our allies and our interests. That is the approach he will continue to take in this crisis. He has been clear that we have to reopen the strait of Hormuz to ensure stability in the market for the very reasons that the hon. Gentleman has set out, but that is no simple task. That is why we are working with all our allies, including European partners, to bring together a viable and collective plan to restore freedom of navigation.
The hon. Gentleman raises issues relating to Ukraine, as did the shadow Foreign Secretary. I need to be clear that decisions made by the United States about its own sanctions are a matter for the US. We are clear that we will continue to ratchet up our own measures to put pressure on the Kremlin to change course and to support Ukraine in the pursuit of a just and lasting peace. To be clear, the US has announced a temporary waiver of some sanctions on Indian refiners to purchase Russian oil, but the US Treasury Secretary made clear that that licence was deliberately short term. Matters for the US are obviously for the US. We will continue to strengthen our measures.
With regard to the impact on people here at home, the Prime Minister has announced the capping of energy bills until the end of June, the extension of the fuel duty cut and the £53 million of support we are giving to rural communities with the cost of heating oil. We are continuing to invest in our energy security, which is crucial.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Given Iran’s reckless behaviour, it is of course right that the Prime Minister has made sure that our brave forces are protecting our allies and our people, and that UK bases are used for defensive operations. With regard to the strait of Hormuz and any further action that we may or may not take, can the Minister confirm that we will not get drawn into a wider conflict that we did not start?
Stephen Doughty
I simply refer my hon. Friend to the comments that the Prime Minister made on this very issue this morning. He said that we will not get drawn into a wider war, but we want to see the strait of Hormuz reopened. We will work with our allies, including European partners, to bring together a viable and collective plan to do that, but I will not hypothesise about that today.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
For centuries, the United Kingdom has been willing to commit its naval resources to defend free movement on the seas. Does the Minister agree that now is another such occasion when we should do so, and that if we fail to do so, we will pay the price here in higher oil prices and overseas in terms of the perception of the United Kingdom being willing to stand up for the interests of its friends and allies in the Gulf? Furthermore, can he assure the House that this will be considered by the Government as a totally separate question from the United Kingdom’s participation in Operation Epic Fury?
Stephen Doughty
The Prime Minister set out clearly this morning the approach that he will take to this issue, and the Defence Secretary has just been answering questions on these matters. The Prime Minister set out clearly what steps we are taking to mitigate the impact on UK citizens and the steps we are taking globally. We all want to see the strait reopened, but we must have a viable plan, and we will work with allies on that.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his detailed responses. He will know, as many of us in the Chamber do, that many residents across our country are really concerned about the conflict in the Persian gulf. Can he reassure me and the House that discussions are ongoing with the Department and Cabinet colleagues in assessing the different scenarios of the conflict?
Stephen Doughty
I entirely understand the concern that is felt by my hon. Friend’s constituents, and indeed many other constituents up and down the country, including my own. That is exactly why the Prime Minister has set out the decisive action that we are taking in relation to energy bills, fuel duty, support on heating oil and, of course, our continued investment in energy security in this country. Iran could of course stop its reckless and dangerous attacks on shipping and reopen the strait of Hormuz, and we will continue to engage with allies on what we can do.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Do the Government not realise that this nation is already at war? Iran is firing on sovereign British territory, and Russia has already proclaimed that it is at war with the United Kingdom. Is it not time to put the whole Government on to a war footing, because otherwise we will carry on running behind the curve as we have over this recent matter of the strait of Hormuz?
Stephen Doughty
I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that we have been running behind the curve. We have set out in the House on a number of occasions the measures that we took before this conflict happened and the resources that were pre-deployed to the region, in the defence of Cyprus and other key allies and partners. The Prime Minister has described very clearly all the support that we are putting in place, whether it is our Typhoons, our F-35s, our anti-drone measures or our air defence systems. That is why, speaking to the Foreign Secretary at the weekend, the GCC welcomed the support and solidarity that we have shown, and it is why we continue to work with allies and partners on a daily basis.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister was right when he said today that
“we will not be drawn into the wider war”.
But the US President is now requesting UK military assets to police the strait of Hormuz. This is exactly the sort of mission creep that many have warned against. Discussing NATO this morning, General Sir Nick Carter said that it was
“not…for one of the allies to go on a war of choice and then oblige everybody else to follow.”
Can the Minister confirm that the UK will not provide further military assets for this US war, on which President Trump did not consult the UK and which the UK public do not support, or that the House will be able to vote on any such proposal?
Stephen Doughty
The Prime Minister has set out very clearly the decision-making process that he and the Cabinet have been through. He has been very clear about the need for us to defend our allies and partners, but he has also been clear about the fact that, in relation to the strait of Hormuz, this is not a simple task. We will be working with allies, including European partners, to bring forward a viable and collective plan.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
Given the fate of the Russian Black sea fleet from maritime drones and that of ground forces from first-person view drones, does the Minister agree that there is unlikely to be a military solution to reopen the confined waters of Hormuz, and that we therefore need to find a diplomatic solution as quickly as possible?
Stephen Doughty
I completely agree that we need further diplomatic action, and that is exactly what the Foreign Secretary and others, including the Minister for the middle east—my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer)—the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and me, have been engaged in during recent days and weeks. The hon. Gentleman raised the importance of different drone capabilities; when it comes to the wider situation and the threat that we face from drones, we work with partners, such as those I saw in Latvia just a few weeks ago, to develop the very best in capability and to learn the important lessons of Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
As has been said, Trump and Netanyahu launched this war without consultation. They did it unilaterally, and recklessly and irresponsibly, and it was absolutely predictable that the strait would be threatened in this way. Yet some shipping is moving, is it not? Some shipping is going to our ally, India, because it is not engaged in the war, because it is at peace with Iran. Does that not teach us the lesson that we need to bring about peace, that that should be our main and prime purpose in negotiating a peaceful settlement, and that the first step towards that is de-escalation?
Stephen Doughty
Let me first make it absolutely clear that Iran’s regime has been appalling, and that what it has done to its own citizens has been reckless. It cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Its reckless attacks, not only on shipping but on civilians, and on our allies and partners across the Gulf, and indeed across the wider region, are absolutely appalling. It could stop this right now. However, the Prime Minister has been very clear about the fact that our decisions—the decisions of the United Kingdom—will be based on a calm and level-headed assessment of the British national interest at every stage.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What is the Minister’s latest assessment of the threat of transnational oppression carried out by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?
Stephen Doughty
I am obviously not going to get into a detailed assessment on the Floor of the House, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that we have faced transnational repression threats, not only from Iran but from other countries. The Security Minister, other colleagues and I are absolutely united in doing everything we can to defend the UK against that. We cannot allow Iran, or indeed other hostile states that seek to do harm outside their borders, to operate on our streets in this way.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
This Government are absolutely right to refuse to take part in the war being waged by the United States and Israel. Will the Minister confirm to the House that we are going to put British interests first in everything we do? That includes protecting the global economy, and protecting all our constituents’ energy bills.
Stephen Doughty
I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend on that. That is exactly what the Prime Minister has set out today: not only how we will take these decisions in the British interest, but the measures we are taking to meet the needs of the British people, who are particularly affected by the energy consequences of this war.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
The Government previously said that the United States could use UK airfields only for the specific and limited purposes of defending against Iran’s reckless attacks, yet we know that RAF Fairford has been used by the United States to launch B-52 bombers carrying up to 24 cruise missiles at a time. Given President Trump’s reckless and dangerous language about Kharg island at the weekend, when he said that
“we may hit it a few more times just for fun”,
what guarantees can the Minister give this House that none of the missions coming from the UK will target civilians or civilian infrastructure?
Stephen Doughty
I am simply not going to get into hypotheticals on the Floor of the House. What I can say is that, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Prime Minister has been very clear about the principles on which he took the first decision and the principles on which he took the second decision. He has been very, very clear about that.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
A number of Arab ambassadors attended a meeting in the House of Commons last week. They were clear that the military action undertaken by Israel and the US emanated from the action that we have seen over more than two years in Gaza, and that the solution needed meaningful peace in the area. What are Ministers doing specifically about Palestine, given its importance in securing a lasting peace in the region as a whole?
Stephen Doughty
We continue to engage closely with the Palestinian authorities and, of course, with the Palestinian ambassador here in the UK. As I said, the Foreign Secretary was in the region at the weekend and engaged closely with Foreign Ministers from across the region. We will continue to work with all partners in the pursuit of stability, security and peace across the whole region.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Closing the strait of Hormuz is Iran’s most predictable threat, yet it appears that no plan to reopen it was ready to be enacted. Equally, on Cyprus, it appears that there was either an intelligence or a planning failure, which underestimated Iran’s intent or capability. Will the Government review whether adequate planning and assessments are taking place, and will the Minister give a firm commitment that direct representations will be made to both the US and Israel to make sure that no action takes place around Evin prison? The Foremans and other British nationals are still being held hostage there, and we have heard nothing from the Government on making sure that they are protected—unlike the action last summer, when Evin prison was bombed.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Lady will know that the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), spoke about the case of the Foremans the other day, and I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will do so tomorrow if she is asked about it. I have been very clear about the importance of protecting not only our interests and bases in Cyprus, but the defence and security of Cyprus, and I am in regular contact with Foreign Minister Kombos and colleagues in Cyprus. Just for the record, I can confirm that the sovereign base areas on the island of Cyprus are not being used, and have not been used, by US bombers for strikes on Iran, but we will continue to work with partners across the region. It is simply not correct to say that we were not prepared. We had resources and capability in place, and we have provided further capability and resources in recent days.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Rather than adopting the Conservatives’ hokey-cokey, in-out policy on this conflict, does the Minister agree that any commitments to UK military support in the strait of Hormuz must be subject to time-bound operational objectives? Can he confirm that the clarification of such time-bound operational objectives for this conflict is being pursued with the US Department of War?
Stephen Doughty
I will obviously not go into the detail of specific conversations, but I can say that the Prime Minister has been very clear about the way he approaches these issues. He does so in a way that is in the British national interest—in a calm, level-headed and lawful way that is in the interests of our people and our allies. The Opposition have been all over the place on this. As for the Reform party, its Members are again conspicuous by their absence; they are not even in the Chamber.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The US President has suggested that the future of NATO may depend on countries falling into line with him, and supporting him on reopening this shipping channel. Does the Minister believe that it is acceptable for that type of pressure to be applied to sovereign nations, when there is still no evidence that this war has a legal basis, or that there is a plan for it?
Stephen Doughty
This country remains absolutely committed to NATO—we have a NATO-first policy—and the President has made very clear his commitment to article 5 and to NATO; that is not in any doubt. As I have said, we continue to engage with allies, including European partners, on viable and credible options for reopening the strait of Hormuz, but I will not go into further details at this time.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The reality is that Trump’s warmongering and illegal war not only risk plunging the middle east into a dangerous conflict, but are now impacting people here at home. Does the Minister accept that the only lasting and right way forward is to continue to push for de-escalation and an immediate end to this illegal war?
Stephen Doughty
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we need a swift resolution. We all want peace, stability and security in the region. Of course, Iran could end this by ending its reckless attacks on shipping, on allies in the region and on civilians, and it could do that right now.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Surely the problem we have is that the Government, having decided not to be involved in this, and then literally a day later deciding that they would be involved by granting America the use of our bases, have brought us into a war. Like it or not, that is where we are. I do not understand what “the wider war” means, when we are in the war; that is what is happening with the strait of Hormuz right now. The Government are playing with words in a sort of tautological tap dance because they have no idea what they should be doing, as they did not want to be here in the first place, but they are. The Minister should be honest: we are in the war. The question for him really is: what are we going to do about the strait of Hormuz, and what assets will we put there?
Stephen Doughty
I have been very clear: we have to reopen the strait of Hormuz to ensure stability in the market, but that is not a simple task. To suggest that it is simple would not be doing it justice. [Interruption.] No, I mean the tenor of the questions that have been asked. As I have said, we are working with all our allies, including European partners, to bring together a viable, collective plan.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
The shadow Foreign Secretary said that this was “a moment for Britain to stand tall”, and I agree with her, which is why I was pleased to see the Prime Minister and this Government stand strong, instead of running blindly into another middle east war with no clear plan. Can the Minister assure me and the House that we will continue to act in the British national interest, and the interests of British nationals in the region?
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely can assure my hon. Friend of that. I must say that I thought the shadow Foreign Secretary asked some very reasonable questions, but I have been surprised by some of the tone and commentary coming from the Opposition Benches and the media. At times like these, when we have British armed forces bravely defending allies and taking action, I would hope to see more unity and coming together on such a crucial issue. These are complex and difficult issues, and to suggest otherwise, or engage in party political point scoring, is not the right way forward.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Minister and the Prime Minister have talked about the UK being willing to participate in a “viable, collective plan” to reopen the strait of Hormuz, but does the Minister really think that President Trump has a viable plan, given that he had no plan for the illegal war, nor any legal justification for the war he has launched? Given that, will the UK be absolutely unequivocal that we will not give in to Trump’s bullying demands, but will instead stand up for British interests, and will we make it absolutely clear that we will not be dragged into a catastrophic, illegal war in the middle east?
Stephen Doughty
Perhaps the hon. Lady could tell us how her party would defend the British national interest without spending money on defence, or indeed by leaving NATO—absolutely crackers.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
My constituents consistently say to me that they support the Prime Minister’s decision not to take us into this war. My thoughts—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—are with our brave service people who are stationed in the middle east and across the Mediterranean. Will the Minister please update the House on discussions he has been having with his Cypriot counterpart on the defence of the Akrotiri base and the wider island?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think all our thoughts are not only with our brave armed forces personnel in action in defence of allies and our interests, but their families and all those affected, including British civilians who remain in the middle east, and merchant shipping crews. She is absolutely right to ask about Cyprus. I am in regular contact with Foreign Minister Kombos and the Cypriot Government. I am also in regular contact with our administrator of the sovereign base areas. I can absolutely assure her that the protection of our bases, and the defence and security of Cyprus, are foremost in my mind and that of the Government.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Some things never change in naval warfare, and one of the things that never change is the unsuitability of surface vessels for forcing a way through narrow, contested straits. Over 100 years ago, the French and the British learned that when, between them, they lost three battleships in an afternoon to a single German submarine in the Dardanelles. Will the Minister therefore advise President Trump that while we would like to help him reopen the strait of Hormuz, the way to do it is not with a billion-pound warship escorting vulnerable tankers, but with counter-drone technology of the sort that Ukraine can help him to supply, providing he has the decency to ask President Zelensky for some help?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman asks a question with his usual thoughtfulness and experience, and he rightly sets out the complexity of the situation. That is exactly why we must approach this issue with a credible and viable plan. We all have a shared objective; we need to see the strait reopened, and we are engaging with allies, including European partners, on that very issue.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Following on from the question by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), what discussions is the Foreign Secretary having in the Gulf on the future viability of convoys, and on other actions? Can the Minister assure me and the House that plans will be put in place for such convoys, when it is safe to do so?
Stephen Doughty
I will not get into specific hypothetical scenarios, but we are engaged with a wide range of partners across the region. That is why the Foreign Secretary was speaking with Gulf partners this week at the Gulf Co-operation Council. She was engaged with Saudi counterparts and Foreign Ministers. They expressed their thanks for Britain’s solidarity and engagement on these crucial issues, which have an impact on their economies, and on the wider defence and security needs across the Gulf.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Since there is no plan to reopen the strait, it seems that the price of fertiliser will skyrocket. What advice does the Minister have for farmers in the northern hemisphere who would normally be buying fertiliser at this time to support spring plantings? Many are making a decision on whether to go ahead with those plantings. He will know that if they do not, that will have dire implications for food prices and the cost of living.
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman rightly sets out a very important issue for rural communities across this country. If I may, Mr Speaker, I will get one of my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to write to him with the detail. The issue is not only the direct impact on oil and gas prices, but the impact on inflation, fertiliser and supply chains more generally. He is right to raise those issues, and I will come back to him with further details.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Israel and the US started this illegal war, but Trump is now demanding that NATO allies support him in opening up this critical waterway. European countries are not bending. Can the Minister give an assurance that this country will not bend, and that we will be given a vote on any military action?
Stephen Doughty
The Prime Minister set out the clear, calm and logical approach that he has taken in all the decisions that he has had to take on these important issues, and I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that that approach will continue. We all want to see the strait reopened to ensure stability in the market, but for the reasons that were just expressed, that is not a simple task. That is why we are working with all our allies, including our European partners, on this issue.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Given that the British public abhor the idea of being drawn into another war, and that some Members of this House are already calling for an escalation into military involvement without addressing the potentially catastrophic consequences, will the Minister reassure the House that the Government will prioritise diplomacy and de-escalation over drawing this country into deeper military involvement?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman will have heard quite clearly what the Prime Minister had to say on these issues this morning.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that alongside the escalation of closing the strait, the repressive regime in Iran continues to target female activists relentlessly. Will he ensure that the work being spearheaded by the Foreign Secretary in the Foreign Office to tackle violence against women and girls globally includes specific initiatives to support the brave women and girls of Iran?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is right to raise the absolutely horrific circumstances for women and girls in Iran; this has, of course, been going on for many years. He knows the priority that the Foreign Secretary, and indeed all Ministers, give to this issue. The situation inside Iran is obviously extraordinarily difficult, and we do not have a full picture of what is happening there, but I can assure him that this will continue to be a priority.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
It is a known known that the Iranian regime will close down the strait of Hormuz in a period of conflict. Back in June 2025, I asked the former Foreign Secretary, now the Deputy Prime Minister, what contingencies we had in place to offset against that happening. He responded:
“I assure the hon. Member that these issues are of course under consideration,”
and that—this is the key part—
“All contingencies are in place.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 842.]
I have listened to the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the FCDO Minister, and those remarks just do not add up. What has changed?
Stephen Doughty
I have been very clear today, as has the Prime Minister. We have to reopen the strait of Hormuz to ensure stability in the market. That is not a simple task, as the hon. Gentleman will know well, given his experience. That is why we are engaged with our allies on forming credible and viable plans.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Fresh from the doorsteps of Arthurs Hill, West Denton and Blakelaw, I can confirm that this is an issue of real concern and some fear across Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, and that there is overwhelming support for the Government’s decision not to join Israel and the US in initiating an un-thought-through war in one of the world’s most complex and unstable regions. The Foreign Secretary has emphasised how closely Iran and Russia are allied; Iran provides the drones for Russia to use in Ukraine. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the US lessening sanctions on Russia on Russia’s ability to support its ally Iran?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the connections between Russia and Iran; having been in Kyiv when bombardments, likely from Iranian-made drones, were going on, and having seen the devastation that they cause, I think it is clear that that alliance has been in place for some time. It is causing devastation not just in Ukraine, but now across the Gulf. What Iran has been doing is appalling. I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to put maximum pressure on Russia economically—I spoke to my Ukrainian counterpart about this just last week. Obviously, US sanctions are a matter for the US, but I have set out that the Treasury Secretary has announced that the measures in question were temporary and related to oil that was already at sea.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Contrary to what some less well-informed voices from the Conservative Benches have been saying, short of putting ground troops into Iran, there is no military solution that enables us to open the strait of Hormuz. The Iranians are effectively placing civilian shipping at risk with missiles, drones, subs and fast boats; it is very difficult to come up with a military solution to that problem, and Iran can therefore decide whether it wants to reopen the strait. Will the Minister tell the House whether we are getting together with our European allies to deliver a message to the Americans that they need to step down and step away from this to enable Iran to reopen the strait?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman sets out the complexity of the challenge. It is why we need a calm and level-headed approach, which is exactly the approach that the Prime Minister is taking. We are in conversations with European partners on that point and with partners across the Gulf, and as I said, the Foreign Secretary has been speaking to Secretary Rubio while I have been answering this urgent question.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Government have learned from the missteps of Iraq, whereas the Conservatives and Reform would repeat them. The Prime Minister is de-escalating in line with the national interest, whereas the Conservatives and Reform would blindly follow President Trump into a war of choice. Will the Minister state for my constituents that he will continue to de-escalate this conflict and to bring down the cost of living, and that he will do that by keeping to the path that the Government have set, which has brought inflation down from 3.4% to 3% and put it on track to hit 2%?
Stephen Doughty
As I said, I have been baffled at times by the position of the Conservatives, let alone Reform, who yet again are not here in the Chamber. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister is focused not only on the international aspects but on the domestic aspects. That is why he set out very clearly today the measures to support British people who are worried about their energy bills. Whether it is the energy price cap, addressing the heating oil issue, investment in energy security in this country or fuel duty cuts, the Prime Minister set out very clearly what we are doing to support people here at home.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister has insisted that he does not want to get drawn into a wider war, but with the targeting of our civilians and bases and our economy being strangled, how much wider could the war get? Does he not recognise that Iran has been able to close off the strait of Hormuz as and when it wants to, using its proxies and its geographical position? It is only once Iran learns the lesson that that tactic will not be accepted and that blackmail will not be accepted that that will not be repeated. What is this reluctance? Is it because we do not have the ability or we just do not have the political will?
Stephen Doughty
I am not clear what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting our policy should be, but I can tell him that the Prime Minister has been very clear about the decisions he has made. The defence of our allies and our interests will always be at the forefront of his mind, as indeed will measures to support citizens who are affected by these issues, including those in Northern Ireland and those who are reliant on heating oil.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his detailed responses on an issue that we are all, across the House, keen to get resolved. On the issue of British nationals returning to the UK—I am pleased to say that those I made representations about to the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago have been safely returned to my constituency—will the Minister outline what work the Government are doing to support the British airline industry to ensure that all UK citizens are returned home? Last week I had conversations with representatives of the Manchester Airports Group about that.
Stephen Doughty
I am glad that the situation that my hon. Friend raised on behalf of his constituents has been resolved, and I can absolutely assure him that we remain focused on bringing British nationals home. Yesterday, 35 flights arrived back in the UK carrying more than 8,000 British nationals from the region. More than 92,000 British nationals have returned since the start of the war. We have chartered six flights from Muscat and Dubai and we continue to work with airlines, as my hon. Friend requests, to ensure that people can be brought home safely and quickly.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The strait of Hormuz is a narrow body of water, but so is the Red sea. The Houthis have previously set ballistic missiles and drones on commercial ships and caused a lot of damage and disruption, which again has an impact on the global economy. Thus far in the current conflict, the Houthis have been on the sidelines, but that could easily and readily change. What are the Government doing in anticipation of the Houthis getting involved, and what naval assets are in the region or could be deployed to the region quickly in order that there is not a repeat of what we saw with HMS Dragon? If the strait of Hormuz is closed, and then the Red sea is closed, we are going to see a double crisis.
Stephen Doughty
I can assure the right hon. Member that we keep a range of threats and risks under close monitoring. We will always take the steps that we can to protect shipping and our interests and allies in the region, but I am not going to get into the specifics of any individual location.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Over the weekend, France and Italy opened talks with Iran to allow their ships to pass through the strait of Hormuz. France has limited America’s use of its bases to non-combat missions only; Italy has refused to help altogether. With this Labour Government giving a licence to American assets on British bases, there is no hope of our striking a similar deal to let our ships through at present. Will the Government confirm that they will keep all options on the table—including suspending American military operations from our bases—because British citizens must come first, and they must be shielded from bearing the brunt of America and Israel’s illegal war?
Stephen Doughty
British citizens do come first. The Prime Minister has set out clearly the basis for the decisions he has made, which includes, of course, the defence of our allies and partners in the Gulf, which I am sure the hon. Member would agree is important, and indeed British citizens and interests in the Gulf. Again, I am not exactly sure what policy he is suggesting we should follow. The Prime Minister will continue to approach this in a calm and level-headed way in the British national interest.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
In January, with impeccable timing, the US withdrew its Avenger class minesweepers from the Arabian gulf and replaced them with littoral combat ships; at roughly the same time, we withdrew HMS Middleton, our last minehunter in the region. As of yesterday, two of those littoral combat ships were seen in Malaysia, several thousand miles away, leaving only one, the USS Canberra, which potentially has the ability to deploy autonomous vehicles. This morning, the Prime Minister said that we would deploy autonomous ships to help clear the minefields, but HMS Stirling Castle—potentially the support ship for that—left Portsmouth only this morning, so it is three weeks away. What is the earliest date when the Minister thinks the strait of Hormuz could begin to be cleared, irrespective of the conversations he is currently having with our allies?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member will know that it is not for me to answer at the Dispatch Box about US operational matters. He has just had a chance to ask the Defence Secretary questions on detailed UK operational matters. I will not go into the details of specific deployments —where they may or may not be or timelines—because that simply would not be appropriate. This is an extraordinarily complex situation. What we need is a credible and viable plan.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Given the vital role of Lloyd’s of London in underwriting global trade and providing war risk cover to vessels currently stuck in the Persian gulf, what conversations has the Minister had—or what conversations is he aware of—with Lloyd’s to ensure that its extraordinary expertise in this area is factored into the Government’s developing thinking? What conversations have been had across Government to protect and defend the reputation of Lloyd’s against shameful attacks from the MAGA movement in the United States?
Stephen Doughty
I recently met the chair of Lloyd’s on wider insurance issues in relation to Ukraine and other matters in which I am sure the hon. Member shares my interest. I do not have the detail of what conversations have gone on in recent days, but I will happily get one of my ministerial colleagues to write to him on the issue.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Iranian regime will be carefully studying our actions here in the UK. Only last month, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials attended an Iran national day celebration hosted in London by the Iranian embassy. That was at precisely the same time that thousands of Iranians were being slaughtered on their own streets. Why were officials permitted to go to such an event? Who authorised it? Will officials be allowed to go to such events in the future?
Stephen Doughty
It is my understanding that Ministers were not consulted or indeed advised on that attendance. The issue has been ongoing since, I think, 2015, and was likely to have been under the previous Government as well.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Minister has come here to give us a pretty vague response of, “We’re in discussions with allies about making a plan,” and does not want to give us any more detail than that; I can potentially see why. When he has those discussions with allies, will he please remember that the British taxpayer kindly gifted two Sandown class minehunters to the Ukrainian navy and that we have trained up their crews, who are now at a NATO standard? The Defence Committee visited them in Portsmouth, and they were proud of those credentials. We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that Ukraine seems to be leaning into supporting allies in the Gulf. Therefore, when the Minister is having discussions with allies about making a plan, will he bear that in mind? Of course, those craft cannot deploy back to the Black sea because of the Montreux convention, and I believe the crews are there and ready to operate.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. I am not, for obvious reasons, going to get into the detail of individual pieces of kit and equipment, but I welcome the fact that Ukraine has engaged with Gulf partners on the lessons it has learned, particularly in relation to drone technology. That is important. It is, of course, absolutely right that Ukraine’s focus remains on its needs and defending itself against Russia’s barbarous aggression, and I can assure him that our commitments to Ukraine remain absolutely iron-clad in that regard, but I do not want to get into commenting on individual pieces of kit and equipment.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Listening to some hon. Members this afternoon, one is left wondering whether President Trump or Iran is the enemy. The truth is that our bases have been attacked. Are we not, therefore, inevitably already involved in this conflict? The Government seem not to want to face up to that reality. When it comes to the strait of Hormuz, does it therefore follow that we are simply going to rely on the USA to open it? Have we any plan?
Stephen Doughty
I am afraid that I do not recognise the hon. and learned Gentleman’s characterisation of our response. We have British Typhoon and F-35 jets flying in defence of British people, bases and partners, including Qatar, Cyprus, UAE, Jordan and Bahrain. We have had multiple F-35s, Typhoon jets and ground-based defences shooting down drones. The Defence Secretary has just set out the operational hours and sorties that our brave crews have been flying. We also have HMS Dragon on her way to the eastern Mediterranean, and RFA Lyme Bay has sailed from Gibraltar and is also available for maritime tasks. We also have helicopters and other assets in place, so I simply do not recognise his characterisation.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is suspected that AI systems have been used to target and murder 165 schoolchildren and their teachers using US-made Tomahawks, with further double-tap attacks falling on survivors 40 minutes later. This Government say that tackling violence against women and girls is a priority, but in failing to call out this clear war crime, those words mean nothing as the bodies of children get buried. Will the Minister explain what the UK Government are doing to hold America and Israel to account for these war crimes, and does he share my concerns about the use of AI to kill?
Stephen Doughty
The Defence Secretary has set out our position in relation to autonomous systems and AI, and that is not for me to comment on as a Foreign Office Minister, but it is my understanding that investigations into the incident the hon. Gentleman refers to are ongoing and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them at this time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers, for his tone and for his careful use of words. I am very clear on my stance on the principle of the war against the terrorist regime in Iran, but this is not about principle; it is about practicality. Some of my constituents are on the poverty line, and the wages of those who work and are not entitled to Government help no longer cover the bills that they covered three years ago. For those people, the Government must make the right decision and secure the shipping channel. Doing so would not enter us into a war but it would protect our constituents. Will the Minister determine to act in the British interest and work with our allies to secure this essential route?
Stephen Doughty
As always, the hon. Gentleman rightly speaks up for his constituents in Strangford. We all want to see the strait reopened, and it is important that we have conversations with allies on credible and viable ways to do that, but it is also important that we take action here at home. That is why the Prime Minister has acted on the energy price cap, on the fuel duty cuts and on the heating oil support, which I think will be of particular benefit to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. That is on top of the warm home discount and the investment that we are putting into energy security in this country, and I hope that helps his constituents.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before we come to the urgent question on the Government’s response to the Humble Address, I would like to remind the House that Peter Mandelson is the subject of an ongoing police investigation. However, no charges have been brought. The sub judice resolution, therefore, does not currently apply. In that context, it is up to Ministers how they reply, but the House’s rules do not prevent them from answering fully. None the less, I know that the House would not wish to do anything that risked prejudicing the investigation, so I gently say to Members that it would be helpful to exercise a degree of restraint in referencing the specific matters under investigation.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s compliance with the Humble Address of 4 February 2026 relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States of America.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
I updated the House last Wednesday on the Government’s response to the Humble Address motion of 4 February, after the first tranche of documents were laid in both Houses in response to that motion. The Government have been clear that they are committed to publishing all documents relevant to the Humble Address, and that further material will be published in due course as officials work through its full scope.
The first tranche, as the title of the document made clear, represented,
“Part of a Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons dated 4 February 2026”.
It responded directly to a number of specific elements contained in that motion, namely papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s ambassador and the discussions that subsequently led to his dismissal. As the Government have said previously, there are specific documents that we would like to disclose but which the Metropolitan police has asked us not to in order to avoid prejudicing the ongoing criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson. The Government have agreed to that request. We will publish those documents in the future once the Metropolitan police has confirmed that it will no longer prejudice its investigation.
As a consequence of that, and as I set out to the House on 11 March, the Government have therefore taken the extraordinary step, as agreed with Mr Speaker, of briefing the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), on terms agreed by the Metropolitan police to ensure that there is as much transparency to the House as possible.
As the House understands, the Government must carefully assess the risk of prejudicing UK national security or international relations posed by the release of any official documents. Again, this process is subject to parliamentary oversight. Any such material will be and is in the process of being referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. I thank the Committee for its assistance and can confirm that this process was also followed regarding the first tranche of material published last week. Outside of this arrangement, the important and well-established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgments are ultimately for the Government has not changed.
We are continuing the disclosure process for other documents across Government within the scope of the address. Given the breadth of the motion agreed by the House and the large number of materials and Departments involved, this process will take time and necessarily requires careful consideration. Where relevant documents are held, they are being prepared for release through an established process, including the appropriate checks relating to national security, international relations, legal privilege and the protection of personal data.
The Government have acknowledged that the documents published reveal that the appointment process fell short of what is required. As previously set out, the independent adviser looked last week at the process and concluded that he saw no grounds for the investigation that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), has requested, but as the Prime Minister set out this morning, the inherited process itself was not strong enough. That is why the Prime Minister has already strengthened the process and is committed to strengthening it further in the future. This forms part of wider changes that the Government are bringing forward to improve the system, including a review by the Ethics and Integrity Commission relating to financial disclosures, transparency around lobbying, and the business appointment rules, alongside a review of the national security vetting system.
As I have said, and I know Members across the House will agree, Jeffrey Epstein was a disgusting individual, and Peter Mandelson’s decision to put their relationship before his victims and the vulnerable was reprehensible. That is why there is cross-party consensus across the House for transparency and accountability and why the Government are committed to publishing all material relevant to the Humble Address. I will continue to keep the House updated as a matter of priority, as I have done to date, and I commend this statement to the House.
Alex Burghart
Since last Wednesday, it has become increasingly clear that either the Government did not follow due process in their appointment of Peter Mandelson or that they have not disclosed all the relevant documents. In different terms, either the Prime Minister’s assurances that full due process was followed were misleading, or the Government have not complied with the Humble Address. Either would be a contempt of Parliament.
Last Wednesday, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said:
“All the documents that are available in relation to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal are published…today, subject to those that have been held back by the Metropolitan police.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 371.]
But many, many documents are missing. I have detailed 56 documents in a letter that I sent him. To give a few examples, there is no prime ministerial readout on the advice that the Prime Minister received. This is a breach of protocol. A prime ministerial decision, even if made orally, should be formally recorded. Where is that record? It starts to stink of the sofa government that we had under Tony Blair.
There are no minutes of any meeting at which this appointment was discussed, by anyone, at any time. Were there really no meetings about this? Most suspiciously of all, we have no material from the Prime Minister, from his chief of staff or from Peter Mandelson: no box returns, no emails, no forms, no WhatsApps—nothing. It is as though their fingerprints have been forensically removed.
To narrow this down, on 11 November 2024 the Cabinet Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted to make a political appointment, the civil service would
“develop a plan for…the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest”.
That was the process, so let me ask the Chief Secretary two very specific questions. First, did Peter Mandelson receive security clearance, and if so, on what date? There was no such document in the release. Secondly, did Peter Mandelson make a full declaration of his interests? Again, there was no such document in the release.
I remind the Chief Secretary that noting the existence of a document does not prejudice an investigation in any way. The Government have already told us about one document that they are holding back at the request of the Met police; they are more than able to tell us about others. It is time for the Government to level with us. What is missing, and why?
Darren Jones
As I informed the House last week, the documents that pertain to tranche 1 are the documents the Government own, and they have been published in line with the Humble Address. The shadow Minister asks about the process followed for the appointment of Peter Mandelson. As the Prime Minister and the Government have said, the process that was followed was the process that was inherited; however, this has shown that that process is not sufficient, which is why it is being strengthened.
The shadow Minister made reference to questions about WhatsApps and other messages. I can confirm that those types of documents will be subject to a further tranche being published in due course. He also asked me about security clearance for Peter Mandelson. I refer him to the answer I gave last week in respect of that question, and to further comments from the Foreign Office.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
As an alumnus of Manchester Metropolitan University, I noticed that it has stripped Peter Mandelson of all the honours that it gave to him while he was chancellor of that institution between 2016 and 2024. Can the Chief Secretary confirm that any contacts with Government and the Department for Education during that period are not currently subject to this investigation?
Darren Jones
I can confirm that any documents that are within the scope of the Humble Address and refer to communications between Ministers and others and Peter Mandelson are part of the disclosure process currently being undertaken by the Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
We may debate whether the Prime Minister’s appointment of Peter Mandelson showed a weirdly rushed, catastrophic lack of judgment or just a stunning level of disengaged naivety. Either way, the British public are rightly wondering whether decency in public office is just too much to ask. I reassure them on behalf of the Liberal Democrats that no, it is not too much to ask.
As well as confirming that Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with a convicted sexual predator was known, the files also revealed that he was given top-level briefings before his vetting was finished—a vetting process that clearly failed by any measure. Trust in politics is already stretched thin, and I am sure that everyone in this House wants to see it restored. If the worst fears of this sorry saga are found to be true, that trust will take another body blow, boosting only the populists on the left and the right.
I therefore ask the Minister, if the Prime Minister really wants to rebuild trust and ensure that the proper procedures are always followed, will he commit to taking up Lib Dem calls to make the ministerial code binding in law, and will he refer himself to the independent ethics adviser to determine whether, in the course of this long, sorry saga, he has breached the code or not?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his questions; I just wanted to clarify whether he felt that I should refer myself to the independent adviser.
I refer the hon. Member to the letter from the independent adviser, which came out on Friday of last week and concluded that there were no grounds for an investigation into the Prime Minister’s conduct, because the process that the Government inherited for these types of appointments had been followed appropriately. The process itself, as the Prime Minister said again this morning, is clearly not sufficient, which is why it needs to be changed for the future.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Peter Mandelson’s appointment has done serious damage to public trust, but the deeper issue, as we are finding out, is the culture that made this possible. When a small clique is able to wield this much influence, confidence in public appointments is of course badly undermined. What structural changes are being made to ensure that factionalism and cronyism can never again override the national interest?
Darren Jones
I refer my hon. Friend to the part of my statement in relation to the work of the Ethics and Integrity Commission and the work that the Prime Minister has set it in reviewing the rules around transparency and lobbying, business accounting rules and other such related processes.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Last week, the Government withheld the questions the Prime Minister put to Peter Mandelson and his responses, apparently at the request of the Metropolitan police. This is perhaps the most important documentation we could see and, as Madam Deputy Speaker confirmed, “Erskine May” confirms that:
“In criminal matters, proceedings are active when a charge has been brought”.
That is the balance between justice and democracy. Given that Mr Mandelson has not been charged, this matter does not fall under the sub judice rule, and he might not be charged for a year or more, if ever. There appears to be no other statutory bar to the Government releasing information: the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 does not apply; the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply; and the Contempt of Court Act 1981 does not apply because section 5 of that Act excludes public debate of matters of public interest. Given the lack of statutory bars preventing the Government from acting, will the right hon. Gentleman release that documentation?
Darren Jones
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and Members across the House would not want to do anything to prejudice a criminal investigation that might finally result in justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. As I have said to the House repeatedly, where the Metropolitan police has asked for documents to be held back, we have consented to that. However, recognising the points the right hon. Gentleman makes, we have agreed a process with the Chair of the relevant Select Committee—a Member on the right hon. Gentleman’s side of the House—so that the Chair is able to see those documents and so that any accusations of any cover-up by the Government can be shown to be inaccurate.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary has just mentioned that the process was not strong enough, but I have to say that that was a massive understatement. The due diligence checklist published last week screamed reputational risks, yet its red flags were ignored and dismissed, exposing a deeply embedded culture of deception. Mandelson’s appointment has dragged our party into the gutter, and the apparent collusion between key figures in Labour Together and the Prime Minister’s top team signals their clear complicity in this failure of judgment. Will the Government now take responsibility and support a full independent inquiry into Labour Together and those in the UK Prime Minister’s office who enabled this?
Darren Jones
Where the Government have the ability to take action to ensure transparency and accountability on this matter, they are making sure that they do so. For organisations that are outside of Government, it is for those organisations to consider such requests.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is not much good blaming the process when it is as plain as a pikestaff that the Government knew that Peter Mandelson’s appointment was, to put it mildly, extremely dodgy. If there were any conversations held, over the telephone or face to face, or any private emails sent from people’s personal email addresses, will they be made available to this House?
Darren Jones
The documents that fall within the scope of the Humble Address will be made available to the House in the way that I have set out.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It would be very useful to know what proportion of the documents we have already been able to set our eyes on, but also what proportion is being held back by the police, so that we can make a calculation of how much more is to come. But it all sounds too casual, not least when my right hon. Friend talks about WhatsApp messages. We need to ensure that there is proper due process across Government, not least when we are talking about the business associations of Peter Mandelson with the client of his own PR company, Global Counsel. How much more work is there to come that this House will see with regard to what was known about Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Palantir?
Darren Jones
It is a reflection of the depth and extent of the work being undertaken by Government to comply with the Humble Address that it is taking some time to be able to process the documents. We moved at pace to publish the first tranche of documents last week and, as I have said to the House, we are going to publish the second tranche as soon as possible.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) referred to very specific documents—meeting notes and decision notes—that have not been disclosed. May I point out that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister himself must not mislead the House? So, do these documents actually exist? Are there decision notes and meeting notes that have been withheld, or do they not exist?
Darren Jones
Documents owned by the Government that are within the scope of the Humble Address have been published, as I have set out.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Peter Mandelson’s behaviour was disgraceful, and his continued relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is difficult to comprehend. It is an insult to the victims and survivors of Epstein’s horrific crimes. Clearly, the Government are putting in place standards and tightening their appointments and vetting process, but could the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister tell the House what work Baroness Anderson will undertake in the Cabinet Office and when we can expect a further update on her progress?
Darren Jones
I know that Baroness Anderson in the other place will be listening with great intent to my hon. Friend’s question. I was pleased to get the Prime Minister’s support to appoint Baroness Anderson as an additional Minister in the Cabinet Office to take on this additional work, given the seriousness with which we take the need for modernisation and reform. I look forward to the proposals that she will bring forward in due course.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
It has been revealed that Peter Mandelson was given top-level briefings before his vetting was finalised. Who did that, and who will hold those people to account? Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister write to me if he is not able to answer that question now?
Darren Jones
As the Prime Minister has already said, the length of time it takes between an ambassador’s appointment and agreement from the host country, and for certain vetting to take place, meant that in the past there had been an established process to allow for ambassadors to start work and to be announced before the vetting was completed. We are reviewing that process to make sure that there are not such gaps in the future.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Aside from the response to the Humble Address, 90 Members from parties across the House are calling for an independent statutory inquiry into the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and British public figures and institutions, including whether due diligence was undertaken in the case of any appointments to public roles. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s position to support such calls and establish an inquiry? If not, can he confirm that there is no influence from Labour Together on such a position?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend will know that there are legal proceedings under way, with actions by the Metropolitan police and others. The Government agree that there should be justice for victims, and anyone who has any insight, knowledge or experience of Jeffrey Epstein, his associates or the events involved should come forward and share it.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff communicate with Mandelson via a private email address?
Darren Jones
Any communications that are subject to the Humble Address will be published in the second tranche.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister rightly called for the removal of peerages from disgraced peers, so could the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister tell the House when we might expect further updates on the proposed legislation?
Darren Jones
I think there is cross-party agreement that we should introduce legislation that removes life peerages from those in the other place who bring the House into disrepute or suffer a criminal penalty for their behaviour. That is why the Government are working to introduce legislation that not only deals with Peter Mandelson but is available as a sanction for others who behave in that way in the future. We are getting towards the end of this Session, but we are committed to bringing forward that legislation. We look forward to presenting it shortly.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
No matter how many Ministers the Government sent out over the weekend to try to spin their way out of this crisis, the story remains unchanged. The Prime Minister chose to ignore the fact that Mandelson remained friends with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein; he chose to ignore Mandelson’s own scandal-laden political history; and he even chose to ignore the advice of the security services, which questioned Mandelson’s suitability for the job. Given the Prime Minister’s appalling lack of judgment, can the Minister understand why so many people across these islands believe that he simply cannot be trusted to remain in office?
Darren Jones
On the second half of the hon. Member’s question, the public are looking to the Prime Minister and seeing the important leadership role that he is playing in the world, given the events in the middle east, Ukraine and elsewhere. That is important for domestic conditions for families struggling with living standards and worried about the future. On the first part of the question, the Prime Minister has apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson, which he regrets—it was a mistake. If he had had information on the depth and extent of the relationship, which became available after the publication of documents at the point of the appointment, he would not have appointed him in the first place.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Gloucester residents rightly expect that nobody be above the law, so will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister update the House on what steps the Department is taking to ensure that the Metropolitan police have all the support they need for their investigation?
Darren Jones
Of course, the Government take the Humble Address with the utmost seriousness, and respect the sovereignty of Parliament in exercising its own powers, but my hon. Friend is right to remind the House that justice for victims will be delivered only as a consequence of criminal investigation and criminal prosecution, not by motions of this House. It is important that none of us seeks to undermine those criminal investigations so that victims may, for once, see justice come in their direction.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Of course, nobody would expect the Government to contravene the indications of the Metropolitan police by publishing documents, but most people would expect that the first step for somebody applying for such an important job—the most senior diplomatic post—is to submit a declaration of interests. It is unclear whether that declaration of interests was submitted, or whether it actually exists, because we have not seen it yet. It is difficult to understand how such a basic first-principles requirement would not be disclosed in the first tranche of documents. Why is that?
Darren Jones
The right hon. Gentleman invites me to itemise the documents that have been held back by the Metropolitan police. I am advised that I am not at liberty to do that from the Dispatch Box, but I say again to him and the House that all documents that the Government have and are able to publish at this time have been published.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Much of the discussion has been about tightening up the process. It has become increasingly clear from the documents already in the public domain that this is as much to do with the personnel delegated to make this political judgment. Will my right hon. Friend explain how tightening up the process might ensure that such personnel are not in a position to make political judgments of this kind in future?
Darren Jones
I refer my hon. Friend to the content of my statement, and the very wide-ranging review by the Ethics and Integrity Commission into the process not just for appointments but for vetting, as well as into transparency on lobbying, declarations of interests and business appointment rules. The Government hope that the work of the commission will allow us to have a process that avoids these problems in future.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
For four months, I asked the Government what severance payments Mandelson received. According to the permanent secretary of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, I received no reply due to an “error”. Now, we have the failure to release 56 documents. Mandelson should have been dismissed for gross misconduct, yet the British people had to fork out for a payout. Even though Treasury rules say that severance payments cannot be used
“to avoid…unwelcome publicity or reputational damage”,
Foreign Office advice to the Prime Minister said:
“Given the reputational impact for HMG, a modest settlement as proposed is the recommended course of action.”
Does the Minister maintain that no rules were broken with Mandelson’s payoff?
Darren Jones
I repeat for the House that, in line with the Humble Address, all documents that the Government have were published. The hon. Lady’s reference to 56 documents is a reference to 56 documents that the Opposition like to think exist, as opposed to those that have been published by the Government. On severance payments, the documents were published in a bundle last week, and they speak for themselves.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
For five years before my election, I led services for adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. It is a cause that means a lot to me, and I know it is a cause that means a lot to the Prime Minister too.
We on the Labour Benches are furious with Peter Mandelson; he hoodwinked left, right and centre, requiring the Prime Minister to ring him up in the embassy in the middle of the night to fire him. The Prime Minister has said that if he had known then what is now known, he would not have appointed him.
There is a criminal investigation under way that we cannot cut across, and there are critical pieces of information that have not yet been disclosed, including the follow-up questions and Peter Mandelson’s answers to them. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister outline when we might hear about the next steps and the release of those questions and answers? I think we should be reserving judgment until we see the totality of the evidence; as politicians, we are here to be led by the evidence.
Darren Jones
As I have said from the Dispatch Box, there are documents that the Government would have wished to have been able to publish as part of the response to the Humble Address, but the Metropolitan police asked us not to do so. It is right that we have honoured that request, given the ongoing criminal investigation. As soon as the Metropolitan police have informed us that they have discharged their duties, we will publish those documents for the House.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Prime Minister admitted to this House that he knew about the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson. From the documentation that has been released so far, it appears that the Prime Minister did not actually interview Peter Mandelson for the job or make a decision on that; it was left to staffers. Despite that, there are newsreels showing both the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson in public places, obviously having convivial discussions. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confirm that the Prime Minister did not formally interview Peter Mandelson for the job—and if not, why not?
Darren Jones
The documents that were published in the tranche last week in relation to the Humble Address show the process that was followed, which was the proper process at the time.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his answers so far. Will he outline that this Government will do everything they possibly can to support the police investigation? Does he agree that whether we are Members of this place or the other place, or former princes, it is hugely important for public trust that nobody is above the law? The victims of these vile crimes deserve nothing less.
Darren Jones
I think all Members across the House would recognise the primacy of the criminal investigations that are under way as the best route for justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. With that in mind, the Government have committed to comply with the Humble Address and their transparency obligations to Parliament while holding back the documents that the Metropolitan police have asked us to hold back.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and other Conservative Members have asked last week and this week about the declaration of interests. Either it exists and the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister does not want to say so, or it does not exist and he does not want to say so. Out of respect for this House, the public and the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, will he confirm now whether or not it exists?
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady should listen carefully to the answer I give. Given our obligations, I am not able to itemise all documents, as I have already set out from the Dispatch Box. What I can say to her, as I have said to her right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), is that all documents that the Government have and are able to publish at this time have been published. The only documents that have not been published are those being held either by the Metropolitan police or by agreement through the Intelligence and Security Committee—which is not relevant to the tranche 1 documents that were published last week.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Mandelson wanted more than half a million pounds to walk away from his job. This Government gave him £75,000; that went to someone who the Prime Minister said was clearly dishonest and lied. Will the Government be seeking to recover that public money—taxpayers’ money?
Darren Jones
The Government did not wish to give £1 to Peter Mandelson, but, as the documents from tranche 1 revealed last week, the decision was based on advice that the quickest possible route to removing him from civil service employment was to provide a severance payment on the terms provided, and that that sum was lower than the anticipated cost of legal fees associated with an employment tribunal dispute.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Two weeks ago, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister gave me two pithy answers, so I ask him to do the same this week. First, did Peter Mandelson receive top-secret so-called STRAP security clearance? Secondly—we will try this question once again—did Peter Mandelson submit a declaration of interests? I want a yes or no to both those questions.
Darren Jones
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Does the Minister believe that a declaration of interests form should have been submitted for a role as significant as this?
Darren Jones
I agree that all process should be followed, yes.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The problem with these sorts of scandals is that as time moves on, more and more people are tarnished by them. Last week, when the papers revealed that Mandelson received £75,000, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister whether the Government were worried about what he might say at an employment tribunal. He said,
“That was not the rationale. The documents will speak for themselves.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 367.]
Of course, the documents do speak for themselves. They say that part of the business case for the payout—which the Minister was aware of, because it was sent to him—was that
“Given the reputational impact for HMG, a modest settlement as proposed is the recommended course of action”.
They also say that
“the individual has a high profile which could give rise to reputational damage to the FCDO and HMG were a court or tribunal claim to be pursued”,
which is exactly what I suggested based on what was in the papers, but which the Minister denied was part of the reasoning. Does he want to apologise for inadvertently misleading the House, and does he agree that those papers show that the Government broke Treasury rules on how such payments should be made?
Darren Jones
I think I said to the House last week, for the sake of clarity, that while I recognise that correspondence in the bundle mentions the business case being referred to me for my approval, that was never sent and was never received, so I was not privy to it as the hon. Gentleman suggests. On the basis of the severance payment, as I have said to the House, it was, based on advice, deemed to be the quickest way to get Peter Mandelson off civil service employment, and cheaper than maybe incurring the legal fees of a dispute at the employment tribunal.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I welcome the first tranche of documents being released. One of those documents—the due diligence checklist, “11-12-2024 Advice to the Prime Minister”—has an entire section about Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, yet on 4 February at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that
“If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near Government.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 258.]
What additional information did the Prime Minister get to come to that conclusion?
Darren Jones
I think the hon. Member is referring to the initial release of documents by Bloomberg, which exposed the extent and depth of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein—which was not made clear to the Prime Minister prior to that appointment —and was subsequently confirmed by the US Department of Justice documents.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
In our country—and I fully support the Government’s national inquiry into grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation —the Epstein scandal exposes a global sex ring, with many hundreds if not thousands of under-age girls and women being trafficked for sex for the sake of political, financial and global influence. It is right that the Government are publishing details about the appointment of Peter Mandelson, but will the Minister confirm what other steps the Government are taking to go through all the millions of pieces of evidence and documentation that are being released by the US Department of Justice, to find and prosecute every single British person who took part in the exploitation of women and girls?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member is right to remind the House that while we have important questions about process, documentation and the appointment and dismissal of civil servants, above and beyond all of that was the most horrifying set of crimes that are imaginable to any of us in this House. The fact that they were able to happen in the way they did reminds us that we have much further to go to deal with male violence against women and exploitation of women by the powerful and rich. That is why the Government are committed to our strategy on violence against women and girls, and it is why we will of course comply with any investigation where we can be of assistance, to ensure that justice is being delivered for those victims.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
What level of security clearance was Peter Mandelson granted prior to his appointment as ambassador to the United States?
Darren Jones
I can confirm to the House my previous answer about the process for his appointment, agrément, and the security vetting that then took place. For particular details, I will need to refer the hon. Member to the Foreign Office.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for making himself available on every occasion that the House asks him to come along and answer questions. As each week passes, the attention on this matter is not diverted but intensified, and with each seeming redirection, the British public become even more dejected and less confident in the Government structures that are in place to hold staff and Ministers to the highest possible standard. Will the Chief Secretary outline what additional steps can be put in place to assure Members of this House and the British public that the current job application route has been completely shut down, and that political persuasion will cease to be the top qualifying criterion in Government employment shortlists?
Darren Jones
As I think I have said to the House before, the vast majority of people who apply to public service do so to serve the public and are honourable people who acknowledge and live the Nolan principles in every day of their work. What the Peter Mandelson example has shown—there have been others in the past—is that for all the rules in place that serve the majority well, there are still too many opportunities for those who wish to get around the rules. That is why the work that the Ethics and Integrity Commission is now doing will be vital in trying to prevent that from happening again.
Gregory Stafford
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I apologise for not being able to give you notice of it. The ministerial code clearly states that Ministers must provide accurate information to this House. Under the duty of truthfulness, it states that Ministers are required to
“be as open as possible with Parliament”
and maintain high standards of accountability. That is not just in what they say, but what they fail to say. I know that you do not enforce the ministerial code, Madam Deputy Speaker, but would you expect a Minister who has misled the House by omission to return to the House to correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. While the occupant of the Chair is not responsible for Ministers’ words, I would expect any Minister to return to the House to correct omission, although that is a matter for those on the Treasury Bench and not for the Chair.
GP Contract
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the changes to the GP contract in 2026-27.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
When we came into office, we found GP services in an appalling state—underfunded, understaffed and in crisis. Since July 2024, this Government have been fixing the front door to the NHS, investing more than £100 million to fix up GP surgeries this year, making online booking available to patients across the country and recruiting 2,000 more GPs who are now serving patients on the frontline. Following investment in advice and guidance, we have seen 1.3 million diverted referrals since April 2025. Those are people who would have otherwise been added to the electives waiting list. A lot has been done, but there is a lot more still to do. We are determined to make the system fairer for coastal communities and deprived areas, so we have launched a review into the Carr-Hill formula to close the gap on health disparities and ensure that funding is targeted on the basis of need. We will shortly update the House in the usual way on our Carr-Hill review.
Last year’s GP contract saw the biggest cash increase in more than a decade, and this year we are investing an additional £485 million, taking the total investment made through the contract to more than £13.8 billion this financial year. Investment must always be combined with reform, so the new contract will improve access for patients by requiring that all clinically urgent requests are dealt with on the same day. It will provide a mechanism to hire even more GPs via a new practice-level reimbursement scheme, and it will support the shift from treatment to prevention, as set out in our 10-year plan, through incentives to boost childhood vaccination rates, better care for patients living with obesity and requiring GPs to share data with the lung cancer screening programme.
These ideas were not cooked up by someone sat behind a desk in Whitehall. What is happening is that we are taking the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS, working with pioneering practices that have been doing these things for a long time. Today we can see that our policies are working, and after years of decline in general practice, we are getting the front door back on its hinges. Patient satisfaction with general practice is finally moving in the right direction. According to the Office for National Statistics, almost 77% of people described contacting their GP as easy in January this year, up from just 60%, where it was languishing in July 2024. I know that when he gets up, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) will hugely welcome, as will his hon. Friends, the progress that we are making.
Dr Evans
The Health Secretary and his team have perfected the sales pitch for NHS reform. The problem is that the detail never seems to arrive. We have seen a 10-year health plan with no delivery chapter, and a plan for the abolition of NHS England with no price tag; the Health Secretary has announced 10 new “straight to test” referral pathways, but could not name a single one; and now we are seeing a new GP contract with more questions than answers.
Calling something modernisation does not make it reform. If the rules and the delivery are unclear, it is simply confusion with branding. “Advice and guidance”, for example, appears in practice to create a single point of access for referrals. GPs will no longer be able to refer patients directly to a consultant, even when they believe that it is clinically appropriate. Will the Government publish the clinical evidence supporting that approach? Who will carry the legal responsibility if, in a GP’s professional judgment, a patient needs to see a consultant but must first go through “advice and guidance”? If advice and guidance becomes mandatory as an extra layer before referral, are the Government not, in essence, managing the waiting list by keeping patients in primary care rather than treating them in secondary care? Waiting lists will look shorter on paper, but patients are simply waiting elsewhere in the system. Can the Minister clarify exactly where those patients will appear in the official waiting list figures? The contract also requires patients whose cases are deemed “clinically urgent” to be dealt with on the same day, but it does not define “urgent” or explain what “dealt with” means, and that really matters.
Let me therefore ask the Minister three clear questions. First, when will the Government publish the clinical definition of “urgent”—a patient’s sick note is urgent for the patient, but not clinically urgent—and what counts as a patient’s being “dealt with” on the same day? Secondly, the Minister has talked about access, but how can practices guarantee same-day responses when demand is uncapped and definitions are not published? Finally, with advice and guidance being required as a mandate beforehand, how will we ensure that patients are protected, and where will they appear on the waiting lists?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the GP-related questions, for which I was grateful when he finally got to them.
On clinical evidence for advice and guidance, I think that the evidence speaks for itself. We introduced advice and guidance in the last contract with an £80 million investment, and it has been a stunning success. Take-up across the country has been huge, and—this is the statistic that matters most of all—1.3 million referrals that would otherwise have gone to electives have been dealt with by GPs. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman, who is chuntering from a sedentary position, seems not to care about what actually matters for patients, but through advice and guidance they are able to get a response from their GPs within about 48 hours. I can assure him that it takes a great deal longer to secure an out-patient appointment. If he is looking for statistics on advice and guidance, let me give him that one again: 1.3 million referrals have been taken off electives and dealt with by GPs. That is part of the hospital-to-community shift.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a definition of “urgent”. We trust our clinicians. We know that general practitioners are experts in their field. They know when they see an urgent issue, but they also know that that the symptoms might be a more acute manifestation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or that a child’s rash suddenly looks more dangerous than it did the day before. We trust our GPs to make those decisions, and it is a real pity that Opposition Members do not seem to do the same.
The hon. Gentleman also wanted a statistic in relation to access. In July 2024, patient satisfaction with access to a GP was languishing at a miserable 60% after 14 years of Tory neglect and chaos. Today it stands at 76%, which is a 16 percentage point improvement. The hon. Gentleman asked for statistics; perhaps he should take that statistic and deal with it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the Carr-Hill formula. York had the lowest funding under the primary care groups, the primary care trusts and the clinical commissioning groups, and it now has the lowest funding under the integrated care boards. It is because it is not the most affluent place that it is really important that the new funding formula works for areas such as York. Could the Minister say a bit more about how that will be determined, so that my community gets the health spending that it deserves?
Stephen Kinnock
The Carr-Hill review is happening as we speak, and I expect to get a submission from officials on the first round of analysis that is being conducted by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. That will be the first step towards agreeing on how we make the formula work, with a view to implementing the new Carr-Hill formula from 1 April 2027.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I welcome the fact that the Government have adopted our policy of seeing clinically urgent patients on the same day, but patient safety has been put at risk by increasing workloads, according to members of the Royal College of General Practitioners. One in five patients has been forced to wait at least two weeks for an appointment. Although the Government’s funding of 1,600 new GPs is welcome, it is insufficient to deliver the required shift to community care. The Health Foundation says that an additional 6,500 GPs will be needed by 2031, and the Liberal Democrats would provide 8,000. What is the Minister doing to address the shortfall? Residents in Epsom and Ewell, who already struggle to get a GP appointment, are concerned that increased housing will make it even harder. What is the Minister doing to ensure that there is funding for GP buildings, as well as GPs?
I welcome the Government’s focus on the obesity crisis, but it does not fix the root cause. Aside from the junk food ban, what steps are the Government taking to encourage children and young people to create active and healthy habits for life from an early age?
Stephen Kinnock
On buildings, we have the £102 million primary care utilisation fund, which will be very important in refurbishing GP practices. We are committed to delivering 120 new neighbourhood health centres by the end of this Parliament, and 250 by 2035.
The hon. Lady asks about GP numbers. In our manifesto, we pledged to bring back the family doctor, and that is precisely what we are doing. We said that we would deliver 1,000 new GPs to the frontline, but we are delivering 2,000, so we have smashed through our manifesto pledge. There will be more to come, because we are making the practice-level reimbursement scheme more flexible so that it does not apply only to GPs who have just come out of training; we are now enabling practices to hire more experienced GPs. That will also help with under-employment. Many GPs across the country practise only three days a week, and this is an opportunity to boost that to four or even five days a week.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
When this Government took office, the number of registered patients per GP in Calder Valley was much higher than the national average, with one GP surgery in Brighouse having 600 additional patients per GP. Given the new GP contracts and the new Carr-Hill formula, will the Minister confirm that the funding will help practices in my constituency to recruit the GPs they need, so that people can see a doctor when they need one?
Stephen Kinnock
I am not able to pre-empt the Carr-Hill review, but we have had a system based on data that is often 25 years old. Of course, we know that the Conservatives have the Tunbridge Wells philosophy. We will always recall the former Prime Minister standing in front of Conservative party members and proudly proclaiming the fact that he had been taking money out of parts of the country that needed it most and pumping it into those parts of the country that were delivering his pork barrel politics.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The nod to the pressures on rural general practices in the Carr-Hill process is to be welcomed, as is the improvement to many GP practices, but so many principals in general practice are throwing in the towel in the prime of their professional lives because of the bureaucracy, which many of them tell me burdens them well after the last patient has left their clinic. What are we going to do to reduce the administrative pressure on general practitioners, and to prevent the haemorrhaging of our most experienced doctors through early retirement or going part time?
Stephen Kinnock
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about bureaucracy. Many of the reforms that we are pushing for in the contract are designed to reduce bureaucracy. For example, by moving to a single point of access and embedding advice and guidance in the contract, we will reduce the number of transactions. In the current system, the practice needs to put in a request for a £20 payment each time it provides advice and guidance; we are embedding that and streamlining it.
The other point to make is that at the heart of our 10-year plan is the shift from analogue to digital. I have seen some extraordinarily effective artificial intelligence technology around ambient voice services, which enable an entire consultation to be recorded and put directly into the system, thereby saving the GP hours at the end of the day in writing up notes.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a working GP in the NHS. I probably would not be standing here if general practice had not been decimated over the last 14 years. I welcome the £485 million of extra funding, and I also welcome the fact that the capacity and access money is being channelled back into emergency GP action, so increasing the number of appointments, and increasing continuity of care by bringing back the family doctor. May I have some reassurance that the processes of advice and guidance and the referral mechanisms will not get in the way of Jess’s rule, which is about referring patients on their third presentation without any particular diagnosis?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The £292 million we have made available for advice and guidance is repurposed funding from the capacity and access improvement payments, so it is part of incentivising improved access and better patient outcomes. I can absolutely assure him that Jess’s rule remains fixed as a really important part of ensuring that it is three strikes and a referral. Whatever happens, that will be a top priority throughout the embedding of this contract.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
My constituents will welcome some of these headlines, such as clinically urgent cases being seen on the same day and more GPs, but what is being done to help accommodate them? Stubbington surgery in my constituency has excellent staff, delivering really great patient satisfaction, but they are hampered by really suboptimal buildings. They have expanded to fill every inch of available space, and the former cupboard under the stairs is now the phlebotomy room. They need a new site, but that is proving very difficult to find—not only the place, but the capital funding to deliver it. Can the Minister give them any hope from this announcement?
Stephen Kinnock
I am not familiar with the details of that specific case, but if the hon. Member writes to me, I will be more than happy to furnish her with a response. There is a real concern in some parts of the country, particularly where there have been new developments or populations moving into the area, that the GP practice does not have the required capacity. I am not sure whether that has happened in the case she refers to, but in such cases we also look to developers, including to section 106 and the community infrastructure levy as an opportunity. We have the primary care utilisation fund, and with neighbourhood health centre funding coming on stream, that may also be an opportunity. If she cares to write to me, I will furnish her with a response.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The welcome funding, alongside the contract, to hire 16,000 more GPs will be really encouraging news for my community. However, in high-growth areas such as mine, all too often it is physical space rather than funding for GPs that constrains practices. I am really glad that, after getting involved, we have been able to help move forward crucial expansion projects at Shefford health centre and Lower Stondon GP surgery in my constituency, but we should not need the MP to get involved in such situations to help our GPs. Will the Minister meet me to decide how we can work with our ICBs better to ensure that, where we have areas of significant housing growth, we will automatically see growth in the number of GP surgeries in the future?
Stephen Kinnock
Very much along the lines of what I said to the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), we need to ensure that the social infrastructure is there in such areas of population growth. I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
In this country, we have an immense wealth of talented young people who would love to train to be doctors, but over many decades we have not recruited enough. I appreciate that this is not just an issue for the Department of Health and that it spans the Department for Education and the Treasury, but what more could be done to increase the number of doctor placements so that we can train more and rely less on recruiting doctors from overseas who often come from countries much poorer than our own?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but that is precisely what we have been doing. We said in our manifesto that we would bring back the family doctor. We said we would hire 1,000 more GPs to the frontline and we have delivered 2,000. When we came into office in July 2024 there was a bizarre situation where demand for access to GPs was spiralling, yet the additional roles reimbursement scheme, designed under the previous Government, was not for GPs. It was for physician associates and anybody else in the practice, but not for GPs. We have bulldozed that bureaucracy and invested £82 million in getting the ARRS up and running and fit for purpose. As a result, we have 2,000 more GPs and 1,600 more full-time equivalents through this contract.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
I recently met people from Byron Primary Care Network, who were clear about the pressures facing primary care. How will reforming GP contracts ensure that communities in my constituency with a growing population can better access GP services? We have been waiting over 14 years for a GP practice in Hucknall.
Stephen Kinnock
A number of things have happened which will help with access to GPs. One is the very significant increase in the number of GPs we have put on the frontline and another is online access. We are now dealing with the 8 am scramble by ensuring we do not have a choke point on the telephone lines because more and more people are able to use online access. On capabilities in terms of physical infrastructure, a very important part of that is our commitment to neighbourhood health. There will be 120 new neighbourhood health centres by the end of this Parliament, which will really help to deliver the hospital-to-community shift that I am sure my hon. Friend’s constituents are looking forward to.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
GPs truly are the frontline of our NHS. I recently had the pleasure of meeting representatives from the Chilcote practice in Torquay. They shared with me their concerns about the global sum payment. Their calculations suggest that it should be a little in excess of £200, yet the recently announced payment is £128 a year. Will the Minister please advise on how he plans to bridge that gap?
Stephen Kinnock
The very significant uplift we have made to the contract—the £1.1 billion last year and the £485 million additional investment we are making this year—will go some way to address the hon. Gentleman’s question, but there is, of course, always more we can do. We have to deal with very many competing priorities across the Department of Health and Social Care, but general practice is right at the top of the list. That is demonstrated by the fact that we have invested in more GPs, better online access and more physical infrastructure for general practice.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
I recently met those from Stenhouse medical practice in Arnold. They talked to me about the need to invest in primary care to alleviate pressure on our hospitals. May I take this opportunity to thank all GPs and GP staff across Gedling? Will the Minister explain to me what actions the Government are taking and how they will improve GP services for my constituents in Gedling?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend makes such an important point about paying tribute to the incredible work that our GPs and their teams do right across the length and breadth of our country, including in Gedling; he is an excellent champion for his constituency. This is about marrying investment with reform. In addition to the £1.1 billion in the previous contract, the £485 million this year and the measures I mentioned to recruit more GPs to the frontline, there is also very important work happening around the shift from treatment to prevention in the 10-year plan. We are boosting childhood vaccination rates, providing better care for patients living with obesity and requiring GPs to share data with the lung cancer screening programme. This is about incentivising GPs, working with them as partners as we move forward into the modernisation of our health service.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The new contract has stated that GPs must offer on-the-day appointments for urgent requests—which they already do—and unlimited access during opening hours up to 6.30 pm, with no definition of “urgent”. Katrina, a constituent who messaged me today, said, “This will mean that those with complex needs, like me, will wait longer for appointments.” What reassurance can the Secretary of State offer constituents such as Katrina that this new system will work for everyone, not just those self-diagnosing their sick note as urgent?
Stephen Kinnock
The key point here is that GPs are the clinicians whom we trust to define what urgent means. There are, of course, a number of criteria and conditions that will ring an extra alarm bell and ensure that the patient is registered as urgent. It is worth mentioning that 46% of all GP appointments already take place on the same day as contact is made with the surgery—with the majority of those classified as urgent—so performance is already good. This is not something new that we are landing on general practice; it is much more about ensuring that we have a clear line of sight into who the urgent patients are and ensuring that they get treatment on the first day.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
I welcome these reforms. However, on the issue of accountability, despite years of failure documented in multiple inspection reports by the coroner and the Care Quality Commission, the integrated care board has not yet removed the contract from Cockermouth’s Castlegate and Derwent partnership. What else do Ministers believe I can do to ensure that a failing partnership is held to account, other than calling for the resignation of the senior partner, Dr Desert?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for his constituents. I am not familiar with the details of the case that he mentions, but I would be happy to look into it; if he would write to me, we can take that further.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Local doctors tell me that they were hoping the new contract would be focused on family medicine, with detail about the 10-year plan and neighbourhood health centres that the Minister has just touched on. I ask when the Secretary of State will be releasing the detail of the neighbourhood contract, which is really vital as I work with local health authorities to try to secure a second practice for residents in Stamford.
Stephen Kinnock
The guidance on neighbourhood health will be published very soon indeed; it is almost complete, and is coming soon. We recognise that general practice will be right at the heart of neighbourhood health, so we have to ensure a single neighbourhood provider contract and a multi-neighbourhood provider contract that are aligned with the best value that we can deliver, both for the taxpayer and in terms of patient outcomes. We will also be consulting on the single neighbourhood provider and multi-neighbourhood provider, with the consultation process starting some time after the overarching neighbourhood guidance, which is coming out very soon.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
It has been really hard to get a GP appointment in Hastings and Rye, so I welcome the bold action that this Government are taking to tackle that 8 am scramble to get a GP appointment: more funding for GPs; changing the funding formula to better support coastal towns, like ours; and requiring GPs, as part of this new contract, to have online booking and same-day appointments for urgent cases. However, I want to ensure that all the people I represent are benefiting from the reforms this Government are introducing, so this spring I will be launching a GP survey for all my constituents to fill out. What work is the Minister doing to ensure that we feel the benefits of these reforms everywhere in the country, and will he, alongside NHS officials at the integrated care board, meet me later this year to discuss the findings of my GP survey?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend and I have had some discussions about GP practices in her constituency, and I know she is doing excellent work to ensure that performance is always being driven in the right direction. She asks what we are doing right across the country; the Carr-Hill formula will be a nationwide initiative, and the contract itself is also nationwide. It is important that the Government do not try to micromanage and that ICBs and trusts work together. We are there to set the framework and ensure that everybody is clear about the outcomes; it is then up to the people at the coalface to deliver those outcomes. We do need to know where that is not working, so perhaps we could look at my hon. Friend’s survey once she has it; it would be a good way of checking in and ensuring that there is a golden thread between the outcomes that we want to see and the delivery on the ground.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I recently visited the Spa surgery in Harrogate and spent half a day with practice managers, GPs, partners, receptionists and nurses, and I am grateful to them for that opportunity. The Minister said earlier that he trusts GPs to make decisions, and just a moment ago he said that the Government should not be in the business of micromanaging, but the new contract outlines specific directions for spending. How does the Minister reconcile that with the fact that local GP partners tell me that the contract will remove the flexibility to manage and meet local service need, and that the uplift in funding will not cover the cost of these additional obligations?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Member for his question, but it is pretty clear to us, based on the experience of advice and guidance—I think it is advice and guidance that he is referring to specifically—that the £80 million we invested in advice and guidance under the last contract has been extraordinarily successful, with very high take-up right across the country. As a result, we have kept 1.3 million people out of electives who did not need to go to those out-patient appointments. What we are doing now is embedding that in the contract, because it has been such a success.
By embedding it in the contract, we are giving more flexibility and less bureaucracy, because there will be a single point of access in the trust. GPs will be able to access the high-level consultant expertise and specialism that they need in order to assess whether or not a particular patient needs to go to an out-patient appointment. It will mean more flexibility, high-level triage and much better outcomes for patients.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My dad was a GP in Hartlepool for 33 years. He worked through the improvements brought in by the last Labour Government and, until his retirement, through the destruction that the last Conservative Government oversaw—most notably the inability to get a same-day urgent appointment, which saw far too many patients ending up at the door of their local hospital. Does the Minister agree that ensuring that people can access same-day urgent appointments gets treatment out of hospitals and back into communities, where it belongs?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for that question; I can feel the passion with which he asks it, particularly because of his family connection. It is vital that clinically urgent patients get treatment on day one. We are confident that that is happening in many cases, but embedding it in the contract means an additional level of transparency and commitment from all sides of the equation. That is really important, because it recognises the good performance that is already happening in many cases but will also drive up performance in areas where it is not at the level at which it should be.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Cambridgeshire receives an increasingly raw deal from the Carr-Hill formula, due to the fact that the population demographics have changed so dramatically over the past 25 years. I therefore welcome the announcement that the Carr-Hill formula will be reviewed and that a new formula will be in place by 1 April next year. Cambridgeshire is about to move into a mega-ICB with Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes, so could the Minister allay the concerns in my constituency about how that will affect Cambridgeshire? We are about to see a change in the Carr-Hill formula, and we are about to move into one of the biggest ICBs in the country, which will undoubtedly have an impact on local services.
Stephen Kinnock
Clearly, a lot of change is happening in the system, but that is because a lot of change was required. Frankly, we have to do what we are doing if we are going to get the NHS back on its feet and fit for the future, with the three big shifts set out in our 10-year plan. Part of that is about the structure. Our view is that we can consolidate more of the back-office activity, which will free up more resources and allow us to do more on the frontline. ICBs play a vital role in that, particularly in commissioning. We want to see more strategic commissioning and more resource and expertise put into the parts of the ICB that are delivering better outcomes in population health. We must also see less duplication and more streamlining of back-office functions. It is about getting more efficiency but also being more responsive to patients and practitioners on the frontline.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Government’s reforms, which will ensure same-day access for GPs in urgent cases and will also make it easier to get an appointment online, finally moving towards ending the 8 am scramble. I recently visited Swanscombe health centre, where the brilliant team is under significant pressure because of the large number of new families moving to the area, particularly neighbouring Ebbsfleet, which has seen 5,000 very welcome new homes built so far. Will the Minister visit Swanscombe with me to see the work that the practice is doing and look at how we can get GP services designed into developments much earlier in the process in areas such as Ebbsfleet Garden City?
Stephen Kinnock
Hon. Members raise this issue with me regularly. There seems to be something of a disconnect when new developments are being built, whereby the section 106 agreement or the community infrastructure levy just do not seem to be delivering the social infrastructure that they should be delivering. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that in relation to the specific case he raises. Then, of course, we could discuss the possibility of a visit.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Blackburn is one of the most deprived towns in the country, and the health inequalities are stark. Despite that, Blackburn has the third-highest patient to GP ratio in the UK. While I welcome the Government’s intention to move towards a needs-based funding formula, the satisfaction statistics to which the Minister refers simply do not reflect what is felt by my constituents. In recent weeks, I have had constituents say that it has been almost impossible to obtain a GP appointment, whether online or via the phone. When will residents in my constituency see the difference that he refers to?
Stephen Kinnock
I think the first part of the hon. Member’s question is connected to the second part, because, as he correctly points out, thanks to the 14 years of neglect and incompetence that we saw, the Carr-Hill formula became a very anachronistic way of sharing funding. It should be based on need, but it was based on very outdated statistics and data. We are fixing that, and the changes that we are making will be felt by his constituents. It is disappointing to hear that he has had that feedback, because it does not reflect the nationwide polling from the Office for National Statistics, which shows that satisfaction with access, which was languishing at 60% in July 2024, now stands at 76%.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I hugely welcome the investment into general practice, particularly the flexibility to employ often under-employed GPs who want additional hours and shifts. I also welcome the Minister’s comments about innovation and AI. Sadly, I have had representations from Grange Park surgery in Burley-in-Wharfedale in my constituency, which finds that it is unable to deliver high-quality care because of unreliable and outdated IT systems that are provided across the Bradford area. Frequent outages directly impact access and patient care, so will the Minister set out what investment is available to ICBs to ensure that shift from analogue to digital?
Stephen Kinnock
Thanks to the decisions that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made, significant additional funding has been made available for capital investment in our NHS, and a big part of that is about driving the shift from analogue to digital. The other shifts—hospital to community, sickness to prevention—are not going to work otherwise; they all rely on this pivotal shift from the analogue age to the digital age. It is disappointing to hear the specific feedback that my hon. Friend has heard from the practices in her constituency. If she would like to write to me, or grab me in the Division Lobby, we can talk about the specifics of those cases. But overall the capital budget has been significantly boosted by the decisions that our Chancellor of the Exchequer has made.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Serious concerns have been raised about GPs being offered incentives to prescribe particular branded drugs. We cannot have a situation where prescribing decisions are made to balance the books; they should be made on a purely clinical basis, as I am sure the Minister agrees. With many GP practices seriously strapped for cash, does the Department of Health and Social Care have a clear picture of the situation, and what consideration has the Minister given to banning incentives so that the very best drugs are prescribed, not those produced by the most influential companies?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Member raises an important point. It is important that we at the Department of Health and Social Care work closely with the NHS regions and the ICBs to keep a close eye on that issue. It is vital that GPs are aligned with the highest professional standards. If we see those standards not being observed in any case, action must be taken. If she has specific evidence to suggest that such practices are going on, she is more than welcome to share it with me.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
We all welcome the work being done to get our national health service back on track. What engagement does the Department have with, and what guidance does it provide to, ICBs about what happens when a practice closes or a GP returns their contract in rural communities, like in Betley in Newcastle-under-Lyme? We need to do whatever we can to ensure that people in rural communities such as mine do not get left behind and can access the GP services that my hon. Friend the Minister outlined in their own communities.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is right that it is vital that ICBs have a clear understanding of their population health needs and their demographics. It is important that the ICB is ahead of that curve and taking decisions well in advance of a practice closing down so that a commensurate service is provided; that is a really important part of the ICB’s responsibilities. If he has specific examples where he feels that his ICB has not been delivering on that basis, he is welcome to share those with me.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I pay tribute to the GPs in Dewsbury and Batley and the surrounding villages. The Minister mentioned preventive health. What steps are the Government taking to support GPs in their treatment of patients with preventable or avoidable diseases through the prescription of exercise and healthy foods? Secondly, we talk about online access, which is welcome—my constituents welcome surgeries that offer appointments throughout the day—but how will the Minister support the digitally excluded who cannot get through at 8 am and do not have access to online applications?
Stephen Kinnock
On prevention, there are some really important measures in the contract: in essence, we are recalibrating the quality outcomes framework, which is the basis for payments to incentivise the actions that GPs take. By changing the QOF, as it is called, we can shift that in one direction or the other, and we have changed it to incentivise boosting childhood vaccination rates, particularly in those areas of the country where vaccination rates are worryingly low, and better care for patients living with obesity. That is about exactly the things the hon. Member just mentioned: prescribing, if you like, exercise regimes and advising on better nutrition. We are also changing the QOF to require GPs to share data with the lung cancer screening programme. Those are just three examples of what we are doing within the contract.
On online access, it is clear that there must always be three channels of access to a GP—walk-in, telephone and online—and that for an urgent matter it would be a walk-in or a telephone call. What has really worked is that online access has taken pressure off the telephone lines as people who do not have urgent requirements have been migrating online and using the NHS app—take-up of the app is also excellent—so we are moving in the right direction.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
My father was a family doctor in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency for more than 40 years; now that he is in his 91st year, I am thankful he is no longer practising. I have the highest number of deep-end group GP practices in my constituency, including the one where my father practised. While I welcome the consideration for deprived areas, will the Minister elaborate on what targeted funding there will be for areas with the highest levels of deprivation?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and ask him to please pass on my best wishes to his father and thank him for the outstanding service he provided over many years. The Carr-Hill formula review is an important piece of work. It will have a complex range of drivers in it, based on remoteness and coastal areas, but socioeconomic indicators will be very much at its heart. Those are the clear terms of reference that we gave to the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and that is the basis of the review. I expect those documents from officials very soon, and we will update the House accordingly. Some of the process was set out in a “Dear Colleague” letter a little while back, but we are also keen to have feedback from MPs in that process.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Many of the surgeries in my constituency have faced enormous pressure when having to deal with patients who cannot get an appointment, so I welcome the additional support that will come to our communities, especially inner-city communities. The Laurie Pike and al-Shafa medical centres in my constituency do so much work on prevention; I hope the Minister will join me in commending them on the work they do. Will there be ringfenced funding for preventive work in areas such as cardiovascular disease detection, respiratory illnesses and diabetes?
Stephen Kinnock
Please do pass on my thanks to the Laurie Pike and al-Shafa practices for the outstanding work they do. We are not really doing ringfencing; we are embedding prevention in the contract through the quality outcomes framework. Those incentives are the best way to give practices the flexibility they need while ensuring that they are clear about what we expect in terms of outcomes.
Issues such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes are part of the quality outcomes framework. It is also worth mentioning the Pharmacy First scheme, which is looking to move some of this work out of GPs and enabling pharmacists to operate at the top of their practice. That is another example of the shift from hospital to community, which is so important in enabling people to get the best possible care in the right place at the right time, as close as possible to their homes.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his answers so far. One of the No. 1 issues that came up on the doorstep when I was canvassing across my constituency before the general election was same-day access to GPs. Although I recognise that there is still work to be done, I welcome the work the Labour Government and the Minister have done to improve GP access for constituents across Harlow. Does the Minister recognise that there is still more to be done? Will he touch a little on the importance that the shift from hospital to community will have for hospitals like mine, the Princess Alexandra hospital, and specifically the accident and emergency department?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is right: avoiding preventable admissions is right at the heart of what we are trying to achieve. Of course, we have challenges with delayed discharge—something like 14% of patients in hospital beds are medically fit for discharge—and if we look at the flow of patients through hospital, we see that we can address a lot of the problems at that end of the process by preventing avoidable admissions in the first place. The advice and guidance element of the contract is therefore very important, because it is by improving co-ordination and teamwork between primary care and secondary care that we will ensure that the 1.3 million people who would have ended up on the electives waiting list or going into outpatient clinics no longer need to be there—they will be dealt with by the teamwork between consultant specialists and GPs. They will be helped, supported and cared for close to home, without having to go into hospital, which will have a positive knock-on effect right through the system.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his positive answers, and I thank the Minister and the Government for the giant steps they are taking to improve the NHS; we are encouraged by that. While the Government have rolled out major changes to the GP contract in England to improve access to same-day appointments, the situation in Northern Ireland, as he will know, is critical. Patients back home are struggling to get GP appointments, waiting times are long and workforce shortages are acute.
I know from past questions that the Minister has a good working relationship with Mike Nesbitt, the Health Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly. What discussions has he had with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to ensure that local GP services in Northern Ireland work in parallel with the new guidance in England so that patients are not left behind?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words about the Government’s work. I do have an excellent relationship with the Minister in Northern Ireland. Devolution is vital to the Government, and we are certainly not in the business of trying to micromanage what is happening both across the regions of England and in the devolved nations of our United Kingdom, but it is clear that there should be learning in both directions. When I speak to the Northern Ireland Minister, we are clear that we want to see the best possible performance and outcomes right across our United Kingdom. I look forward to continuing to work with him on that basis.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The beautiful and vibrant yet very isolated community of Coniston has had a GP practice for the last 200 years or so, but it runs the risk of losing it this year. Its GPs, who were wonderful, retired last summer and a caretaker service is being provided. Bids have been invited and there has been much interest, but no bid has been made. The reason is that the finances are really marginal at such a small surgery where people cannot go anywhere else. There is an answer, and I want to ask the Minister whether he might intervene and talk to the ICB to help us to get there. If the dispensing contract were to be let jointly with the GP contract, that would make it viable, and I know of GPs who would be interested if that were to happen. Will he talk to the ICB to ensure that that flexibility is applied so that we can save the surgery in Coniston for the next 200 years?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. It would be deeply troubling if such an important service to the community were to be removed, so I would certainly be happy to speak to him. Perhaps he would like to write to me to provide more details. Looking to the medium to longer term, the review of the Carr-Hill formula could well end up benefiting communities such as the one he has mentioned, because remoteness and rurality will be an important factor in the Carr-Hill review, but I accept that that might be a bit too far off for what sounds like a more urgent issue. If he would like to write to me, I am sure we can look into that.
Heating Oil Support
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before we come to the statement on heating oil support, I must note my disappointment about briefings to the media before important announcements are brought to this House. It shows a deep discourtesy to this House and its Members and a worrying pattern of behaviour from the Government. As the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has stated,
“making the most important statements in the first instance to Parliament means doing so before they are made to the media and not at the first available opportunity thereafter”.
The requirement to come to this House is set out in the Government’s own rules, in their ministerial code, and they must do better. Furthermore, a statement of this importance ought to have been made by the Secretary of State, and I am sorry that the Minister has been put in this position.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take my responsibilities under the ministerial code very seriously and will make sure that that message is communicated.
With permission, I wish to make a statement on the action we are taking to protect British people from the soaring costs of heating oil due to events in the middle east. It is now more than two weeks since the conflict in the middle east began. My thoughts and the thoughts of the whole House will be with the millions of people affected, including the British citizens in the region and the troops serving there, but just as we saw four years ago when Putin invaded Ukraine, the impact of this conflict is being felt far beyond the battlefield. With Iran continuing to target energy infrastructure and shutting off the strait of Hormuz, the price of crude oil on the international market has rocketed, and I know that the 1.5 million UK households that use heating oil to heat their homes will be understandably concerned. Indeed, some customers have already reported prices doubling or being unable to secure a delivery at all. Let me be clear that this Government will not stand by and let British families suffer. Let me set out the direct action that we are taking today.
First, we will always stand up for the most vulnerable in our society, and I can confirm to Parliament that we are committing over £50 million to help low-income families who use heating oil. We are allocating this funding where the greatest need is, based on census data, and it will go directly to the devolved Governments with the expectation that it will be used to support vulnerable households. We know that this is a particular issue in Northern Ireland, where almost two thirds of homes rely on heating oil, and we have allocated £17 million to support them. We will continue to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive on all our plans that I will outline in this statement, given the particular circumstances that exist there and the reliance on heating oil.
In England, funding will be distributed by local authorities via the crisis and resilience fund, which comes into effect from 1 April, and £3.8 million will be passed to the Welsh Government and £4.6 million to the Scottish Government to deliver to affected households through existing programmes. I am today calling for the Scottish Government to ensure that this money is passed to Scottish families as quickly as possible.
Secondly, as well as providing direct support for consumers, we are working with the sector to ensure that pricing is always fair, transparent and justified. This Government will not tolerate profiteering or unfair practices, so we are in daily contact with industry to understand the drivers of recent price movements and have reminded heating oil distributors of their commitments under the trade association code of practice. The Chancellor has also written to the Competition and Markets Authority to ask it to remain vigilant across heating oil prices and to tackle unjustified increases, and we urge customers to share any evidence of price manipulation with the CMA.
We also recognise that the heating oil sector is currently under-regulated. Unlike gas and electricity, the heating oil market is not regulated by Ofgem. We are going to put that right by exploring what regulations might be needed to ensure that consumers get a better deal and by exploring new ways to ensure that households are better protected. This will include: securing an agreement with industry on a strengthened code of practice to rapidly provide enhanced protections to customers; introducing stronger consumer protections in the heating oil market, which could cover dispute resolution, a greater variety of repayment options for those facing hardship, greater price transparency and enhanced protections for vulnerable groups such as the elderly; supporting the CMA’s plans to carry out a more comprehensive examination of the UK’s heating oil industry; and exploring the creation of a new ombudsman or the appointment of a regulator such as Ofgem to champion consumers.
Thirdly, this conflict is yet another reminder that we must get off the rollercoaster of global fossil fuel markets as soon as possible and on to the path of clean, secure, affordable energy that this country controls. This is the only way to protect the British people from energy price shocks and ensure that we are no longer buffeted by the headwinds of conflicts that we had no part in starting. Thanks to our mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower, we have already brought in £90 billion of investment in clean energy, but now, in the light of events in the middle east, we have set out a package of measures to help us go even further and faster in pursuit of national energy security.
We will bring forward the next renewables auction, just months after our most successful ever auction secured enough power for the equivalent of 16 million homes. We will make plug-in solar available for the first time in Britain so that families can buy a low-cost panel straight from a supermarket and set it up on their balcony or in their garden. We will speed up the delivery of our £15 billion warm homes plan—the largest home upgrade programme in British history. We will also reform nuclear regulations following the Fingleton review so that we can fast-track new nuclear power stations.
Behind every decision this Government take is a simple principle. Whatever the challenges, we will always support working people; we will always fight their corner. That is why we are directly helping those affected by the spike in heating oil costs; it is why we are cracking down on any suppliers who are cancelling orders or jacking up prices, while working at pace to ensure that the sector is properly regulated; and it is why, despite the opposition from parties on the other side of the Chamber, we are doing everything we can to take back control of our energy, ending our reliance on these unstable global fossil fuel markets and instead bringing in an era of new, clean, home-grown energy that we control in this country—an era of economic growth, new good jobs, unprecedented investment and real energy security. That is how we will ensure that ordinary working British people never pay the price for foreign conflicts and our overdependence on fossil fuels again. I commend this statement to the House.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of the statement, although I really have to take issue with the Prime Minister’s earlier comments, taking credit for Ofgem’s decision to lower the energy price cap. That decision was taken not by the Government, but by Ofgem using a Conservative mechanism, and it was in fact taken weeks before the current crisis began. But why let the facts get in the way of this Government’s spin?
I am glad to see that the Government have today taken steps to support those households across Great Britain and Northern Ireland that rely on heating oil—steps that those of us on this side of the House called for when prices began to rise weeks ago. Those households are, as the Minister has highlighted, acutely exposed to price shocks, and the stories we have heard from consumers across the country are very concerning indeed. Just this morning, I heard from a constituent who faces a lump sum bill of over £1,000. These consumers are often served by a single local supplier, meaning that there is no realistic competition.
Let us be under no illusions: this announcement has come about only after the pressure put on the Government by the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) called for these actions almost two weeks ago. Like everything with this Government, they end up doing the right thing only after weeks of dither, delay and inaction—but today’s announcement will be welcome news for rural households, and nowhere is that more apparent than in Northern Ireland, where over 60% of homes rely on oil for heat.
Although I welcome the announcement, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarification. First, can he explain what, if any, support will be made available to those who heat their homes with liquid petroleum gas? Furthermore, it appears that the allocation of funding for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is to go directly to the devolved Administrations and not directly to local authorities. Considering that the Minister represents a Scottish constituency, he understands just as well as I that handing over a cheque to the Scottish Government does not guarantee that money will be spent where it was intended to be spent. Can he therefore outline how this Government will ensure that those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland get the support they need, and that this funding is not siphoned off for other priorities determined by devolved Ministers? Why was this money not awarded directly to local authorities in those nations as it is being delivered across England?
It is also my understanding that this funding is inclusive of Barnett consequentials. Could the Minister confirm whether that is the case? If it is, will he confirm that Scotland is being short-changed due to the higher proportion of households on heating oil than the Barnett formula would account for?
The Government could go further and heed our calls to deliver a 20% cut to everyone’s energy bills—and I mean everyone’s—through the Conservative’s cheap power plan by axing the carbon tax and the rip-off wind subsidies now. That cut would be worth around £165 to the average family. The Government should also bring about another one of their famed U-turns and cancel their planned fuel duty rise later this year—a rise that will add £156 to struggling families’ bills, because Labour’s plans always lead to more costs for families and businesses.
Let us take today’s announcement as an example. We cannot ignore that this support will be funded through Labour’s tax rises on working people. Why? Because this Government have made a choice—a political choice—to shut down the North sea and forgo £25 billion of tax receipts that an attractive, investable and successful North sea oil and gas industry would, and still could, provide. Backing the UK’s oil and gas industry is about driving the economic growth that we so desperately need, which in turn would deliver greater tax receipts than the current regime. It is about becoming more energy secure. One hundred per cent of all the gas produced in the British North sea is used in the British gas grid. The less we use from British waters, the more we have to import—at a higher cost and with a bigger carbon footprint—from Qatar, the USA and Norway, which continue to explore in the same sea in which we are prevented from exploring.
Backing the UK’s oil and gas industry would support a vitally important skilled workforce—a workforce that right now is packing up and going overseas. What will it take for this Government to change course—revenue, investment, job security? What is it that this Government do not get? Just today, the CEO of RenewableUK joined the chorus of voices calling for an overhaul of this disastrous act of economic self-harm being inflicted by this Labour Government. We read in The Times at the weekend that we are currently led by the “least intellectually curious” Prime Minister of all time, so it is no surprise that the Secretary of State has been given free rein to inflict his myopic vision of a future—[Interruption.] Those are not my words; they are the words of people in the Cabinet today! Surely at this time of such global instability, the case for a thriving oil and gas industry is clearer than ever.
We welcome the action announced today on heating oil, but there are serious questions—not just from me but from the industry, the renewables sector, the trade unions, and, frankly, everyone other than those sitting on the Labour Benches—over wider Government energy policy that need to be answered, and answered soon.
Martin McCluskey
Dear, oh dear! Where to begin? I will do my best to wade through the many points that hon. Gentleman raised.
First, the energy price cap is reducing on 1 April because of actions that this Government took to take £150 out of energy costs. That will see every bill in this country reduced. People listening should hear that their bill will go down in April, and that is protected to the end of June. The hon. Gentleman appears to be criticising us for a lack of speed. If he would like to volunteer how many days it took for the last Conservative Government to provide support for people on heating oil, I am all ears. How long did it take his party in government? It took them nearly 200 days. We are around three weeks into this conflict in the middle east, and we have come forward with support today.
LPG will be eligible in so far as the English schemes that we have funded additionally today through these actions, and we are making that clear to local authorities in a letter that has been sent from Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers today. It will be for the devolved Administrations—Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—to determine how they distribute the funds. I hope that they will work at the same speed as this Government to ensure that they are available on 1 April, but all nations already have crisis funds available that they could be deploying for this purpose, just as we will be deploying them for this purpose in England from today; if there are people in crisis now applying to the existing household support fund, they will be eligible for support from today, and the additional funding will come after 1 April.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the funds being Barnettised, but the funds are not being Barnettised; Scotland is not being, in his words, short-changed. The funds are being allocated based on census data on how many heating oil-fuelled households there are in each individual nation. That is why Northern Ireland comes out with £17 million, Scotland with £4.6 million and Wales with less. It is not a Barnett share; it is based on the number of households that use heating oil.
Finally, I do wish that the hon. Gentleman would stop coming to this Chamber and talking down the UK’s oil and gas sector. [Interruption.] No, I do wish that he would stop talking it down. He has implied from his Dispatch Box that the taps are being turned off in the North sea; they are not. The North sea is working today at full capacity and has been for some time. On Thursday, I was in Aberdeen, speaking to workers in that sector and to workers in floating offshore wind, who will benefit from our decision to invest in clean energy. If we take our eyes off the opportunities that will be available in future, it is a road to ruin. The hon. Gentleman will also know that more extraction from the North sea will not reduce the price of energy. We are a price taker, not a price maker. That is not our road to cheaper energy for households.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Unlike the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), I give an unqualified welcome to today’s announcement, which will support some of the most vulnerable people in the United Kingdom—some of those in greatest fuel poverty. I have to say to the Minister, though, that we invited him to join us at our Committee session tomorrow afternoon to discuss the warm homes plan, following last week’s excellent evidence session. So far he has not been available. It is not too late for him to change his mind if he wants to, but for now I will ask him one question. Given that people on heating oil are at the sharp end of the impact of the spike in oil and gas prices, will he consider giving them preferential treatment when it comes to the warm homes plan so they can benefit from the range of measures, including on energy efficiency, and the reduced costs that it can deliver for them?
Martin McCluskey
I am always happy to come to the Committee; I understand that discussions are ongoing about a longer evidence session just on the warm homes plan to give it the attention that I am sure my hon. Friend agrees it is due. I agree that the warm homes plan should target some of the lowest-income people in our country. That is why we have allocated well over £1 billion for some of the low-income schemes in the warm homes plan, and why we have also focused on how we target rural households, many of whom will be affected by the heating oil situation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
We welcome the Government finally taking action to protect households from soaring energy costs due to the middle east crisis, following calls from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches and MPs of all parties. However, today’s intervention is a sticking-plaster solution, with too many households potentially falling through the cracks and not receiving support. We have heard that those families who must use oil for heating are the most exposed and defenceless, caught in the crossfire of Russia’s war in Ukraine and now the volatility in the middle east.
The heating oil market needs regulating. The Liberal Democrats are calling for the immediate introduction of a three-month VAT holiday on heating oil, as well as a proper price cap, because these households deserve the same protection as those that use gas and electricity. The real way to protect households and businesses is not by parroting Trump’s “Drill, baby, drill” mantra and buckling in for more roller-coaster rides that burn a hole in people’s pockets but by accelerating the transition to secure, home-grown clean energy that we control and extending preferential treatment to the warm homes plan, to help those homes that use heating oil to electrify and get off volatile fuel that we do not control.
Will the Government agree with the Liberal Democrats and set a price cap for heating oil to shield off-grid households? Also, if the Government want to provide targeted support, will they learn the lessons from the covid pandemic and the 2022 energy crisis and immediately enact a data-sharing scheme between Departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions and the NHS, and devolve this to local authorities to enable them to deliver targeted support to those who need it the most through, right now, the crisis and resilience fund that they want to be adopted on 1 April?
Martin McCluskey
I thank the hon. Lady for her constructive tone, for working together on some of this, and in particular for her comments on the need to move towards a transition to ensure our energy security and, ultimately, to lower bills.
On the hon. Lady’s point about a cap, the market for heating oil, as she will know, is very different from the market for electricity and gas. The reason that the price cap was introduced many years ago was the potential loyalty penalty that existed, whereby consumers who were with an individual company for a long time were penalised for that. Heating oil, by contrast, is supplied through a highly competitive market. That is why we have asked the CMA to look at this in more detail and we will examine its findings to establish what regulation may be required.
On the hon. Lady’s comments regarding the warm homes plan, the low income fund will target many of those people. She may also be interested to know that about 50% of the grants given out under the boiler upgrade scheme are to rural homes, many of which will be in this situation, that are transitioning from oil heating to electrified heating through a heat pump.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement. Giving support to people who are off grid is vital; however, Thanet Earth, which is near my constituency and employs a number of my constituents, actually grows 20% of the tomatoes that are sold in this country. The business is profoundly energy intensive and is doing all the right things on decarbonising its energy supply, yet it is still profoundly affected by such fossil fuel spikes as those we are experiencing today. Will the Minister look at what is possible to support such energy-intensive industries through this energy crisis?
Martin McCluskey
I know that my hon. Friend has been a champion for such industries in her constituency, including Thanet Earth. The Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), is working through the implications of this crisis for such businesses as we speak, and will come forward with plans in due course.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. One characteristic of volatile energy markets is that when wholesale prices rise, consumer prices tend to rise like a rocket, and when the wholesale price stabilises the consumer price tends to fall like a feather. Can the Minister assure me and my constituents that in the conversations that he is having with the Competition and Markets Authority he is also looking at whether, when the market returns to normality, prices will fall as quickly as they have risen in this volatile moment?
Martin McCluskey
The hon. Member makes an important point. I know Ministers in my Department have been discussing that with the CMA and will carry on doing so. The CMA has started its work looking at the heating oil market and will, I hope, come forward soon with proposals that we can examine, to determine whether further regulation is required.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, which will reassure a lot of families in Northamptonshire. Could he give us a bit more detail on the timeline under which this will be brought in, and assure people across Northamptonshire that the process will be easy to access, without bureaucracy?
Martin McCluskey
I know that my hon. Friend has been fighting hard for his constituents in Northamptonshire during this crisis. We are topping up the crisis and resilience fund with this additional funding across England that will be available from 1 April. Local authorities in affected areas have received notification today of the additional funding that will be available to them, but they can also use existing means to distribute funds to those in crisis, without waiting until 1 April. The message to my hon. Friend’s constituents would be to contact their local authority today, and that more funding is coming on 1 April.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Minister’s statement included what I am sure were some very sincere words. He said:
“Whatever the challenges, we will always support working people; we will always fight their corner. That is why we are…doing everything we can to take back control of our energy”.
I did not want to have to break this to the Government, but they are not fighting for working people or taking back control of our energy by actively closing down the North sea. Thousands of people are losing their jobs every month and our energy security is going down. The only way the Minister can remedy this is by removing the ban on new licences and scrapping the energy profits levy.
Martin McCluskey
Once again we hear a voice from the Opposition talking down the UK’s oil and gas sector. The North sea is not being shut down. [Interruption.] It is not being shut down; it is producing oil and gas today, and will play a role in this country for years to come. It is also important for Opposition Members to remember that not a single barrel of additional extraction from the North sea will reduce the price of energy in this country. It will not help any of our constituents with the cost of their energy.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the Minister and the Government for their swift response; £4.6 million to Scotland will be very welcome in my constituency, where up to 50% of homes outside the town of Stornoway rely on heating oil. What discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government to ensure that the £4.6 million is distributed through local authorities through the crisis grant fund; that local authorities have maximum discretion in how they distribute that fund; that we have maximum accountability on how the money is spent; and that we have maximally swift delivery of this much needed support?
Martin McCluskey
My hon. Friend was one of the first people to come to me with concerns around the heating oil situation in his constituency. The Minister for Energy had these discussions with the Scottish Government towards the end of last week, and I will have further such discussions over the next few days. I would hope that the Scottish Government take as wide an interpretation around their crisis funding as this Government have about England, and ensure that it is made clear to local authorities that the support is available for those on heating oil and those on liquefied petroleum gas. How the devolved Governments distribute those funds is, obviously, a matter for them.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is estimated that over 20,000 homes in North Yorkshire rely upon heating oil, including constituents in the rural part of my constituency in villages outside Occaney, Copgrove, Farnham, Flaxby and others. They already face what is known as a rural premium, with households paying more for everyday essentials. Given that reality, how can the Government justify offering only limited support to households that now face soaring heating oil costs?
Martin McCluskey
My priority, and that of the Government, in dealing with the situation in the middle east has been to come forward as quickly as possible with support, which today we can guarantee will be available for those on heating oil from 1 April. For constituents who do not use heating oil, electricity and gas prices will reduce on 1 April by 7%. We will keep the situation under review. It is fast moving. Three weeks ago, we would not have thought that we would be in the situation we are in today. We will keep the matter under review, but our priority has been to get this money to the people who need it as quickly as possible.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
With one in four households in South Norfolk relying on heating oil, the announcement today will make a huge difference to my constituents and I thank the Government for their extremely swift action. As local discretion is to be exercised by local authorities, will the Minister make it clear to local authorities up and down England that they need to ensure this addresses as many people as humanly possible, to give them the support when they need it most?
Martin McCluskey
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, and the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness has written today to the leaders of councils in areas that are receiving additional funding to make this clear.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I am curious about the details as I have been raising this issue on behalf of my constituents in West Worcestershire all week, many of whom rely on heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas. How much extra money is going into the crisis and resilience fund in West Worcestershire, and how will local authorities prevent “first come, first served” and instead ensure that those with the emptiest tanks get access to the money first?
Martin McCluskey
I will write to the hon. Lady with the details around her local authority area, but we are confident that the amount going into the crisis and resilience fund—both additional and current funding—will be enough to meet the demand for this period while the heating oil prices are increased. As I said to other hon. Members, we will keep the situation under review as it progresses.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
On behalf of my constituents, I thank the Minister for his speedy response to the situation, which I know from my inbox has been very welcome to those using heating oil, but can he reassure us that the correspondence from Government to Lancashire county council will make it clear that those on LPG will also be eligible for the fund?
Martin McCluskey
I can assure my hon. Friend that guidance will be provided to local authorities to ensure that LPG customers are also dealt with through the fund.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
While I welcome the Minister’s statement, my constituents and I have a few questions. How many households does the Minister project that this will be applied to? What does he foresee the average amount of support being? Is there a qualifying criterion in terms of benefits or household income? Will the fund be disbursed via the upper tier or lower-tier council, and should my constituents apply to Bromsgrove district council or Wiltshire council for support?
Martin McCluskey
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the current household support fund and the future crisis resilience fund are discretionary and it will be for the local authorities to determine, under the guidelines, what they will be able to provide. On the support available and the number of households affected, we are confident that this can meet demand over this period of time. As I said in response to other hon. Members, the important thing is ensuring that this money reaches people as quickly as possible, and we did not wait around, as the previous Government did, to provide support to these households.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and the swift response to the need of my rural constituents who are reliant on heating oil and LPG. This crisis has shown that our strategic approach of getting off the reliance on global fossil fuel markets is absolutely the right one, but it has also exposed the under-regulation of the heating oil market domestically, so can the Minister tell me what this Labour Government will do to tackle that under-regulation?
Martin McCluskey
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments on the need to transition as quickly as possible. Through this crisis we have seen the volatility that this country is exposed to because of our reliance on fossil fuels. For the sake of people across the country, we cannot allow that to continue. On regulation, we have had discussions with the Competition and Markets Authority, which has set out what it is looking at in terms of the heating oil market. It will come forward with recommendations and a report, which we will study carefully to determine the need for regulation.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
With prices doubling or tripling, a 97-year-old constituent cannot afford her next bill and another family has no hot water. Reporting price gouging to the CMA will not help them now, so what support will the Government give those above the lowest income thresholds who cannot afford the next delivery, and what will Ministers do to stop public money allocated now simply filling the pockets of profiteering suppliers?
Martin McCluskey
No one should have to face the kind of situation that the hon. Lady has just described, which is why we are coming forward today with support. That additional funding will be available through the crisis and resilience fund from 1 April. However, as I said in response to an earlier question, constituents can already go to their local authority, and we are giving clear guidance to local authorities on the support that they can offer today, and we are expanding some of the guidelines for the existing funds to make it clear that they can provide support for people on heating oil and LPG. On the hon. Lady’s latter point on regulation, as I have said, the CMA is investigating this. There are clearly issues in the heating oil market, as we can see in what has happened over the past couple of weeks. That is why we have asked the CMA to look at that. It has agreed and we will study its conclusions and come forward if necessary with regulation.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for the very quick action taken by this Government. He mentioned his hope that the Scottish Government will act as quickly as this Government have to pass on these savings to people who use heating oil. Will he ensure that we get more than just hope, as we want an assurance that the SNP Government will not fail my constituents, as they have done so many times before? Will he keep up the pressure on the SNP to deliver what it should be delivering for my constituents and others?
Martin McCluskey
I know that my hon. Friend would possibly share some of my concerns, which is why I have been so clear today that the Scottish Government should move at pace to ensure they can provide the same level of assurance to people across the country today that we are, and that support is on the way and that from 1 April people will be able to apply to those funds. Some £4.6 million is being provided to the Scottish Government for this action, and we would want to ensure that every single penny of that reaches the people who need it.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
On behalf of the low-income families of North Dorset, I very much welcome the Minister’s statement, but what help can he give to those who are not classified as low income but who are, in the old parlance, just about managing? Surely a VAT holiday for all customers would be of benefit right across the piece. May I urge the Minister to consider that for those families? There will also be a number of rural buildings—doctor surgeries, community halls, parish halls, village halls—that use heating oil, and for which the costs will be very high. They operate on very limited budgets and give a lot of support to elderly and vulnerable people in our communities. Will the funds available also be open to them?
Martin McCluskey
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. On the point about regulation, it is important to remember that we have already taken action, and not for heating oil but for people on traditional electricity and gas, whose bills will reduce by 7% in April—that is a universal offer, available to everyone. Obviously, alongside the universal offers there are targeted offers, such as ours today on heating oil. On non-domestic premises, the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North, is looking in detail at the situation and will come forward with more proposals later. Today’s announcement is for domestic premises, but we will come forward with details for non-domestic.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Government listening and acting so quickly on this subject. On 5 March, one of my constituents had an order of 500 litres of heating oil cancelled and was invited to remake the order, but he was then told that it would cost around twice as much as the previous order. Rob, who is on the state pension and is a wheelchair-user, could not afford to remake the order and therefore has had no central heating from 5 March. Does the Minister agree that all providers should be honouring contracts previously made?
Martin McCluskey
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that case to my attention, and I ask him to write to me with more details. From conversations about this case and others that have been mentioned across the House, it is clear why we need regulation in this market and why we need to investigate it. I am glad that the CMA is taking that forward.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The Treasury is raking in tens of millions in increased tax revenues from rising fuel and energy prices on the one hand; on the other, it is providing some mild relief to a chosen few. The Chancellor is robbing Peter to pay Paul, and then expects the country to give her a pat on the back. Will the Minister do what could be done now: cancel the proposed increase in fuel duty for September and provide some genuine relief to everyone who is feeling hard pressed right now?
Martin McCluskey
The right hon. Gentleman will know that fuel duty is frozen and, as the Prime Minister set out last week, we will keep that under review. It is important that people who are listening to these discussions hear that fuel duty is frozen, and that just as we are taking action with electricity and gas in April, we have taken action today. The right hon. Gentleman calls them the chosen few. I would say we are targeting support at those who need help now to make sure that people can heat their homes sufficiently. This is the Government taking action today to make sure that people are better off and that they see the effects through this period.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I thank the Government for acting so swiftly—the previous Government took 200 days to act when we faced a similar crisis after the start of the Ukrainian war. I want to ask a couple of questions. First, can the Minister confirm that LPG is included in the package? Many of my constituents are on LPG, not just heating oil. Secondly, will he set out how the package will help those who are financially vulnerable and also medically vulnerable, including disabled constituents, many of whom are at greatest risk and have shared concerns that they have to have their heating on 24 hours a day?
Martin McCluskey
I can confirm that LPG is included in the package, and guidance will be provided to local authorities to make it clear that it is for LPG as well as for heating oil. My hon. Friend referred to medically vulnerable people. They are eligible under the existing household support fund and the crisis and resilience fund if they fall into crisis. There is still a lot more that we have to do for people who are medically vulnerable. That is why the Government are taking action to look at how data can be better shared in order to ensure that medically vulnerable people can receive the support they need.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I welcome the Government coming forward with a proposal, but many of my constituents are facing £600 or £700 increases on bills that are coming immediately at them. The Minister cannot tell us today who exactly will be eligible for help—perhaps he can answer that. He cannot tell us how much they will actually get when they are looking at an increase of £600 or £700 on one bill just to fill up. He did not even seem to know which particular council is going to administer this help. Can he please give some clarity? Otherwise, we are getting the appearance of action and no real relief for most of my constituents.
Martin McCluskey
We are providing action quickly, while the previous Government waited nearly 200 days to provide action. The funding will be available from 1 April, as I said. The Minister for Local Government has today written to local authorities to inform them of the additional funding that will be available to them, but, as the right hon. Member will know, the funds are administered by local government. We are providing clear guidance to people and to local authorities that those funds should be available to people using heating oil and LPG.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I represent about 13,500 households that are off the grid. I welcome the recognition of the scale of the problem in these communities and getting them proper support. I urge the Minister to ensure that regulation for the heating oil sector is brought forward as quickly and effectively as possible, so that constituents are not ripped off far into the future, and to continue to monitor the situation as it progresses so that further action may be taken if required.
Martin McCluskey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his work to stand up not just for his constituents, but for rural communities more generally. The CMA is investigating heating oil and will come forward with proposals, which we will study to determine whether we need to regulate in this area. But it is clear from what we have heard across the House this evening and in other reports that this market is not working in the way it should.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
More than 130,000 homes in Scotland now face deeper anxiety and financial uncertainty with this paltry intervention from the Government. The reality of this cold winter and spring in the north of Scotland and in the highlands and islands, not least in my constituency, is that there was snow last night. The gritters were out, and some people now face hypothermia as they struggle with the massive increase in costs. With more price increases in the supermarkets, higher fuel costs, rising inflation and growing extreme fuel poverty in Scottish households as this illegal war continues, I ask the Minister whether the Government will now commit to a more robust plan, including further interventions later this year.
Martin McCluskey
This is from a representative of a governing party in Scotland that has ditched its fuel poverty targets and, just a few months ago, ditched its heat in buildings Bill, which would have provided support and help to people with leaky buildings.
Martin McCluskey
I will answer the hon. Gentleman. We have supplied £4.6 million of funding today. He rolls his eyes, but his constituents and many others across Scotland will look at him askance for doing so. This is support for people, and it is now for the Scottish Government to come forward with how they are going to ensure that the money reaches the pockets of people across Scotland.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is really good to see the Government prioritising people in distress in rural and coastal areas. My question is slightly separate. It is about listed buildings and conservation area properties, and how those people struggle to insulate their homes because of planning rules. Does the Department have any plans to do something about that?
Martin McCluskey
The recent warm homes plan talks about listed buildings. We are working with many heritage organisations to assist with retrofit. I recently visited Saltaire in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) and viewed some excellent examples of historic buildings, which demonstrated that they can be retrofitted to just as high a standard as modern buildings.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
Although I thank the Minister for the limited amount of support that he has announced today, may I represent to him two of the most vulnerable groups in this regard: the very old and the very young? I ask him to consider them. I have elderly constituents who hardly dare turn on their heating because they do not know whether they can afford it. Will he consider including those groups in the regulations, and if not, will he give local authorities greater discretion to pay out hardship payments in the scheme?
Martin McCluskey
First, we should communicate loud and clear today that the energy price cap is going down in April. People’s bills will be reduced by 7%, and it is important that people across the country who are anxious about their bills hear that message. On the hon. Gentleman’s about older and younger constituents, the discretionary element of the crisis and resilience fund allows local authorities to make those choices. It is a person-centred approach to allow them to make choices that are applicable to their local area. I encourage him to have that discussion with his local authority. The guidance would allow it to do that.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank the Government for their engagement with Back Benchers who represent rural constituencies, and for bringing forward this support so swiftly—in marked contrast to the 200 days it took the Conservatives. However, I share some of the concerns that have echoed around the Chamber about the people who are just about managing, who might not find themselves eligible. If the crisis prolongs, the Government have said that they will keep the situation under review. Will the Minister consider everything being on the table, including, for example, looking at VAT?
Martin McCluskey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his advocacy for his constituents in Bishop Auckland. This is a fast-moving situation. We have come forward today with support because we wanted to assure people that there would be support available as quickly as possible, and that is what we have done. As I have said, we will keep the situation under review.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
We appreciate the Minister’s statement and the fact that the Government have moved so quickly to provide support. I have received many messages from people in the Meon valley who use heating oil and other types of energy as their main sources of heating. They understand that we cannot control international events, but they are worried that companies are profiteering, with the average price going up from £300 to £640 a tank, or from 63p to £1.40 a litre. Are the Government working at pace to ensure that Ofgem and other regulatory authorities, which do not currently regulate heating oil, will prevent companies from taking advantage of the international situation and making money off older people in particular?
Martin McCluskey
The market is clearly not working as it should and needs attention. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy met the Competition and Markets Authority last week. The CMA took quick action to respond on Saturday in areas that it planned to investigate. I hope that it will come forward with that work quickly, and then we will be able to make a decision about further action.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Carlisle and north Cumbria has around 7,000 off-grid households, so I thank the Minister for his statement, which I know will be welcomed by heating oil and LPG households in my constituency. Will he reassure us that, in tackling the under-regulation left by the previous Government, this Government’s action will regulate the heating oil and LPG markets?
Martin McCluskey
The CMA is considering these issues, and we will examine its conclusions carefully. I will write to my hon. Friend about LPG and the CMA’s examination of it, which I hope will provide her with the reassurance that she needs.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Thousands of households in East Hampshire are off grid. They face much bigger swings in energy prices, and of course when their tank happens to run out is a matter of chance. For them, the statement will be good news, but how will the Government ensure that take-up is maximised among vulnerable and low-income customers, as is done for pension credit? How will the support be communicated to them? For all the questions about how the scheme will be administered, what message should we take back to constituents about what the criteria will be and how much money will be available? It is right that local authorities have discretion, but there has to be some sort of consistency so that people know what to expect. The Minister has talked about guidance being sent to local authorities. Will it include that?
Martin McCluskey
I thank the right hon. Member for the constructive way in which he has approached the matter. We need to maximise take-up to ensure that we reach all the people who need support. Local authorities have an important role to play in that; the communications that they provide to their residents will be important. We will also need to work closely with the trade body. With heating oil—more than in many other sectors—there is a relationship between the people who come and fill up the tank and the householder. Those people have a role to play in ensuring that people understand what support is available. The crisis and resilience fund, which this money is topping up, is available from 1 April, and there will be guidelines, as I said. We have been clear that heating oil and LPG are in scope. I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about consistency, but we must remember that this fund is discretionary for local authorities, so there needs to be some flexibility—largely because local authorities will know how best to serve their local areas.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I welcome the £3.8 million commitment, which will help Welsh households with rising costs. A 70-year-old woman in my constituency saw a quote for 500 litres of oil rise by £250 in less than a week. Farmers will also be hit hard: they will face increased red diesel prices and an exponential rise in fertiliser costs. Will the Minister share what support may be given to farmers?
Martin McCluskey
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments and her advocacy for her constituents. The £3.8 million being provided to Wales reflects the fact that Wales—especially west Wales—has significant numbers of heating oil-fuelled homes. I will write to her on support for farmers more generally. This is obviously a very fast-moving situation. Our priority at the moment is to ensure that householders get the support that they need for heating oil. As I said, the Minister for Industry is considering issues in the non-domestic sector, which will be relevant to my hon. Friend’s farming constituents.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I suppose it was inevitable that the Minister would take the opportunity to bang the drum for his disastrous net zero policy, which has been responsible for giving people in the United Kingdom the highest electricity prices in the whole of Europe. Of course, he talks about the need for energy supply and security. We have our own gas and oil and, as far as I know, it does not have to go through the strait of Hormuz or through a Putin-controlled pipeline, yet we have turned our back on it. I welcome the support for Northern Ireland, even though it amounts to about £34 per household, but I noticed that the Minister said he is working closely with the Minister for the Economy in Northern Ireland. Given that she is still to bring forward a plan to spend the £81 million granted in the Budget last year, will he ensure that he keeps her feet to the fire so that people in Northern Ireland can receive the support that they need now, not next winter?
Martin McCluskey
I had a constructive conversation with Minister Archibald this afternoon about the support on offer, and I am confident that the Northern Ireland Executive will work at pace to ensure that it is delivered to people across Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman mentions net zero. It is important to remember two things: first, more North sea extraction would not affect energy prices for people in this country, and secondly, the long-term route to lower prices is not through exposing us further to fossil fuels. That exposure—not net zero—is why we have some of the higher prices in Europe. More exposure, which is his suggestion, would just increase our prices and our vulnerability, including for people in Northern Ireland.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Having grown up in a household that relied on heating oil, I know how overlooked off-grid rural communities can feel. They were overlooked by the previous Government, who did not include them in energy price support for 200 days, and they have been overlooked by a regulatory framework that does not give them the same protections offered to other homeowners. I welcome this announcement of support, in which the Government have acknowledged that those households deserve far better. However, I have seen quite exploitative practices from oil companies in my constituency recently, so can we ensure that we are not shying away from the regulatory reforms that are needed for the longer term?
Martin McCluskey
Many hon. Members have highlighted such cases. The heating oil market is clearly not working in the way that it is meant to, which is why we are focusing on what we need to do in terms of regulation. As I have said, the CMA is considering particular aspects of the market. We will study its conclusions and come forward with proposals.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
How was the sum of money that the Minister announced arrived at? Was there any reference to the increased tax receipts that the Treasury will see as a result of hikes in oil prices? Will he lay out the criteria on which the money will be awarded? Without such criteria, he cannot possibly approach rationally the amount of money that he will be giving people in order to help them. Finally, how are my constituents to spot the price manipulation that he has asked them to report?
Martin McCluskey
On the right hon. Gentleman’s final question, his constituents should send any cases of potential price manipulation through the CMA, which will investigate such cases. As for how allocations have been arrived at, that is a combination of the number of heating oil households in individual areas and deprivation figures. It will be for local authorities to determine how the scheme works. As I have said, we have provided guidance to local authorities to ensure that households that use heating oil and LPG receive the support that they need.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for the rapid action he has outlined. About 7% of households in my constituency are oil fuelled. Families in Gnosall, Norton and Haughton have told me that they had agreements with an oil contractor for deliveries, which were supposed to take place last week but were cancelled as the conflict escalated. Now, the price has more than doubled. Will the Minister tell me what rapid action is being taken to stop companies price gouging in such a way?
Martin McCluskey
I will say a couple of things in response to that. We have been in constant dialogue with industry bodies to communicate clearly to them what we would see as inappropriate action and pricing. We are moving at pace with the CMA and have asked it to look at this market because it is clearly not functioning. Absolutely none of our constituents should have to face the kind of situation that my hon. Friend describes.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Nearly 13,000 households are off-grid in my constituency, including my home. It is a wild west out there; prices have doubled in just a few weeks, and many of my constituents are not even able to pay for the minimum 500-litre orders required by the providers. Does the Minister agree it would be far quicker and simpler for the Government to provide relief through a VAT holiday on heating oil and LPG? That would ensure that support reaches every household immediately, rather than relying on councils to distribute limited discretionary funds.
Martin McCluskey
Our priority has been to ensure that support reaches people as quickly as possible. That is why we have come forward with this proposal today. As I said in response to previous questions, we will keep the situation under review as the situation in the middle east progresses. The CMA is looking at a number of areas before it makes recommendations that might lead to regulation, and we will study those carefully. One of those is whether the issue of minimum orders needs to be examined more closely. The hon. Lady has my reassurance that we are looking at this issue, and the CMA will come forward with proposals.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
More than 22,000 households in my constituency rely on heating oil. Dozens of constituents have contacted me over the last week, and they are worried sick, so I very much welcome this announcement and the speed with which the Government have made it. This situation has exposed the fact that rural communities are uniquely vulnerable to global energy shocks. May I urge the Minister to do all he can to prioritise better regulation and to look at how rural communities can benefit from the warm homes plan and transition to better insulation and renewable technology in a way that they were not able to do under the previous Government?
Martin McCluskey
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for everything that he is doing to advocate for the many constituents he has who use heating oil. As he said, we need to move forward with the CMA to examine what regulation might be required. He will have seen that the warm homes plan highlights rural households and low-income households as an area of priority. He may be interested to know that around 50% of grants from the boiler upgrade scheme are going to rural homes, showing the demand that exists in constituencies such as his.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Daisy in Old Weston has seen her quote for 500 litres of heating oil leap from £324 to £868. Lee has a 1,400 litre tank; her quote from before Christmas was £600, and it is now nearly £2,000. Those are huge price spikes, and they are having a massive impact. Will the Minister outline how the crisis and resilience fund will be allocated to Cambridgeshire county council? What is the total amount that it is likely to receive? Is there any cap on how much can be given out to individual households? Is there any cap on how much Cambridgeshire county council can give out in total, or will this be done on a first come, first served basis?
Martin McCluskey
The situation that the hon. Gentleman describes for his constituents is clearly intolerable. That is why we are looking with the CMA at the case for regulation in this market—it is clearly not working in the way that it should. On the crisis and resilience fund, more than £800 million has already been allocated through the spending review, and today we have added just over £50 million to the fund. This funding will be made at the discretion of local authorities, and we have written today to leaders of local authorities detailing the additional funding that will be available to them.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Minister’s comments today, but he will understand the huge level of concern regarding the prospect of profiteering in not just the heating sector, but the wider energy sector, and its impact on the grocery sector at large. Indeed, the National Farmers Union has reported in recent days that it is concerned about potential profiteering in the fuel sector and the fertiliser sector. Will the Minister outline what action the Government are taking beyond instigating reviews at the level of the CMA to ensure that our constituents are protected from any profiteering?
Martin McCluskey
This Government will not stand for any profiteering in the system. That is why the Chancellor and the Secretary of State brought the petrol retailers in last week, for example, to make that abundantly clear to them. We have also made it abundantly clear to the representatives of the heating oil industry. When it comes to the electricity and gas suppliers, we took action through the Budget last year to remove costs from energy bills and reduce energy costs by 7% from April. We will cut no corners in holding companies to account where we think there is any sense of profiteering or manipulation of price. That is what the CMA is examining for us, and that is why we will examine what it comes forward with for the heating oil industry and decide whether there is a need for regulation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I plan to run the statement only until 7.30 pm. May I encourage short questions from Members and perhaps shorter answers from the Minister?
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I welcome today’s announcement and the proposals. They potentially offer a relief of 20% or so to the households in Wales that are off-grid, including 72% of households in my constituency. The Minister will appreciate that households will be anxious to understand what level of support they stand to receive. Was there a per-household level of payment in mind when the Government came up with these calculations? Given that LPG households will be entitled to support, can I also ask why heating oil data was used to calculate the £3.8 million allocation for Wales?
Martin McCluskey
As the hon. Gentleman said, £3.8 million has been allocated to Wales. It will be for the Welsh Government to design the scheme that they will use to roll that out; it may be through existing schemes or through something different, but that is a decision for them. In all this, our priority has been to work at speed. We do not want to leave people in a situation without any support, which is why we have come forward with this proposal, just a few weeks after the initial stages of this conflict in the middle east. That is our priority. As I said, we will keep this issue under review, and we will come forward with more proposals if necessary.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Some of the most vulnerable people in my constituency live in the village of Banton, which is not on the gas grid. However, the rest of my constituency would be considered urban. Will the Minister make representations to the Scottish Government so that they do not just look at rurality when deciding how they are going to allocate this funding?
Martin McCluskey
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I will be sure to raise in future discussions with Scottish Government Ministers.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Residents of Curland and Hatch Beauchamp are among the 9,000 off-grid households in my constituency, and they have contacted me about the heating oil question. Given that prices have gone up so greatly, they will welcome the Government’s move, however small, against the soaring prices caused by Trump’s illegal and unprincipled war. However, given that the help works out at only £35 per house, would it not be better to have a VAT holiday and a permanent price cap so that these customers are not second-class energy consumers?
Martin McCluskey
Not every household will decide to fill up now, at the point when the prices are so high. In addition, we have made it clear that this money is going through the crisis and resilience fund, which means that it is focused on low-income people, so we need to be careful not to imply that the funding is at the level that the hon. Gentleman describes. We are making sure that support is getting to people quickly, and that is the absolutely priority.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the UK Government have provided the Scottish Government with £4.6 million to ensure that the most vulnerable households in parts of my constituency, like Auchtertool and Kingseat, are shielded against the increases in the price of heating oil caused by war in the middle east. Does he agree that it is up to the Scottish Government to act very rapidly to ensure that the most vulnerable households in my constituency get the support that they need?
Martin McCluskey
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We must ensure that support is available in all parts of the UK as quickly as possible. In England, it will be available through the crisis and resilience fund from 1 April.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
In my constituency, an oil refill that was costing less than £500 costs well over £1,000 today, so I am rather underwhelmed by a package that offers a household £35 pro rata. How does the £53 million for the whole package compare with the increased VAT tax take from the rise in the price of heating oil? I suspect that it does not compare favourably. Would not the fairer—
Jim Allister
Would the fairer approach not have been to suspend the 5% VAT on home heating oil? Would that not have been fairer to everyone?
Martin McCluskey
My priority and the priority of the Government has been to ensure that support gets to people as quickly as possible, which is what we are doing today. The pro rata suggestion that the hon. and learned Gentleman has just made misses the fact that not everyone will fill up their tank during this period when prices are high. We do not know where the situation in the middle east is going, and we do not know what prices are going to be like two, three, four or five weeks from now. However, as I have said in response to other hon. Members, we will review the situation as it progresses.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
The Minister’s statement will be hugely welcome in High Peak, where thousands of households are reliant on heating oil. Many have told me that the prices they are being charged have more than doubled. These households have been overlooked for too long. Will the Minister set out how the sector can be better regulated, to make sure that these households get a better deal going forwards?
Martin McCluskey
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued advocacy for his constituents in High Peak. The CMA is investigating areas of policy around the heating oil market and will come forward with suggestions. We will examine those suggestions in detail to determine whether or not regulation is required in the sector. However, it is clear from points that my hon. Friend and others have made that this market is not operating in the way that it should.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his announcement—the £17 million for Northern Ireland, as part of the £53 million package, is welcome. That recognition and funding is important, given the price of home heating oil. Some 62% of people across Northern Ireland have heating oil, including almost 80% of people in my part of the Ards peninsula—in my constituency, where I live—so it is very important that we get this right. Will the Minister commit to urgently engaging with his counterparts in Northern Ireland? My people want to see the money sooner rather than later.
Martin McCluskey
This funding has to work for people in Northern Ireland, including in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency of Strangford. That is why today, I have had another call—the second over the past few days—with Minister Archibald in the Northern Ireland Executive, and it is why I will continue to engage with the Northern Ireland Executive over the next few weeks.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
In villages like Waterhouses and Quebec in Durham, many people use heating oil to heat their homes and their water. I have been contacted by very distressed constituents who tried to order their usual supply of heating oil, only to find that prices had soared so irrationally that they cancelled their order. This profiteering is completely unacceptable, so can the Minister restate the actions that the Government are taking to stop these heating oil companies blatantly ripping off my constituents, and can he tell me the best mechanism for reporting such behaviour?
Martin McCluskey
Again, the points that my hon. Friend makes and the cases she brings to the attention of the House demonstrate that this market is clearly not working in the way that it should. I encourage her to send any of these cases to the CMA, so that it can consider them as part of its work.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I welcome the speed with which this Government have listened and responded to those households whose homes are heated by heating oil. I also thank the ministerial team for their engagement with MPs across the House. As many people on heating oil in North West Leicestershire may not previously have accessed support via the household support fund, how will the Minister ensure that the support gets to the individuals who need it?
Martin McCluskey
The local authorities have a role to play—as do all of us in this House—in communicating clearly that support is available. We need to make sure our constituents know that support for heating oil and LPG is now part of the crisis and resilience fund, and that it will be available from 1 April.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
We have seen oil prices surge over the past two weeks, and the targeted Government support announced today for low-income rural households that are reliant on heating oil, including many of my constituents, will help. Can I ask specifically about the distribution of the support? What are the criteria for a vulnerable heating oil customer, and what support will there be for those who do not need to fill up now, but will in the medium to near term?
Martin McCluskey
On my hon. Friend’s final point about the medium term, we are keeping this issue under constant review, because the situation is moving so quickly. In his case, it will be for the Welsh Government to set out how they will distribute these funds; that may be through existing schemes, or through a new scheme.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Although I warmly welcome this support for the poorest rural homes, hydrotreated vegetable oil prices have remained relatively stable throughout the fortnight, so as well as securing ample production of HVO through sustainable aviation fuel refining, can I once again urge the Minister to ensure that the barriers and disincentives that prevent tens of thousands of rural residents from switching from kerosene to HVO are cleared as a matter of urgency?
Martin McCluskey
As my hon. Friend knows, a consultation has recently concluded, and we will come forward with a response in due course.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
I appreciate the speed at which the Government are working, and understand that local authorities will have a role in how the money is distributed. However, in the absence of detail, many people are doing a back-of-a-fag-packet calculation. Can the Minister reassure them that we are committing enough money to make a real difference, and will he commit to meeting me to discuss how we support the 14,715 households in Penwith and Solway who do not benefit from being on the mains gas grid?
Martin McCluskey
The Government believe that this funding should be sufficient for those low-income households that are at acute risk of imminently losing access to their heating and hot water. As I have said in response to other questions, we will keep this issue under review and come forward with responses in the House at a later stage.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
The 6,700 households in my constituency that are wholly reliant on heating oil have been very anxious following the impact of the war. They tell me that the impact on oil supplies has doubled and—in one case—trebled the price of heating oil, and some suppliers are no longer offering delivery dates. Elderly residents are wearing coats and gloves indoors to ration their supply. Over the past week, Ministers have taken the time to listen to rural MPs and have set out the scale of the issues we face, so let me place on record my gratitude for the additional £758,000 that will go to the worst-affected households across Shropshire. Can the Minister confirm that this money will be available from as early as 1 April?
Martin McCluskey
I thank my hon. Friend for the constructive way in which she and other MPs representing rural constituencies have engaged with this process. I can confirm that the money will be available from 1 April.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement. With over 5,000 properties off the grid in the Banbury constituency, I welcome this announcement. Can I add my voice to the others we have heard from around the Chamber in asking that this Government to do what the previous Government failed to do: finally tackle the lack of regulation and proper accountability in the sector?
Martin McCluskey
We inherited a number of areas in the energy sector that were unregulated. This is one of them, which is why we are putting focusing so much on it, and we will study the CMA’s conclusions when they come forward.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
It is imperative that this support reaches the most vulnerable heating oil households, such as those in the Braes villages in my constituency, who have seen astronomical price spikes. Can the Minister confirm whether the Scottish Government have yet signalled that they will administer this Government’s funding for Scotland’s vulnerable heating oil households nationally or via local authorities—and if they have not, will he ask John Swinney to get a move on?
Martin McCluskey
I commend my hon. Friend for the work he is doing for his constituents in Falkirk. As I mentioned earlier, the Minister for Energy met the Scottish Government last week. I will be having further discussions, and will pass on those sentiments to Scottish Government Ministers.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituents, Barrie and Gill Fulton, live in a rural part of Littleborough, and therefore rely on LPG. Both Barrie and Gill have cancer, and they are worried sick about the price spike that they are seeing at the moment. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that the scheme will be flexible enough to take into account the needs of families like the Fultons? Does he also think there is a certain irony in Opposition Members complaining about the pain felt by their constituents as a result of a war that they directly support?
Martin McCluskey
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the case of Barrie and Gill Fulton to the attention of the House. I can confirm that the guidelines stipulate heating oil and LPG, so they will be covered; determining who is eligible will be at the discretion of local authorities, but I hope my hon. Friend’s constituents can find some relief in that information.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
Many households in the rural part of my constituency—including in Carron valley, whose community council I met on Friday—rely on heating oil and live in older housing stock that can be difficult to make energy-efficient. Many of those communities also have an older population. Does the Minister recognise the particular challenges this creates, and will the Government consider future measures that better reflect the nature of rural housing?
Martin McCluskey
In our warm homes plan, we came forward with proposals for England. The Scottish Government, unfortunately, have ditched their heat in buildings Bill, which would have provided some relief to my hon. Friend’s constituents. I hope that the Scottish Government come forward with an alternative soon.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
In the rural parts of my constituency, one in 20 houses relies on heating oil. One of my constituents told me that his bill had gone up by 270%, while other constituents have had their deliveries cancelled. I welcome the £53 million of investment. I know it will be targeted through local authorities, but can the Minister give my constituents an indication of when that money will filter through to their bank accounts?
Martin McCluskey
The additional top-up funds will be available through the crisis and resilience fund from 1 April. What I say to my hon. Friend’s constituents and those of all other hon. Members is that they should contact their local authorities today if there is an issue so that, either now or after 1 April, they will be able to take advantage of that support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for his answers this evening.
Point of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Thanet, we are welcoming to people who play by the rules, but unfortunately it appears that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) forgot his manners and did not notify me of his visit to the wonderful, tolerant and open-minded community in Cliftonville for the by-election campaign. I seek simply to put on the record that the convention was not observed by the right hon. Gentleman and to give him the opportunity to make good on that failing by apologising.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. I assume she notified the right hon. Member for Newark of her intention to refer to him.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Members intending to visit another colleague’s constituency, except for purely private reasons, must inform them in advance. I expect Members from all parts of the House to show courtesy to each other and to follow the rules.
Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill (Allocation of Time)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill—
Timetable
(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (11)(a) of this Order.
(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions.
Other proceedings
(8) Provision may be made for the taking and bringing to a conclusion of any other proceedings on the Bill.
Miscellaneous
(9) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(10) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(11) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(12) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(13) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.
(14) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(15) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(Mark Ferguson.)
Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I start by paying tribute to the bereaved family members of those who died at Grenfell Tower, as well as the survivors and members of the local community. Nothing we can say in this Chamber can take away what they have been through. The fire at Grenfell Tower, which took the lives of 72 people, was a terrible moment in our country’s history. It was an avoidable tragedy, and it has had lasting consequences for bereaved families, for those who survived and for the local community and far beyond. We must ensure that nothing like it can ever happen again. There is still much to do on justice, on reform and on making homes safe, but today’s Bill is about one clear part of our responsibility: how we remember Grenfell and how we keep our promise over time.
This is a simple Bill with a simple purpose: to ensure that the Grenfell Tower memorial is properly supported today and for the long term. It is for the bereaved, survivors and the community to take their decisions on what the memorial will look like. The Bill is here to fund that important work. Grenfell must not be about party politics. The previous Government promised to support bereaved families and survivors to create a fitting and lasting memorial. This Government are keeping that promise.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for the sombre and appropriate way he proposes the Bill. Although the memorial is important and should be tasteful and poignant, the best memorial is the lessons learned so that no other family has to suffer as these victims’ families have suffered, and the lives that will be saved by the changes that are implemented for safety. That is the real memorial those people wish to have.
Steve Reed
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He describes it absolutely correctly. That is why it will be the local community, survivors, the bereaved and the next of kin who will take decisions about what the memorial will look like.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is correct in everything he has said so far about the memorial. Is he willing to meet me? He has spoken about safety, and many of my residents are concerned about their safety with unsafe cladding. They are also worried about the cost of that. Will he or one of his Ministers meet me to discuss that issue further?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Part of the legacy of Grenfell must be that people are kept safe in their own homes. I would be happy to ensure that she has an appropriate meeting with an appropriate Minister, whether that is me or a colleague.
The points that Members have raised is why the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission was set up in 2019. It is community-led and there to shape a shared vision of the future of the site. After years of engagement, the commission published its report “Remembering Grenfell” in November 2023. It set out clear recommendations for: a permanent memorial at the site of Grenfell Tower; a private site where parts of the tower where people died and where their remains were not identifiable can be laid to rest with respect; and a physical and digital archive alongside a permanent exhibition, so that the story of Grenfell is preserved as a lesson for the future.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for bringing forward this piece of legislation. Can he confirm that the Bill is not only about capital expenditure, but long-term maintenance, to ensure that this is a lasting legacy for the families of Grenfell?
Steve Reed
I agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes. This legislation has to be about the long term; that has to be the best way we can pay tribute to those who died and their relatives from that very dark night.
The work of the memorial commission will be guided by those most directly affected. We know that views about the future of the site are deeply personal and not always shared by everyone. The Government have welcomed the commission’s recommendations and will help to carry them out. Design work led by the community is now under way, with a design team appointed after a selection process that involved bereaved families, survivors and the wider local community. The aim is to start construction of the memorial from mid-2027.
This is a very focused Bill. It gives the Government the statutory authority needed to spend public money on the construction and long-term management of a Grenfell Tower memorial. It allows for land to be bought where needed and for works to be carried out on that land. The scope of the Bill is deliberately narrow. It does not set the design of the memorial. It does not determine planning decisions. It does not set governance or ownership arrangements. It makes sure that spending connected to the memorial is carried out properly, in line with the rules for Government spending and with Parliament’s agreement.
The community will continue to work on the design while Parliament considers this Bill so that work stays on course towards a mid-2027 start to construction. The memorial will honour those who lost their lives and those whose lives were forever changed by that tragedy. It will be a place where people can remember, reflect and pay their respects. It does not take away from other work that still needs to be completed. The community has waited far too long for justice to be served. Those responsible must be held to account, and I fully support the Metropolitan police in what is one of the largest and most complex investigations it has ever carried out. We must also reform the system so that the voices of residents cannot be ignored and safety risks can never again simply be brushed aside.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
The way in which the Secretary of State has spoken so far reflects the way we all felt post-Grenfell. We must ensure that the communities feel they have somewhere to go, somewhere to grieve. Does the Secretary of State agree that the work relating to who was responsible for the tragedy needs to continue, alongside the work on the memorial?
Steve Reed
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, and of course the police investigation continues. The families have had a long wait for justice, but justice must and will come.
This requires a new culture of transparency and accountability, which the Government remain fully committed to building. I will continue to act on the Grenfell inquiry recommendations to ensure that they lead to real and lasting change across the country. No one should ever go to bed unsure about whether their home is safe, and speeding up remediation remains one of our highest priorities. We are working with developers, freeholders and local authorities to remove unsafe cladding as quickly as possible, and we are now monitoring thousands of buildings to ensure that progress is being made.
This short but important Bill is about how we remember what we learn and what we do as a result. It ensures that national remembrance is properly supported and protected with Parliament’s consent, while also supporting the central role of bereaved families, survivors and the community. It helps to ensure that Grenfell is never forgotten, and that the lessons of that tragic night will make homes safer and the future fairer for everyone. I commend it to the House.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
This will be one of those rare occasions when there is a broad consensus across the House. The Opposition support the Government in wishing to continue the work begun since that tragic night in 2017 to ensure that lessons are learnt, changes are made, and the 72 victims who lost their lives are properly remembered. My Conservative colleagues and I welcome the Bill, and will support it today on Second Reading and during its further stages.
The tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire, which caused the horrific deaths of 54 adults and 18 children, was a national tragedy that still sits as a dark and distressing memory within our national conscience. The failures that led to that horrific blaze, and to so much bereavement and distress, have now been studied in great depth by the Grenfell inquiry. They had to be addressed in detail, which is why we welcome the Government’s work to implement the inquiry’s recommendations and support their efforts to meet all of them by the end of the current Parliament. It is firmly the responsibility of the Government of the day to implement those recommendations, but it is our collective parliamentary responsibility to allow the means for that to happen, to support the Government’s work, and to ensure that, nine years on, we continue the process of remembrance.
It is very difficult for us here to judge how best to commemorate the 72 people who so tragically lost their lives. That is why I believe that it was the correct approach, in 2019, to allow the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission to develop proposals for a fitting and permanent memorial. The victims of the Grenfell Tower fire belong at the heart of everything we do in this place and outside it to remember the tragedy. It is very important that in remembering the fire, we also remember all those affected by the events that night: those who lost their lives, of course, but also the bereaved families, the survivors, and the immediate community who have previously lived, or currently live, in close proximity to Grenfell Tower.
As this process of remembrance reaches one of its most important moments—the realisation of the monument promised to the Grenfell community by the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission and by successive Governments —it is vital for any future monument to keep the four promises made to the community: the promise of a mission to create a place of dignity and peace; the promise to create a bold memorial to ensure that the tragedy of the fire is never forgotten; the promise to introduce key measures to ensure that the memorial is looked after and not allowed to fall into disrepair; and a final promise to ensure that the voices and wishes of the Grenfell community are always at the heart of decisions made about the memorial. As for the future and the preservation of the memorial, it is important for this space to be protected from decay and enabled to continue to serve as a focal point for peaceful and reflective remembrance of the horrors of the fire. That is why my colleagues and I welcome the provisions in the Bill to allow the maintenance and preservation of the monument.
As was mentioned during a recent debate on the Grenfell Tower annual report, it is necessary for the Government to deliver on their promises of funding. I welcome what the Secretary of State said about that, and I hope that he will confirm the funding arrangements in due course.
On a related note—although it is not directly connected with the purposes of the Bill—perhaps the best possible tribute to all those connected with the tragedy at Grenfell Tower would be for the Government to honour funding commitments regarding the completion of the refurbishment of the Lancaster West estate for those who are still living there. The refurbishment was intended to be funded 50-50 by the Government and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The funding required from the Government is a small additional fraction of the reported cost of the memorial. The council has done its part, and I understand that agreement regarding Government funding is close, but the longer this is delayed, the more costs will inevitably rise, so let me take this opportunity to urge the Government to conclude these proceedings with haste.
The inquiry’s finding that decades of systemic failure, as well as sheer dishonesty and dangerous negligence, allowed this tragedy to occur represents a shameful and damning conclusion on the work, or lack thereof, of culpable industry figures, regulatory bodies and successive Governments. The least that we can do now is support the full implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations, and we on the Opposition side of the House will constructively scrutinise the support for victims and their families that the Government are proposing, to try to ensure that anything that is done is done properly.
For today, however, I look forward to seeing the Bill through its remaining stages in this House, and to working constructively to move the memorial a step closer to realisation. That is why the Opposition do not plan to amend the Bill today. As I said at the start of my speech, we will support it, and support the aim for the memorial to become a real place of peace and remembrance for the Grenfell community.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
One hundred and five months ago, 72 people lost their lives in a tragedy that was foreseen and entirely preventable. Today we remember them. We pay tribute to their families, to the bereaved, to the survivors and to the community around the tower who have suffered so much, and we recommit to truth, justice and lasting change in Grenfell’s name.
This Bill is important, and I thank the Government for introducing it and giving it the time for what I hope will be a smooth passage. A fitting memorial is essential, and the Bill will help that to come about. The Grenfell site is the last resting place for many, and it remains a symbol of injustice. Every day when I leave my home to come to work in this place, I see the tower slowly receding from the west London skyline. I understand the fear that when the tower is gone, that stark physical reminder of unfinished business will also recede. We cannot let that happen.
I want to thank the members of the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission, and the independent co-chairs, for their work in advancing a design. As the Secretary of State said, it is not easy work, but it is vital for it to remain independent of local and national Government, and to engage widely with bereaved people and survivors as the work progresses so that they feel heard and included. I know that residents are watching the deconstruction process closely. This has to be done with the utmost care and transparency—for the bereaved families, for whom the tower is sacred, and for the community who are understandably anxious about local impacts. The Bill also makes provision for the preservation, archiving or exhibition of materials from the tower and site, which is essential. Transparency and clear communication on decisions are the only way in which to ensure trust in this process, between the Department, the commission, and the bereaved and survivors.
Although the work on a memorial continues, truth and justice cannot come soon enough. Last week, the Metropolitan police team leading the investigation reassured me that they still expect to hand over files to the Crown Prosecution Service in the autumn, with the CPS expected to make charging decisions in spring 2027. Ministers in the Home Office have told me that the Government’s special grant will continue, to ensure that the investigation team—one of the largest in the history of the Met—will be able to make the timeline work. I ask for the Minister’s support in ensuring that representations are made to the judiciary to begin planning now for what could be extremely complex and interlocking criminal trials. A further delay for many years due to the Crown court backlog would add insult to injury for the bereaved families and survivors. The victims have waited almost nine years, and they deserve justice to come as swiftly as possible following any charging decisions.
While we await criminal justice, accountability should hit the culpable companies where it hurts them: their bottom line. I ask every procurement officer around the country to think twice before using any of the companies cited in the inquiry report. New powers under the Procurement Act 2023 give more scope for discretionary exclusion provisions. It is shocking that at least two contracts currently exist between NHS trusts and Rydon, and I urge all public bodies to do a full audit of their contracts, including those with subcontractors and supply chains, and to make sure that those companies are not included. It is good news that, through the Procurement Act, the Government have introduced new powers to exclude companies on grounds such as professional misconduct, and I hope that procurement officers will start using them.
Beyond truth and justice, and beyond a physical memorial, many people affected by Grenfell tell me that they want to see lasting systemic change. Can any one of us here tonight truly say that, approaching nine years after the fire, the pace and depth of change in this country have been sufficient? In a statement to this House on 22 June 2017, the then Prime Minister said that
“long after the TV cameras have gone and the world has moved on, let the legacy of this awful tragedy be that we resolve never to forget these people and instead to gear our policies and our thinking towards making their lives better and bringing them into the political process.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 169.]
I agree with those words from Baroness May.
On 4 September 2024, the current Prime Minister said:
“In the memory of Grenfell, we will change our country; not just a change in policy and regulation, although that must of course take place, but a profound shift in culture and behaviour, a rebalancing of power that gives voice and respect to every citizen, whoever they are and wherever they live.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 314.]
I agree with the Prime Minister, too. The question is how we meet those goals to ensure that reality matches the rhetoric. I thank the Secretary of State, the Minister for Building Safety and their predecessors—my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), who is on the Front Bench—for their cross-Government work to push for change.
On 25 February, we had the first annual report from the Government on progress on implementing the inquiry’s recommendations, and I welcome the progress on construction product regulation, on evacuation plans for disabled residents, on improving the functioning of the Building Safety Regulator, and on streamlining ministerial accountability. I was really pleased to hear the Secretary of State confirm that he is supportive of the idea of having a national oversight mechanism to ensure that lessons from inquests and inquiries are properly accounted for. It remains a tragic truth that if the preventing future deaths report on the Lakanal House fire in 2009 had been acted on by the then Government and the London fire brigade, Grenfell could have been prevented. Instead, recommendations sat on a shelf and an opportunity to save lives was missed. I hope that we can soon get clarity on how that mechanism can be set up.
For me, it is not about diminishing the Government’s right to accept or reject recommendations, or outsourcing accountability from Parliament to an external body. Instead, it is about ensuring that our inquiry and inquest landscape works as intended, and that we are not wasting time and money and retraumatising victims through exercises that do not lead to meaningful change. I hope the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—will herald a much-needed shift in the state’s openness and accountability when tragedies happen, and it will be all the stronger if a national oversight mechanism sits alongside it.
The London fire brigade has made important progress in learning the lessons of Grenfell, although the risk in high-rise buildings remains, as we have seen in London and around the world in recent months. I thank those officers who continue to put themselves in harm’s way to save lives. Beyond the scope of the inquiry’s recommendations, one element of Grenfell’s legacy of permanent change and a memorial for this country is the hugely significant Awaab’s law, which is now in place. It means that emergency repairs will be investigated and actioned within 24 hours, with a statutory timeframe for hazards that risk harm. I also welcome the steps to professionalise social housing management, but there is still more to do.
The pace of remediation has been too slow. Whereas other countries have completed their work, we still have close to 2,000 buildings above 11 metres where work has not begun. I welcome the target of making sure that has happened by the end of this Parliament, because the cladding scandal has trapped people in unsafe buildings for years. They are unable to sell their properties or to move their families, and are taking on more and more debt from interim fire safety measures, with developers either no longer around or unwilling to take responsibility. If the Government plan to introduce stronger requirements to get this issue sorted, they will certainly have my support.
Can we really say that, almost nine years on, social tenants have the power, agency and respect that they are entitled to? Certainly not from my casework in Kensington and Bayswater, and I expect that many Members from across the House have had a similar experience. I believe that a stronger tenant voice at a national level would help provide input into policymaking, alongside the bodies representing councils and housing associations, the regulator and the ombudsman.
That change needs to happen at a local level, too. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has repeatedly pledged to change the culture of how it engages with residents, yet last September the independent regulator found that the council’s housing department is “seriously failing”, and it has been given a C3 rating because far too many homes are not of a decent standard. Just think about that for a moment: a council that is culpable for a disastrous refurbishment in which residents were ignored, resulting in 72 deaths, is unable to meet basic standards of decency for our residents nine years later. That is not what culture change looks like in practice.
The residents on the Lancaster West estate, which surrounds Grenfell, tell a similar story. They were promised a model 21st-century housing estate in the aftermath of the fire. Progress has been made but, again, it has been too slow. They will welcome the memorial—I am sure they all want a fitting tribute—but as we pass this Bill tonight, they will ask: if the money can be found for a memorial, can it not also be found to ensure that their lives are not disrupted for years to come? RBKC has had questions to answer on this project, and residents and the Government have rightly demanded answers. Any request for additional money must be accompanied by proper oversight and accountability of RBKC and of the Lancaster West project. I am glad that council officers have confirmed that they welcome this approach, and I hope the Minister can reassure me that a solution will be found, so that residents are not left in the lurch. I thank Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care, and in the Department for Education, for their additional funding, which has enabled bespoke Grenfell services to continue. They are sorely needed.
I welcome this Bill. A fitting memorial is essential, but justice will not be served until the individuals and companies responsible for the fire and for the deaths of 72 men, women and children have their day in court. As we approach the ninth anniversary, the police investigation is still ongoing, companies implicated in the fire still have their hands on public money, hundreds of thousands of people are living in unsafe homes, and thousands of my constituents are still being let down by inadequate housing services. We need to see charges, we need to see accountability and we need to see further systemic change—not just for the bereaved survivors and for the community around the tower, but to make sure that a disaster like this never happens in our country again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the 72 people who tragically lost their lives in the disaster nearly nine years ago. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, and we support it. Nearly nine years since the fire, families and communities have waited long enough for a proper legal and financial footing to be provided for a permanent memorial to the 72 people who lost their lives.
As a chartered architect and a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects, I began the new professional training and development that the Grenfell report now rightly requires of all architects. Tragically, previous fires had exposed the problems of highly flammable cladding, which shows that the risks were known. There were opportunities to act and attempts were made to act, yet 72 people lost their lives. The social homes at Grenfell were provided to serve the interests of diverse and often low-income residents, but they were refurbished —in part, to improve outward appearances—in ways that militated dangerously against those people’s interests. That context is worth stating, because it speaks to a pattern of big institutions and corporations not seeing or valuing the people they are supposed to serve.
On the question of justice, we need to be direct in pointing out that the Metropolitan police have said this week that prosecutions are not expected before 2027—10 years after the fire. All of us in this House must ensure that justice is done. That is one reason why the Liberal Democrats have called from these Benches for a new office of the whistleblower to create legal protections and promote greater public awareness of people’s rights. It is also why we have consistently supported the Government’s Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which will place a statutory duty of candour on public authorities and ensure equal legal representation for bereaved families. We are glad that the Government have committed to that legislation, and we will work on it—and on this Bill—with parties across the House so that its protections are delivered.
On cladding and fire safety, there has been genuine progress since 2017, and the Government deserve credit for accepting all 58 recommendations of the inquiry, but thousands of people are still living in buildings with unsafe cladding. Remediation is taking far too long, and that needs to change.
I would like to raise three key points before I conclude. First, will the Minister say something about the Grenfell projects fund, which has provided substantial support to the community since the fire? If it is being wound up, the Government should set out clearly what is going to replace it.
Secondly, now that the tower has begun to come down—and I completely understand why people have different views about and reactions to that—I welcome the Government’s announcement last week about saving elements of the structure, and support them in leaving any decision about how they may be retained for consultation with the Grenfell community.
Finally, we must all be vigilant in ensuring that all the recommendations are followed through, that the community is fully consulted on the memorial, and that the voices of those who raised concerns before the fire are—tragically, unlike those of the victims—at last properly heard and their concerns acted on. We owe it to the community to ensure that the commitments made to it since 2017 are kept, that buildings across the country are made safe and that the systems that failed are genuinely reformed. The voices that were not heard need to be heard and remembered into the future. Across this House, we should do what one reflection on the Grenfell memorial wall urges us all to do, which is to ensure that they not only rest in peace, but “rest in power”.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Grenfell Tower fire was a momentous as well as a tragic event. It fundamentally changed the way we look at fire safety, social housing and the emergency services. Most of all, it changed the lives of many people—not just those who lost their lives or were injured and traumatised, but their family, their community and people across a much wider swathe of west London. Indeed, there were ramifications across the whole country and beyond.
I pay tribute to all the Front Benchers for supporting this Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for showing his usual sober but committed attitude towards his constituents and to ensuring that the wrongs of Grenfell are righted. Nine years on, and there is still no justice for the Grenfell families, but that reckoning must come. My constituency neighbours Kensington, where Grenfell is located, and many of my constituents live in high-rise blocks only a few moments’ walk from Grenfell Tower.
I am conscious of the fact that so much more needs to be done on fire safety. The all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue has done a very good job in keeping this issue alive, but it is quite clear from what we saw only a few days ago in Glasgow that the danger from fire is great. New risks also appear: Grenfell was an electrical fire, like many fires are, but we increasingly have the danger of lithium batteries—explosive devices that anyone can take into their own home, but which can wreak havoc.
This debate is specifically about the memorial, so let me say a few words about that. It should obviously be the memorial committee, the survivors and the community who determine exactly what form the memorial takes. However, I want to take up one of the points made by my hon. Friend, which is that we must not allow people to forget what happened at Grenfell. Yes, I think we all appreciate that the tower had to come down, but over the last nine years, anybody who lives in that part of London, who travels past it on the tube or who drives past it will have been very much aware of its symbolism and the reality of it, with the green heart on the side of the building. It is slowly shrinking and disappearing, but we must not allow the memory of Grenfell to shrink or disappear.
I note that the height of Grenfell Tower is almost identical to the height of the Monument that was built to commemorate the great fire of London. More than 350 years on, that is still not just a very visible symbol, but a reminder of the resilience of the city, as well as something that commemorates those who lost their lives. I would like to think that, even as the years and centuries go past, we will not forget the people who died in Grenfell—and died needlessly in that way. Those of us who from time to time join the silent walks that regularly take place will know that the community will not forget, but it is important that none of us forgets. The reason for that is that memorials are more than just tributes and monuments in themselves; they are about ensuring that justice takes place, but also that we do not repeat any of these disasters.
The Secretary of State said recently that 70% of the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry will be implemented by the end of this year and that all will be by the end of this Parliament, and that over 90% of public buildings with dangerous cladding have had it removed. Clearly, there is some way to go, even if that represents substantial progress, but it is absolutely vital—I again draw attention to what a couple of Members have said about public inquiries, coroners’ reports and prevention of future deaths reports—to ensure that the lessons are learned and implemented.
The call has gone up around the Hillsborough Bill and more generally for a national oversight mechanism. There is already a register of prevention of future deaths reports, but there is nothing to ensure that those recommendations are implemented. There are also gaps in the system when the coroners courts—frankly, I do not believe they are fit for purpose in the 21st century—do not follow through. There is a certain randomness to when a prevention of future deaths report is ordered, and to how it is monitored. The consequence is that events such as Grenfell happen because events such as Lakanal were not paid attention to and heeded. That is an extraordinary indictment of all of us here, because we pass the laws that regulate how those processes work.
Yes, we need to look at escape and emergency, and yes, we need to look at design and construction projects, at construction itself and at regulation—there are many lessons to be learned—but we have to stop treating social housing and social housing tenants as second class, and we have to ensure that all the lessons of Grenfell are learned. I believe that that will happen only if—on the back of this Bill, the Hillsborough Bill and the growing calls for a national oversight mechanism—we ensure that we follow through on the recommendations of all public inquiries. We think carefully about whether to set them up and spend millions on them, but when it comes to ensuring that the outcomes are followed through, we are found wanting. If that can be the lesson of Grenfell, we can all feel that something has been achieved out of the tragedy, but most importantly, that we are stopping such tragic and terrible events happening again.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I associate myself with all the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter). It is an honour to follow them. This is not an issue on which there will be any contention at all between me and the Secretary of State, who I know cares deeply about this matter and who, like all of us in the House today, wants to see a swift and just resolution.
Today, we debate a Bill that touches on one of the deepest wounds in our national conscience. The fire at Grenfell Tower in June 2017 which claimed 72 lives was nothing short of tragic. They were men, women and children who today should still be with their families—those empty spaces at tables, memories that will never be made and lives that were taken too soon. Almost nine years later, the hurt and pain of that night remains raw. As my hon. Friends have said, the rest of the world has continued turning, but for many people they are merely existing, not living, due to the loss they experienced that night. What happened that evening in Grenfell was not simply a tragedy. It was a catastrophe that was, sadly, entirely avoidable, with lives taken too soon due to foreseen circumstances, failures of regulation, failures of safety and failures of responsibility.
To the families and survivors watching this debate, either here in the House or on television, I want to say clearly that we all stand with you. In the years since the fire, through their pain and their grief, they have fought for changes in the law, campaigned for accountability and demanded action. Anyone who has lived through grief knows that sometimes putting one foot in front of the other on the best of days is hard enough, let alone campaigning for justice to prevent this ever happening to anyone again. That fight is not over yet, but I want each of the family members to know that their work so far to ensure that this can never be allowed to happen again has unequivocally saved lives.
The Grenfell Tower inquiry laid bare the scale of systemic failures that led to the fire. Warnings were disregarded and residents’ concerns about fire safety fell on deaf ears. It is really important to underscore that the structural inequalities in Grenfell are stark. Of the residents who died in the fire, 85% were from ethnic minority backgrounds—85%. The area surrounding the tower is home to some of the most expensive homes in Britain, yet Grenfell Tower was neglected. Its residents were marginalised, ignored and treated as an afterthought. We cannot and must never allow those disparities to be ignored, because they sowed the seeds of this disaster.
The lessons of Grenfell must not simply be documented in reports and recommendations, only to be forgotten; they must be acted on. The words we utter today, the thoughts and feelings and the value of everything we have learned, and the people who we have held in our communities through all this over the past nine years, cannot be in vain. The families of the deceased have waited for too long as accountability has been kicked down the road. Those responsible for the decisions and failures must be held to account—they must. Justice delayed is painful, but justice denied would be absolutely unforgivable.
The Bill before us today is simply about remembrance, dignity and respect. Grenfell Tower should serve as a place where those who are lost are never, ever forgotten, but it is essential that the memorial reflects the wishes of those most affected: those who have lost loved ones, those who survived the fire, and the community who live in its shadow. They must be at the very heart of the decisions on the future of Grenfell.
If I may, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Denis Murphy, who lived on the 14th floor of Grenfell Tower and who has family in my constituency of Tooting. Denis was one of the 72 lives lost that evening in 2017. I remember speaking to his son and sister in the days after—the unimaginable pain they went through, listening to Denis on the phone as the fire spread. Denis was categorically true to himself, trying to calm his neighbours and children, even though he knew his final moments were imminent. I still remember afterwards how many parts of the system worked so well to support Denis’s family, but I also remember how the system added to their pain. The Department for Work and Pensions demanded benefit repayments from the family, and so quickly afterwards; they had not even held the funeral. Finally, I remember Denis’s funeral, packed to the rafters: an entire community grieving, but giving a great man an emotional yet beautiful send-off.
The pain that Denis’s family went through—the horrors of that night, replicated another 71 times—must absolutely never be forgotten. We cannot stop until, quite frankly, those responsible are jailed for their actions. We owe it to the families and to everyone who lost their lives that fateful night. Grenfell must remain a turning point for this country. A permanent memorial will stand as a reminder of the lives lost, but it must also stand as a reminder to learn the lessons of Grenfell and as a reminder of the demands for justice. The 72 people who lost their lives that night and their families deserve nothing less.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The creation of a permanent memorial to the people who lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire is deeply important and necessary, and I welcome the Bill before the House today. It is right that Parliament ensures there is a lasting place of remembrance for the victims, the bereaved families, the heroic firefighters and emergency services, and the community whose lives were changed forever on that night.
Grenfell was an avoidable tragedy. It was the result of political choices made over many years—choices to weaken building safety regulations and to erode proper inspection and oversight—and a system and culture that allowed cost-cutting to take precedence over the safety of human life. It was a national scandal caused by institutional failings at the highest level. The result was an apartment building covered in flammable materials, allowing the fire to spread rapidly, reflecting with utter shame the decisions that were made, which resulted in the death of 72 people.
At its heart, Grenfell exposed the dangers of a deregulatory approach to the economy. When safeguards are stripped back in the name of efficiency or profit, it is too often working-class communities who pay the price. Residents of the Grenfell Tower block had raised concerns about safety for years, as had the fire service. They warned about the risks and about the conditions in which they were living, yet those warnings were repeatedly overlooked.
In the same year of the fire, I attended an international workers’ conference in Madrid. One session focused on health and safety, looking in particular at disasters in places where factories had collapsed or fires spread because safety standards had been neglected—places in the global south. When I mentioned Grenfell, delegates from Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Bangladesh and elsewhere already knew about it. They were shocked and horrified that something like this could happen in the United Kingdom—one of the richest countries in the world—and asked how on earth it could have happened.
That is why this memorial really matters. It must honour those who died, support the bereaved families, and recognise the deep and lasting impact on the community. I welcome the fact that the community will be involved in all stages of its design. It should also stand as a reminder of the dark and deadly side of capitalism, and serve as a lesson about the catastrophic consequences of neglecting safety regulations and ignoring the warnings of the people whose homes and lives were at risk.
The victims have waited long enough for justice. Those responsible must be held to account and must, where necessary, be prosecuted. Remembering Grenfell must mean more than remembrance alone; it should force us to act quicker to ensure that everyone has a decent and safe home, and that tragedies like Grenfell can never happen again.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for opening this debate and for his commitment to remember the 72 victims of this terrible tragedy and their families. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for his incredibly passionate speech and for his leadership in representing the communities who have been affected so dreadfully by this absolutely terrible tragedy.
It is hard to believe that this took place nearly nine years ago. Whereas I was at home and then in my place of work, watching from afar as these terrible events occurred, my constituent Rod Wainwright, who I have had the honour of mentioning in this place a number of times, was on the frontline. Despite not being on duty, he was called in at 1 am and spent 15 hours on the scene under near-impossible conditions without being relieved. Rod still blames himself for not saving more people on that terrible night, but I echo earlier comments that it is faceless people in suits who are to blame for this terrible tragedy, not heroes like Rod Wainwright.
When fire crews from across Essex recently came together in Harlow to tackle a blaze in an industrial unit where temperatures rose to 1,700°C, it made me recognise the incredibly difficult job that our firefighters do. I want to put on the record my thanks to the firefighters who dealt with that issue so speedily and ensured that no injuries happened.
Seventy-two people lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and so many others, like Rod, had their life irreversibly changed. Members across this House may well question the time it has taken for the recommendations of the inquiry to be acted on, and the challenges local authorities and local fire services face. As the Secretary of State will be aware, Harlow has a number of high-rise buildings. There are also challenges caused by permitted development rights. I have written to the Minister about some of the safety challenges.
No one can deny that this tragedy should, could and must be a seminal moment not only for building safety, but in how we think about and treat everybody in our community. I welcome this Government’s commitment to a lasting memorial, and I recognise the huge importance of the memorial being led by the community who have been so terribly affected and so terribly let down by this tragedy. I absolutely welcome the cross-party consensus on ensuring that we get this right. I hope that it will be a fitting tribute to the 72 people who lost their lives, to their families and to the people like Rod, whose lives were irreversibly scarred just because they stepped up to help and answered the call.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
The fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017 was a catastrophe that exposed systematic failures in regulation, in oversight and in the value placed on the lives of people in social housing. Seventy-two people died and hundreds more lost their homes, community and sense of safety. Families are still living with that loss every single day. Tragically, nothing we can do in this place can bring back those 54 adults and 18 children. As the Secretary of State noted in his speech, there is still so much to do to find truth and justice, and to ensure that it never happens again. We owe it to the families, the bereaved, the survivors and those who fought so hard for justice to ensure that what happened on that dreadful night is never, ever forgotten, and that those responsible are held to account.
This Bill is about the memorial and the foundation that will properly fund the community-led work on this memorial. Its narrowness ensures that it is the community who will choose the best way to do this. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for his words, his work and his leadership for truth and justice. I associate myself with his statement that we cannot stop until we have accountability, justice and action for change.
I represent Portsmouth North, a constituency in a working-class city that knows about close-knit communities, resilience in the face of loss and the importance of remembrance. When I was a teacher, before I came to this House, I spent years helping young people to understand not just what happened in the past, but why it matters that we remember. The archive, exhibition and memorial site will serve that purpose for generations to come. We must be able to look at what happened at Grenfell and understand why the safety of every person in every home in every tower block matters. That is a responsibility that falls on all of us.
I pay tribute to the survivors, the bereaved families and the community groups who have campaigned with such dignity, determination and immense courage. They asked only to be safe in their homes, and they were let down horrifically by a chain of failures across government, regulators and industry.
We should be clear about one of the lessons—and, indeed, the title—that comes out of the work of journalist Peter Apps. In his brilliant book, Apps noted how, for years before the fire, experts, campaigners and residents raised warnings about dangerous materials and weak fire safety rules in high-rise buildings. Yet in the atmosphere of deregulation, with the political drive to cut red tape, these warnings, and indeed these people, were repeatedly delayed, dismissed and ignored. Apps shockingly recounts how, when pressure was put on officials to strengthen fire safety guidance, one response was chilling in its bluntness: “Show me the bodies”. The unimaginable tragedy of Grenfell is that the bodies did come.
Seventy-two lives were lost in a disaster that was not inevitable, but the result of choices made over many years to weaken oversight and treat safety regulations as a burden rather than a protection. Cutting red tape may have an attractive ring as a political soundbite, but red tape can also be the crucial regulation that keeps us safe in our homes, our cars, our workplaces and our public realm. With that tragic lesson at the front of our minds, it is right that our attention turns to a memorial. The least we can do is to stand with the Grenfell survivors and campaigners, support their vision and together pass this legislation without delay, so that we remember them not only today and in debates in this place, but into the future.
Gareth Bacon
I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their work today to shepherd this important Bill through Second Reading. I also want to thank all hon. Members, who contributed thoughtful comments and points, as we strive to work across the House to see this memorial realised. I thank the hon. Members for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin).
As outlined earlier on, it is of great importance that the largest loss of life in a residential fire since the second world war is remembered with a fitting and lasting memorial. Built in a peaceful and appropriate way, according to the wishes of the survivors and the wider Grenfell community, the memorial will go some way towards helping the nation to remember the 72 people who lost their lives. But it is first and foremost a space for the Grenfell community. The avoidable national tragedy that was the Grenfell Tower fire must also be an unavoidable memory in this place. It is important that policymakers keep in mind the duty that we have to protect British citizens from failure, negligence and unsafe practices.
As has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, we must not forget to remind ourselves of the raw emotion that comes with the creation of this memorial space. Since the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), understandably announced the decision to dismantle Grenfell Tower just over a year ago in February 2025, we have heard of the distress that this news brought to some members of the Grenfell community. It is vital that, as the Government move closer to fully dismantling the Grenfell site, they continue to engage with the bereaved and all those affected to ensure that their voices are not just present but listened to and that their concerns, memories and experiences are understood.
I have also raised the importance of this funding being protected. It is imperative that as the process to build and maintain the Grenfell Tower fire memorial progresses, the funding that has been promised and the means by which it can be preserved is also safeguarded. While our greatest duty is to build on the lessons of the failures that led to the catastrophic fires, it is also our sincere duty to uphold the promises made to the whole Grenfell community since that night. For that reason, as I mentioned earlier, the Conservative party will not seek to divide the House. If a Division is required, although that seems unlikely, we will vote to pass the Bill into law to ensure that the memorial is built.
This memorial is not part of the technical and regulatory changes that had to come as a result of the fire, such as the Building Safety Act 2022, the cladding safety scheme and all the effort undertaken by the Government with specific regard to the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s findings. It is not possible, of course, to put right the disastrous wrong that occurred on 14 June 2017, but the memorial can help to appropriately commemorate it. We will, therefore, support the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I begin by thanking right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for the way in which they have approached today’s debate. The care and seriousness with which Members have spoken reflects the weight of Grenfell’s legacy—for bereaved families, for survivors, for the local community, and for the country as a whole. Whatever our political differences, today’s debate has shown a shared understanding that this Bill is about the lasting impact of Grenfell on the national conscience. It is about doing what is right and keeping faith with those most affected by the tragedy. It is about the collective promise we made as parliamentarians that Grenfell would be remembered with dignity, truth and permanence.
Before I turn to the points raised in the debate, I want to restate what this Bill does. It is a simple Bill with a simple purpose. It gives Parliament’s authority for the spending needed on the Grenfell Tower memorial so that it can be built, cared for and sustained over the long term. It also approves the spending on another site where elements of the tower are laid to rest and preserved, and where there is an archive and exhibition.
The Bill does not set the design or location of the memorial, nor its governance or how it is run, because this Bill is not about taking control. It is about supporting the community-led work that is already under way and ensuring that it has the financial backing that it needs. At this point, I thank the members of the community who are watching this evening and the co-chair of the memorial commission for attending in the Gallery. The Bill helps to ensure that Grenfell is not forgotten and continues to support this Government’s wide-ranging programme of reform.
Members from across the House have raised different issues about the memorial itself, the legacy for the future in terms of legislation, remediation, long-term maintenance and the police investigation. I pay tribute to everyone who has contributed today. I welcome the constructive approach of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), and I agree with him that the victims are at the heart of this legislation. I can reassure him, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), that we continue to work with the local authority, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, as it completes the refurbishment works and delivers for residents. We must walk alongside that community, and we will continue to do so. We must never lose sight of the people at the centre of this tragedy.
I welcome the question from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) about the Grenfell projects fund, which I assure him does not relate to the funding for the memorial; as he will know, that fund is administered by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I ask him to contact the council to confirm its ongoing support for the memorial.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) pointed out, we will never forget, and we should never forget. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) spoke most eloquently about how we should remember. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) reminded us that this is about the whole of the country, communities across our country and how we respond to them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) pointed out, we also remember those who served on that day and the legacy that it has left with them.
I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for recognising the work done by the journalist Peter Apps in respect of this community. He is well regarded and well respected. If any hon. Members have not read the book to which she referred, I strongly recommend that they do so.
Grenfell was a devastating tragedy. As hon. Members have observed, its impact has been international as well as national, and it has had lasting consequences for everyone who has been directly affected. The tragedy exposed serious failures and left searching questions that the state continues to answer. The responsibility to remember Grenfell, and to do so properly, rests with all of us.
As right hon. and hon. Members have said, the Bill does not address every issue to arise since that terrible night of 14 June 2017; nor does it intend to. There is still a great deal of work to do elsewhere on justice, accountability, reform and making homes safe. I remain committed to that work and to acting on the Grenfell inquiry recommendations so that they lead to lasting change.
The Bill instead has a different, more focused role. It supports the community in creating a memorial—a place of remembrance—by ensuring that it can be properly funded, with Parliament’s consent. I am grateful to hon. Members from all parties who have spoken in support of the Bill. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Further proceedings on the Bill stood postponed (Order, this day).
Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State on, or in connection with the following activities in England—
(1) the construction of a memorial to commemorate the victims of the fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017;
(2) the preservation, archiving or exhibition of elements of the Tower, material from inside the Tower or other material relating to the fire;
(3) the use, operation, maintenance or improvement of the memorial, archive or exhibition;
(4) the acquisition of, works on, and the use, operation, maintenance or improvement of—
(a) land for the purposes of paragraph (1) or (2);
(b) land where elements of the Tower are, or may be buried. —(Nesil Caliskan.)
Question agreed to.
Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I remind hon. Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Madam Deputy Speaker—please use our names. Madam Chair or Madam Chairman are also acceptable.
Clause 1
Expenditure relating to commemorating the victims of the fire at Grenfell Tower
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
Clause 1 is the core operative provision in the Bill. It provides the Government with the statutory authority required for expenditure on the construction and long-term management of a Grenfell Tower memorial. It also authorises expenditure on preservation, archiving and exhibiting at any site where elements of the Grenfell Tower are laid to rest. It also permits land acquisition in support of those activities where needed, and for work to be done on that land. It ensures that all expenditure for these purposes is properly authorised by Parliament in accordance with established public finance principles.
The clause does not determine the design of the memorial, the planning process, governance or ownership arrangements or decision-making responsibilities. The design remains with the community-led Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission and construction is subject to the statutory planning framework. The clause is tightly focused, allowing the Government to incur expenditure on the activities I have identified to the Committee.
Clause 2 provides the short title of the Act. The short title will be the Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Act 2026. I commend these clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 5 and 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6),
Public Procurement
That the draft Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 26 January, be approved.
Electricity
That the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 2 February, be approved.—(Nesil Caliskan.)
Question agreed to.
Asbestos-related Lung Cancer: Compensation Act 2006
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I have called this Adjournment debate on the subject of the Compensation Act 2006 and asbestos-related lung cancer because I wish to bring to the attention of this House an injustice in the way the law treats victims of asbestos-related disease, and to urge the Government to review the operation of section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 to ensure that it supports sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer. A simple change in the law will ensure that all victims of lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos at work are treated equally to those suffering from mesothelioma.
Although asbestos has been banned in the United Kingdom for more than 25 years, its deadly legacy continues. Each year, around 5,000 people in Great Britain die from cancers caused by asbestos exposure at work. It remains the single biggest workplace killer in the country. In my constituency of West Dunbartonshire, this issue is particularly prevalent. My constituency is among Europe’s worst hotspots for deaths linked to a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos at work, with more than 340 deaths since 1980. I have lived in Clydebank all my life and have seen at first hand the devastating effects of asbestos. This issue is deeply personal to the community I represent. For a number of years I have worked closely with the Clydebank Asbestos Group, an organisation that does so much to fight for truth and justice for sufferers of asbestos-related illness.
Towns like Clydebank, Dumbarton and the surrounding villages were built on heavy industry and, above all, the proud tradition of shipbuilding along the River Clyde. Generations of local men and women worked in the great yards, such as John Brown & Company, and in the engineering works, factories and power stations that supported them. Those industries built ships that sailed the world and powered Britain’s economy, but they also exposed thousands of workers to asbestos without adequate protection. They trusted their employers to keep them safe and, in too many cases, that trust was betrayed.
To give a bit of background, the origins of section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 lie in a series of court decisions that exposed a serious problem in the law for victims of mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos. In the case of Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services, the House of Lords recognised the unique position that these victims face. Asbestos diseases can develop decades after exposure, and because it is impossible to identify which particular fibre caused the illness, the court accepted that it should be enough for a claimant to show that an employer had materially increased the risk of the disease. However, a later ruling in Barker v. Corus UK created a new difficulty by deciding that employers should be liable only for their share of the risk. In practice, that meant victims could lose a large part of their compensation if some employers or their insurers could no longer be traced.
Parliament recognised that this outcome was deeply unfair and rightly acted quickly to unanimously pass the Compensation Act 2006, ensuring that people suffering from mesothelioma could recover full compensation from any one negligent employer. Section 3 of the Act therefore created a crucial protection. It allows victims of mesothelioma to recover full compensation from any one negligent employer, even if other former employers or their insurers cannot be traced. That reform was passed with unanimous support because Members recognised that people diagnosed with a terminal asbestos-related cancer should not be forced to pursue complex claims against multiple employers while facing an extremely limited life expectancy.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Does he agree that the whole reasoning of section 3 of the Compensation Act was because of the difficulty in identifying employers who exposed claimants to the particular fibres that caused mesothelioma, and that it is a huge anomaly that the section should apply to mesothelioma cases caused by asbestos but not to cases where people have developed lung cancer due to asbestos? This injustice should be remedied as soon as possible.
Douglas McAllister
My hon. Friend is correct, and I recognise his obvious expertise in this matter. I believe that he practised law, and in particular personal injury law, prior to being elected to this House. I thank him for his intervention and for all he does for his constituents in Wolverhampton West.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr Shannon, were you here at the beginning of the debate? You were 90 seconds late—faster next time.
Jim Shannon
You are very kind, Madam Deputy Speaker—I ran the whole way. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward the debate. Over the years as an elected representative—as a councillor and as an MLA back in Northern Ireland—I had a number of constituents who had unfortunately succumbed to mesothelioma and lung cancer as a result of working in the Harland & Wolff shipyard over the years. The illnesses took 10 or 20 years to catch up with them. Perhaps the Minister could look towards Northern Ireland and what has happened there—as ever, I am trying to be helpful. Northern Ireland has its own set of guidelines, called the green book, for assessing damages. General damage for lung cancer and mesothelioma in Northern Ireland is typically estimated at between £125,000 and £250,000. While symptoms from negligent causes are similar, the distinction between the treatments remains in place. Does he agree, as I think he does, that the loophole must be closed once and for all? Perhaps we can start that tonight by the Minister doing that very thing. Thank you for letting me in, Madam Deputy Speaker —you are very kind.
Madam Deputy Speaker
It would not be an Adjournment debate without Mr Jim Shannon, would it?
Douglas McAllister
The hon. Member is correct to recognise that point. This issue cuts across all nations in the United Kingdom, not least Northern Ireland, with its rich and proud shipbuilding past. I thank him for his considered intervention.
The difficulty is that the principle relating to mesothelioma does not apply to sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer, despite the fact that the diseases are strikingly similar. Both are caused by asbestos exposure and have incredibly similar symptoms, to the extent that medical professionals struggle to differentiate the two. Both are devastating and often fatal—in fact, around 60% of people diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer die within a year, which is a higher proportion than those diagnosed with mesothelioma—yet the law treats the victims of the two diseases very differently when it comes to compensation.
That difference is not based on medical evidence or moral principle; it exists simply because asbestos-related lung cancer cases were not considered when the legislation was introduced in 2006. Does the Minister agree that this situation is irrational and unfair? I emphasise that this debate is not to do with the legality of proving whether the cancer is asbestos related or not; it relates specifically to cases where the patient has been formally diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer.
For people with asbestos-related lung cancer, the current legal framework creates a significant and deeply unfair obstacle. In many cases, individuals were exposed to asbestos by multiple employers over the course of their working life. Under the current legal framework, compensation must be apportioned between the different employers responsible according to the extent to which each contributed to the risk of the disease. Victims must therefore bring claims against every employer responsible in order to recover full compensation.
Of course, the problem is that these illnesses often develop 30 or 40 years after exposure. By that point, many employers no longer exist. Companies have closed, industries have declined, and insurance records have been lost or destroyed. As a result, victims are frequently unable to trace every employer who exposed them to asbestos, or their insurer. When that happens, they are able to recover only the proportion of compensation attributable to the employers that can be traced. That means that people suffering from a terminal disease can lose substantial amounts of compensation simply because some negligent employers have disappeared over time.
That double standard of sorts has had profound consequences. In numerous cases, victims have lost tens of thousands of pounds in compensation because former employers could not be traced. The shortfall in compensation payments can be seen clearly. In one case in England and Wales, compensation that should have amounted to £112,000 was reduced by more than £76,000. In another case, a victim lost almost 70% of the compensation that would otherwise have been awarded. Across 33 documented cases concluded over the past seven years, the total compensation lost in this way amounts to less than £900,000, so this is not a vast sum in the context of the wider compensation system, but for the families involved it would make the world of difference to their quality of life at a time of immense hardship.
One case that illustrates the human impact particularly clearly is that of James Leo Heneghan. Mr Heneghan was born in 1938 and spent much of his working life exposed to asbestos dust. He died from lung cancer in 2013. After his death, his son, Carl Heneghan, pursued a claim for compensation on behalf of the family. Six of Mr Heneghan’s former employers were successfully traced and admitted liability for exposing him to asbestos. However, several other employers who had also exposed him to asbestos could not be found, and neither could their insurers. As a result, although the full value of the claim was £175,000, the family received just £61,100. Nearly two thirds of the compensation was effectively lost. Had Mr Heneghan been diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer strikingly similar to asbestos-related lung cancer, his family would have received full compensation. The disease did not affect Mr Heneghan any less severely because some employers could not be traced. The suffering endured by his family could have been eased, but because of the specific terms set out in section 3 of the 2006 Act, their rightful compensation was slashed.
The solution to this problem is simple and not unprecedented. Parliament has already established the appropriate legislative model. Extending the principle contained in section 3 of the Act to asbestos-related lung cancer would allow victims to recover full compensation from any one negligent employer or insurer. The responsibility would then fall on that employer or insurer to pursue contributions from other responsible parties. This approach ensures that compensation is delivered quickly and in full to the person who needs it most, while still allowing the costs to be shared appropriately among those responsible.
It is important to emphasise that the scale of this reform would be modest. Specialist practitioners estimate that fewer than 100 asbestos-related lung cancer claims are brought each year, and only a portion of those would involve missing employers. The number of people affected is therefore relatively small, but for those individuals and their families the consequences would be great.
Beyond giving compensation to those who rightly deserve it, this small change to the Act would have wider benefits beyond the individual claimants. Patients with asbestos-related lung cancer often need a lot of care and support. With adequate compensation, they can afford additional care, specialist equipment, or medical treatments that may not be immediately available through the NHS. This gives patients the dignity and choice they deserve and eases the pressure on already stretched public services. Making sure negligent employers and insurers pay the full compensation would also prevent the burden from falling on the state through the benefits system. Taxpayers should not have to shoulder the financial consequences of workplace negligence.
The Compensation Act 2006 was a great piece of legislation brought in under the previous Labour Government. It just contains an unintentional oversight, and one that is easily rectified. Parliament did not deliberately choose to treat victims differently; asbestos-related lung cancer was simply not considered when the law was changed in response to legal developments concerning mesothelioma. There is a gap in the legislation. Closing that gap would not require a fundamental overhaul of the law; it would simply involve extending an existing and widely supported principle to a closely related group of victims.
It is a simple solution, and it comes down to fairness. There is absolutely no justification for treating sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer any differently from sufferers of mesothelioma. When compensation cannot be recovered from some employers because they have disappeared, who should bear the financial burden? At the moment, that burden falls on the victim suffering asbestos-related lung cancer. The law should allow those people to recover full compensation from any one employer who is responsible. That employer can then seek a contribution to the damages awarded from other responsible employers or insurers.
In my frequent meetings with the Clydebank Asbestos Group, I have heard personal stories about how this has affected people in my community and across the UK. It is outrageous that victims and their families are not being given the support, dignity and rightful compensation they deserve. The time for sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer to receive the same recognition as those with mesothelioma is long overdue.
It is incredibly significant and appropriate that we debate this today because 2026 marks 20 years since the last Labour Government introduced the Compensation Act. That is 20 years of sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer not getting the compensation they rightly deserve, and it is time to make that change. Will the Minister agree to meet me and to work with me and the relevant organisations involved with this issue to review the Compensation Act 2006 and discuss how we can make the necessary improvements by way of amendment, so that people suffering from asbestos-related lung cancer and their families can finally access the full and fair compensation that they deserve?
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) for securing this debate. We have all been treated to a fine and thoughtful speech. He is without doubt a tireless advocate for his constituency—for Clydebank, Dumbarton, and the communities ravaged by the diseases that he has described. I extend my sympathies to all those who have suffered with asbestos-related diseases, made sick by their places of work and the conditions in which they should have been kept safe.
This is no doubt an incredibly important issue, which involves a complicated area of law where the common law and legislation have developed a complex and nuanced set of rules. I will set out the general position on causation and liability in negligence claims. The usual test for causation in negligence cases is the “but for” test—that is, whether the claimant’s harm would have happened but for the defendant’s breach in the duty of care owed to the claimant. If the claimant proves on the balance of probabilities that it would not have occurred without the breach, causation is established. Causation in industrial injury litigation that involves exposure to asbestos can be particularly complex, given that normally the claimant’s condition will have been caused by prolonged exposure to asbestos, involving many incidents and several different employers.
When determining liability and compensation, the courts draw a distinction between divisible and indivisible injuries. In England and Wales, liability and compensation for divisible industrial diseases, which is where the condition worsens with long-term exposure, is apportioned between previous employers, with each defendant liable only for the period of negligent exposure they caused. In the context of industrial injuries, indivisible diseases are conditions where the harm is treated as a single whole injury, because it cannot be medically or causally divided between different workplace exposures. It is usually impossible to know which specific exposure caused the injury. Under the normal rules, that would mean an employee who worked at different companies would likely fail in any legal claim because they cannot prove which employer caused them harm. Mesothelioma, for example, is treated as an indivisible disease.
As my hon. Friend eloquently set out, there have been a number of legal developments in recent years regarding liability and compensation for mesothelioma. In Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd, the House of Lords created a special rule for cases such as mesothelioma, where a claimant has been negligently exposed to asbestos by multiple employers but cannot prove which exposure caused the disease. In such cases, if an employer negligently exposed a worker to asbestos and thereby materially increased the risk of mesothelioma, they can be held liable even if the claimant cannot prove that that employer’s exposure actually caused the cancer. In short, the “materially increased risk” test replaced the “but for” test.
However, in Barker v. Corus, the House of Lords accepted that the Fairchild exception—that is, the materially increased risk test—still applied, but it also addressed the consequences of that liability. The court held that defendants were not jointly and severally liable, as had previously been understood, but instead liable only on a proportionate basis, reflecting their respective contributions to the overall risk.
In response, Parliament acted with cross-party consensus to enact the Compensation Act 2006, which reversed the effect of Barker v. Corus for mesothelioma claims. Section 3 of the Act reinstated the principle that victims could claim full compensation from any liable party, who can then seek contributions from others responsible for the exposure. That is vital in mesothelioma cases specifically, as it is not possible to establish which workplace fibres triggered the process of carcinogenesis. Equally, there is no action an individual can take that increases or decreases their chances of developing the disease. At the time of passing the 2006 Act, the broad political consensus was that due to the unique pathology of mesothelioma, the Barker ruling had to be reversed. Otherwise, there was a real risk of claimants being unable to seek the compensation that they deserved. As such, it was decided that as a unique disease, mesothelioma required a distinct legal remedy.
However, as we have heard, in terms of the life-changing effects and ill health that asbestos-related lung cancer can bring, in reality, the situation for many sufferers is little different for other non-mesothelioma claims, and the Barker ruling still applies to them. That was affirmed in Heneghan v. Manchester Dry Docks Ltd, in which it was held that the materially increased risk test of Fairchild applies to those claims, while the joint and severally liable principle introduced by section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 is limited to claims relating to mesothelioma. Broadly, the courts accept that the materially increased risk test is proven for those claims if medical evidence shows that the asbestos exposure more than doubled the relative risk.
This area of law is a mix of devolved and reserved matters. The Scottish Parliament agreed via a legislative consent motion to UK-wide legislation that became section 3 of the Compensation Act. I want to assure my hon. Friend and the House that the UK Government are committed to ensuring that necessary support is available to all individuals suffering from asbestos-related conditions, including asbestos-related lung cancer. Eligible individuals can receive industrial injuries disablement benefit—a weekly no-fault payment for work-related diseases such as asbestos-related lung cancer. The Scottish Government plan to replace the IIDB with employment injury assistance, and work is under way to manage that transition.
Although the UK Government have no immediate plans to review the current legal framework in England and Wales, which has been the subject of much detailed analysis and determination in the senior courts, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the attention that he has put on this issue. He and I have had the chance to speak outside the Chamber about how the law might be developed. I am grateful to him for securing the debate and giving me the opportunity to set out the UK Government’s position on what is, without doubt, a complex and intricate area of law, but one that has a significant impact on the lives of those who suffer from industrial-related diseases. In response to his question—or, dare I say, challenge—I will of course meet him and relevant organisations to discuss how the law might be reviewed to ensure that sufferers and their families can be treated fairly. I think that that is the right and careful approach, and I look forward to working with him.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The Government are delivering long-overdue funding reforms for English local government and introducing improvements to realign funding with need and deprivation as part of the first multi-year settlement in a decade. A key element of the reforms is the reset of the business rates retention system, which is a central component of the local government finance framework. Under the business rates retention system, English councils retain a share of the business rates they collect and benefit when their local business rates income grows. Resetting the system realigns funding with need while maintaining the incentive for authorities to promote growth.
In parallel with reforms that reset how business rates are used for funding, the Government are also reforming business rates tax policy. As a result, technical amendments are required to the framework through which business rates fund local government, in order to mitigate the impact that the changes would otherwise have on local government funding. The business rates retention system is built on straightforward principles, but it necessarily requires complex administrative arrangements that are underpinned by legislation that must be kept up to date as the system changes. The amendment regulations before the Committee provide the updates that are required this year to give practical effect to the reset and wider reforms that are being delivered through the settlement, in addition to the adjustments needed as a result of changes to the tax. Although technical in nature, the purpose of the amendments is clear, as I will now outline.
The instrument changes two sets of regulations: the Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) Regulations 2013 and the Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention) Regulations 2013. The levy and safety net regulations set out how councils are protected from significant reductions in business rates income by the safety net, and how that protection is funded by a levy on business rates growth. The rates retention regulations cover the day-to-day operation of the system and set out the full process for allocating business rates income between billing authorities, major precepting authorities and central Government.
To balance risk and reward over the multi-year settlement, we are introducing changes this year to both the safety net and the levy to ensure an appropriate balance of risk and reward within the business rates retention system against the backdrop of wider reform. We are increasing the safety net from 92.5% of baseline funding levels to 100% for 2026-27. That will provide authorities with improved certainty over their incomes for 2026-27 budgets as they know that they will receive their full baseline funding level—their assessed need to be provided via business rates income—offering stronger protection across the delivery of the reforms.
The Government are introducing a new approach to the levy based on a marginal tax-style system, similar to the structure of income tax, that will apply to all local authorities. The approach balances the reward of business rates growth with the need to fund safety net protections. It will better support growth across the sector by applying a lower levy rate to early growth and a lower top rate than the current 50% levy faced by many authorities.
The regulations also change the classification of grant compensation that local authorities are paid in lieu of business rates that they would otherwise have collected. These amounts will be treated comparably to business rates to streamline local government accounting under the business rates retention system.
The reform programme has established new key values related to the business rates retention system, delivered through the recent settlement. Some of the values are used in safety net and levy calculations, which means we need to ensure that they are adjusted in the regulations to reflect their new values. As such, the instrument specifies new baseline funding levels and adjusted tariff and top-up values for local authorities. For most local authorities, the top-up or tariff figures set out by the settlement are the same values that we use to calculate their eligibility for the safety net or the requirement to pay the levy for a year. In such cases, we simply point to the settlement values.
However, for authorities operating under 100% retention arrangements, we specify alternative top-up or tariff figures for the purposes of the levy and safety net. That ensures that councils operating at the standard 50% retention level do not bear additional costs that might arise in supporting authorities with 100% arrangements, should they require safety net payments. The top-up and tariff values for the coming year are interim figures that reflect the latest available data, but they will need to be updated next year once the final data is available.
Another change stemming from the reform programme is the need to update formulae that have been replaced in the wider system. In the business rates retention system, we use factors representing the relative costs of operating in different areas, or area cost adjustments, to calculate a modest allowance of rates that each billing authority can retain to support its costs in administering business rates, otherwise known as a cost of collection allowance.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
The Minister raises the cost factor, and Bromley’s cost factor has been set at 1.038, which is above the average. What work has been done to ensure that authorities such as mine are not impacted by setting the cost factor above the average, in terms of their ability to collect business rates?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Department conducts significant work with local authorities to understand their costs, precisely so that we can make the adjustments I am talking about. If he has specific questions relating to Bromley, I encourage him to drop me a note at the Department so that I can get him a technical response.
The City of London has a long-standing bespoke funding arrangement known as the “offset”, the administration of which is set out in the retained rates regulations. For 2026-27, it has already been agreed that the offset will remain in place, and that its value will be uprated from £13.5 million to £14 million in line with established precedent, to ensure that its value keeps pace with inflation.
Finally, we are making a number of small amendments to manage complexity where possible, including disapplying provisions that no longer apply, future-proofing routine calculations and streamlining major funding mechanisms in the system.
These regulations make a series of important technical changes to the administration of the business rates retention system, and they implement what is required to update the system as a result of local government funding reforms and changes to the tax that have already been announced. If approved, the regulations will ensure that councils receive the business rates income that the system is designed to deliver.
I commend the regulations to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker.
The Opposition do not propose to divide the Committee on this instrument, but I have some questions that I would like to put to the Minister. One of the challenges with an instrument of this nature is to understand what its consequences will be. We have just heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill raise a question on behalf of his constituents about what this will mean in practice.
The Government’s consultation on the business rates reset clearly described it as a “redistributive act”. The purpose of it is to take business rates growth away from places that have also had the consequences of developments, allocating it to other areas. We do not have the information in front of us to set out what the consequences will be at a local level, but we know that has been a key concern for council leaders of all parties, not least because if they consent to a very substantial development that leads to very significant growth in their business rates income, that growth in income is intended to offset its negative consequences. For example, the development might generate additional traffic or lead to a lot more workers travelling to a particular area, requiring additional emergency facilities. The loss of that income through redistribution to other parts of the country, through a formula that we do not have in front of us, could have quite a significant negative consequence.
Over the years—it is no different with the current Government—central Government have been very keen to encourage local authorities to give consent to developments that create additional business that pays more business rates, creates jobs and all the rest of it. We know that is facing a significant challenge at the moment, and local authorities looking at this instrument can see that they will be losing out, having put the cost of consenting to a development on to local taxpayers, which will certainly discourage them from being so willing in future.
Can the Minister set out briefly for the Committee what she expects to be the consequent changes in funding levels? Clearly, those could be quite substantial, and this is a system of top-ups and tariffs, as we have had in place to a degree for a long time, so it would be helpful to understand whether there are any significant winners or losers as a consequence of the decision that people are being asked to make.
Secondly, when the Minister refers to a reset of the business rates mechanism, what does she expect it to reset to, so that those local authorities have a clear line of sight that says, “This will be the consequence for your business rates collection at a local level”?
Finally, I draw the Minister’s attention to the explanatory memorandum that she has kindly circulated. Paragraph 5.6 addresses the way in which the funding is to flow. She is making a change to shift it from the general fund—that is part of the annual budget-setting process of a local authority—into the collection fund, which is subject to a longer period of decision making. I can see why there might be some arguments for doing that. However, it would be helpful to understand what she expects the consequence to be, so that when our local authority colleagues set their budgets, they have a clear sense of what the consequence will be of shifting the flow of that money from an account covered by the general provision on fixing council tax, which has to be balanced in-year, to a collection fund, where more flexible rules apply.
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for his speech. As ever, he made considered points and asked very reasonable questions.
David Simmonds
I apologise, but I meant paragraph 5.13, not paragraph 5.6, of the explanatory memorandum. I had turned over the page and misread my record.
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his diligence in making sure the Committee is absolutely clear on what he was referring to. I will write to him and circulate that response to the Committee, so that we all have absolute clarity on that point.
On the reset, the Committee will know that the business rates retention system was always designed to be reset periodically. It needs to redistribute locally raised business rates, so that we get a balance between aligning the funding system with need and providing local authorities with the incentive for growth, as I mentioned in my speech. As a matter of fact, it has been over a decade since we assessed how much business rates authorities can raise, which means that retained business rates have accumulated over that period. That is the point of the reset, which was always designed to be in the system.
The hon. Gentleman asked what the effect will be, and obviously it is part of the overall spending power that we set out as part of the settlement. Local authorities should now have a clear line of sight on their spending power and how this affects them. If any Members have concerns that they would like to raise with me directly, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill did, I would be very happy to engage with them on a one-to-one basis. As I said, I will write a note in response to the question raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner on the explanatory memorandum.
In conclusion, these technical amendment regulations are essential to the system. As I have just set out, we want to allow local authorities to grow and to feel the incentive of keeping local business rates. However, from time to time, the system needs to be reset to make sure that local council funding aligns with need, as it must.
Question put and agreed to.
Urgent care provision in Rugby
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
Member Defections: Automatic By-elections
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 737660 relating to automatic by-elections following Member defections.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank those who have shown up for this debate; we may not have a large quantity here, but I am sure that we will have quality. My role this afternoon is primarily to introduce the debate on this petition on behalf of the Petitions Committee, outline some of the arguments that have been raised and give colleagues an opportunity to consider the issue.
Let me start by thanking the many thousands of people who signed this petition, which was started by Barry McIlhinney from Perth in Kinross-shire. It gathered more than 129,000 signatures, including 252 of my South Cotswolds constituents. It may not surprise anybody to hear that the four constituencies with the highest number of signatories were Fareham and Waterlooville, Newark, Romford and East Wiltshire—I shall leave it to hon. Members to spot the pattern.
Whatever view Members may take on the proposal, it is clear that the petition touches on what some commentators have called a crisis of confidence in our democracy: the suspicion—we can debate whether it is a fair one—that some MPs are here less to represent the interests of their constituents, and more to represent their own. The petition reflects a wider public interest in the relationship between voters and those who represent them, and in how that relationship operates in the intervals between general elections. The key question is, when voters decide who to vote for, what exactly are they choosing? Some argue that voters elect an individual, full stop, and that what matters most is the person whose name appears on the ballot paper. However, others suggest that party affiliation is a significant part of how voters make their decision, as they view a candidate’s political party as shorthand for a particular set of values and attitudes.
I would suggest that in the real world, for many voters, the decision that they make in the privacy of the polling booth at a general election is a complicated calculation: an algorithm involving party values, historical loyalties, headline policies, party leaders, local reputations and individual personalities. In our first-past-the-post system, that also increasingly includes tactical voting, as in many cases voters feel that they must choose not simply the candidate that they most admire, but the one most likely to defeat the candidate that they most fear. That is one of the quirks—some may even say flaws—of our electoral system. MPs may like to think that every vote that they win is the result of their particular blend of wit, charm and intelligence, but I suspect that, if elections were decided purely on our unique personalities, many of us might not be in this Chamber at all.
My point is that voters often consider a range of factors when deciding how to cast their vote. This petition invites us to consider what should happen if one such factor—political party affiliation—changes during the course of a Parliament. Political parties clearly play a very real role in getting their candidates elected, investing time, money, wisdom and infrastructure. Parties pay the deposits and give their candidates training, campaign support and access to networks of volunteers. It could be argued that an exceptionally cynical candidate could simply align themselves with the party that had the most successful campaigning machine, and then promptly jump ship once they arrive here—I am not for a moment suggesting that anybody would do such a thing.
During a general election campaign, the people knocking on doors, delivering leaflets early in the morning, getting out the vote late in the evening and standing outside polling stations in the rain are often long-standing party members, supporting the person they see as their party’s candidate. Many would argue that party affiliation forms an important part of the democratic bargain made with voters at a general election. However, at the same time, others emphasise that MPs are elected as representatives rather than as delegates, and that they must retain the freedom to exercise their judgment and follow their conscience once elected.
This petition therefore invites us to consider where the balance should lie between those two contrasting principles. The question is whether the current constitutional arrangements strike the correct balance, or whether there should be some additional form of democratic mechanism when an MP decides to move to another party.
Some argue that a by-election would allow voters to confirm whether they still support their MP after a change in party affiliation. They also argue that, if the defecting MP is sufficiently confident in their wit, charm and intelligence and that they hold a special place in the hearts of their constituents, they should not be afraid to return to the polls.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
All political parties undertake a vast amount of data collection on their voter base. A good proportion of that data illustrates that the vast majority of people will cast their vote based on the political party rather than the individual. The individual carries less weight in someone’s mind when they cast their vote. Therefore, does the hon. Member agree that triggering a by-election on the basis of a defection is crucial to ensure that voters are represented by someone who reflects how the vast majority cast their vote at the ballot box?
Dr Savage
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent and valid point. My main job today, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, is to present both sides of the argument, but the point about data on voting intentions, which we work so hard to glean on doorsteps, is a key factor in the debate.
Others raise concerns that a requirement for a by-election could have unintended consequences, including potentially strengthening the power of party leaderships or discouraging MPs from following their conscience due to legitimate dissent. At this point, I want to clarify that when talking about defections, I am not talking about the case where an MP loses the Whip for reasons to do with the leadership, but about voluntary defections undertaken by an MP themselves. I do not think any of us would want a world where party Whips could threaten an MP with a mandatory by-election if we displease them in some way.
Public opinion on this question appears to be mixed, although polling suggests it is an issue on which many people hold strong views. Some surveys indicate that around 40% of respondents believe that it is unacceptable for an MP to defect, while others suggest that a majority of voters think a defection should trigger some sort of electoral test. Those numbers do not resolve the constitutional question, but they suggest that people far outside Westminster really care about this matter.
It is also worth putting the question into perspective. Party defections in this country are relatively rare, although they obviously sometimes occur in clusters during periods of political turbulence—possibly such as we are going through now. The last MPs to resign their seats and seek fresh mandate after defecting were Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless in 2014, when they left the Conservative party to join UKIP. They refought their seats in by-elections.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making the case well on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Over the years, there have been a number of examples of some of my former Conservative colleagues ending up alongside Lib Dems in the House of Commons. In those circumstances, is the hon. Lady of the view that there should have been a by-election for those MPs to get their mandates restated?
Dr Savage
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. What we are talking about is the principle of the matter rather than specific defections from any one party to another.
This constitutional question has also been considered by Parliament previously. In 2011, a private Member’s Bill proposed that MPs who changed their party affiliation would have to face a by-election, and in 2020, another Bill proposed extending the Recall of MPs Act 2015 so that a voluntary change of party could trigger a recall petition. Neither progressed through Parliament, but the fact that the issue has arisen more than once suggests that it raises enduring questions about representation and accountability.
I would like to share some perspectives from other countries, because this is not a uniquely British debate, and other democracies have taken different approaches. Some, such as India, have adopted strict anti-defection laws under which MPs can lose their seat if they leave the party on whose ticket they were elected. Indian MPs are also, for the most part, compelled to vote with the Whip, which must make votes very, very boring. Others, such as New Zealand, have legislation designed to discourage what is sometimes referred to as “waka jumping”—I am reliably informed that that is effectively jumping from one canoe to another, which I can say from personal experience sounds like a very bad idea—although that approach has also prompted debate about the balance of power between MPs and party leadership. South Africa experimented with allowing MPs to cross the Floor, but later decided that that was a poor idea and prohibited it. That shows that views can change about how best to preserve electoral legitimacy.
The UK system has its own traditions and constitutional principles. Party affiliation plays an important role in how Governments are formed and how legislation passes, but MPs are also expected to exercise independent judgment. All of that means that there is no simple or obvious answer to the question raised by the petition of whether the current arrangements already strike the right balance between representation, independence and accountability, or whether there might be merit in exploring alternative mechanisms.
What is clear from the petition is that many members of the public care deeply about the relationship between voters and their representatives, how it works in practice and whether they feel that they are being represented in this place. I very much look forward to hearing the views of Members from across the House.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. It is unfortunate that although we have a 3-hour allocation to discuss this important topic, other Members of this House that have not felt it worthy of coming along to do so, despite having changed party in this parliamentary Session or in the previous one. It would have been interesting to have gained their views. I thank the over 129,000 individuals who signed the petition, illustrating that they care deeply and are passionate about a subject that is ultimately about trust.
I have been fortunate enough to represent Keighley and Ilkley for more than six years now, facing an election twice in that time in two very different political environments. In 2019, I was elected in a Conservative landslide, and more recently in 2024, I was elected during a time when national results were very much going the other way. Keighley and Ilkley is—or should be—a classic bellwether seat, and up until the last election, there had never been both a Labour Government nationally and a Conservative MP locally since the creation of the seat in 1885. In fact, ahead of the 2024 general election, 12 major polling companies predicted a Labour landslide in Keighley and Ilkley. Electoral Calculus gave me a 97% chance of losing my seat. I do not make these points merely to blow my own trumpet; the point I am making is that politics is ultimately about trust.
When we are elected by our constituents, they are putting their trust in us. They are trusting us not only to be a strong advocate for the area that we represent, but to stand by our manifesto pledges, both at a local level and those of the political party we represent. We stand by the values and commitments of the party we represent. The vast majority of us in this House are supported by volunteers who share our values, often hold party membership and support our policies, which have implications for all our constituencies.
Owing to the Representation of the People Act 1969, at every voting booth across the country our electors are greeted not only by our own names but by our party names and party logos. They put their cross in the box against a name and a party that they wish to represent them. A proportion of people out there will, of course, vote for the individual who they feel is most committed to representing them, but they are also casting their vote for a political party.
As has been demonstrated by all political parties, through the data that they collect, a proportion of the electorate cast their vote based on the national political party, rather than the individual who has been chosen to stand in that local area. It therefore comes down to the point that was made in the opening remarks from the hon. Member for South Cotswolds: this petition invites us to debate the difference between the individual and the party.
I do feel that when an individual is standing for a political party, if that individual then chooses to defect, cross the Floor of the House and join another political party, it is only right that a by-election is triggered. That would give the electorate the absolute reassurance that they can cast their vote according to political party. Likewise, if they want to reassert their trust in the individual regardless of the political party they are now associated with, that should happen in a by-election.
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I do not want to downplay his greatness as a local constituency MP, but I am sure that, like me, he recalls the 2019 election in which he was first elected, and how many conversations we had with voters on the doorstep about the relative merits of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. That undoubtedly was the biggest issue driving many people to vote, alongside the desire to get Brexit done. Does that reinforce the point that many people vote on the basis of the national picture and to select a Prime Minister rather than a local MP?
Robbie Moore
That is my point. While a lot of us, as advocates of constituency areas, do our best day in, day out, advocating on behalf of our constituents and campaigning on the local issues that matter to give us the biggest advantage possible by building up our authenticity on those issues, a good proportion of the electorate vote based on the political party with which the candidates are associated.
In 2019, a good proportion of the electorate could not stand the possibility of a Labour Government and voted to get Brexit done, which we advocated for. I know from conversations on the doorstep that there was an element of the electorate who had never voted Conservative before, but who decided to vote for us in 2019 based on the national offering. That builds into my point that, whenever an individual defects—as happened recently north of the border, with the defection of a Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament to the Liberal Democrats—a by-election should be triggered. It will be interesting to see what the Liberal Democrat policy is on that.
Trust is at stake, because too often disillusionment builds up among the wider electorate, and defections exaggerate that.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I was following the hon. Gentleman’s arguments closely and agreeing with them until he got to the point about Prime Ministers, because is it not a consistent position that if a hon. Member changes their political party there should be a by-election, therefore if there is a change in leader, as the Conservatives have got into the habit of doing, there should be a general election?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely take the view that a defection at the local constituency level should trigger a by-election, which will ultimately restore the voters’ ability to decide who they want to represent them, whether that is the individual who has changed political party or someone else. When there is a change in the leader of any political party, it is up to the MPs of that party to determine whether that individual represents the party in the role of its leader. That applies to all political parties. The reason is that when an individual goes to vote at the ballot box, they are predominantly voting for two things: the individual who represents them at a local level, and the political party. The name of the leader of that party is not on the ballot paper; the name of the party is.
I believe that there is a difference, regardless of who is in charge politically at a national level, between a change of leader and a change in the direct relationship between the constituent and the individual who represents them while standing on behalf of a political party. As I say, the name of the leader of the political party is not on the ballot paper, so I think there is a difference.
Graham Stringer
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving away again and I do not wish to push this point too far, because I personally do not think that there should be a general election if the ruling party changes its leader. However, the thrust of his argument was that what is in people’s minds when they vote is the political party and the name of the leader; he said it was about the difference between Boris Johnson and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). If that is important, and the leader changes, and so does the party’s political programme—that relates to the wording on the ballot paper of the political party and has been there since the Representation of the People Act 1969—I think there is a solid argument for holding a general election. It is not an argument that I completely agree with, but I would be interested to hear his response to it.
Robbie Moore
I thank the hon. Member for that point, but my point is that when a general election takes place, the individual voter casts their vote for an individual associated with a political party, which has a mandate—if it gets into power—based on a manifesto. The party leader’s name is not on the ballot paper. It is the manifesto that is associated with that political party. I do feel there is a difference.
I am strongly of the view that if an individual Member of Parliament associated with a political party decides to change course and stand for a different political party —crosses the Floor of the House—an automatic by-election should be triggered, which ultimately gives their constituents the right to choose. That is slightly different from the debate about political leadership, because a party leader’s name is not on the ballot paper; the name of the party is.
John Lamont
Having reflected on the point made by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), I would add that the key difference is surely that MPs are elected by their constituents, but the Prime Minister is appointed by the monarch, on the basis that that person can command the confidence of the House of Commons. That is the basis of the monarch’s decision. We do not have a presidential system, whereas we do elect constituency MPs. The appointment of the Prime Minister is based on the monarch’s judgment on who has the confidence of the House of Commons.
Robbie Moore
I thank my hon. Friend for his point, which I think aligns with my own point: it is the make-up of the political party that gains the confidence of the House, and therefore its leader is appointed Prime Minister, should they get a mandate to be so, based on the numbers.
Where I do not feel that a by-election should be triggered aligns with the points made by the hon. Member for South Cotswolds. If a Member of Parliament is unfortunate enough to lose the Whip and therefore sits in the House as an independent, I do not feel that that should necessarily trigger a by-election, because it might be subject to circumstances outside that Member’s control—political difference associated with a particular policy and therefore voting the other way. The Whips may use that as a mechanism for removing the party Whip, but I do not think that that should trigger a by-election in those circumstances. I want to be clear on that.
To summarise, politics is about trust, and at a time when the relationship between politicians and the electorate is, unfortunately, becoming increasingly fractious, it is vital that our democratic system holds us to account for the promises on which we as individuals associated with a political party were elected, the platform on which we chose to stand for election, and ultimately the manifesto commitments that we stood by.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I am sorely tempted to say that if somebody else would like to take the Chair, I will come down and do an hour on this myself, but happily for colleagues, I am not allowed to.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am loath to say that I am delighted to have you in the Chair, Sir Roger, because I feel we are all missing out on a good hour’s worth of content with you there rather than here, but it really is a pleasure to serve under you.
Since the 2024 general election, we have seen the start of a slow procession of former Conservative Ministers and Members of Parliament moving to Reform UK. These are people who spent years in government and claimed they were there to make a difference—and they did leave a difference behind them, but that difference was far too many crumbling public services, a cost of living crisis and a legacy of broken promises. Rather than accepting responsibility for their actions, they have crossed the Floor for a new start, making no attempt to rebuild the public trust they broke.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) alluded to a pattern of very large concentrations of signatures making their way on to this petition—one of politicians prioritising their own political future over the parties their constituents voted for. I understand why some voters feel betrayed and that their MPs are not moving to another party from a principled stance. These MPs clearly feel they are fleeing a sinking ship and are hoping that voters are too distracted to notice. But their constituents have noticed, with almost 130,000 people signing the petition that has resulted in this debate, including more than 200 in my Hazel Grove constituency. I understand people’s frustrations, especially as many of the constituencies that had the highest numbers of signatures were those whose MPs had defected. They feel, rightly, that something has been taken from them. For that reason, some feel betrayed.
Most voters will not have read the full manifestos of all the candidates standing for election, but I can see why people would be unhappy, particularly when their MP joins a party that does not align with their views and values or whom they thought they had voted for. We are talking about a party whose former Welsh leader was imprisoned for a bribery conviction related to Russian connections, a party filled with swivel-eyed Trump supporters, a party that platformed a vaccine conspiracy theorist at its most recent party conference—it is hardly surprising that people do not feel their values are reflected in Reform UK.
However, our electoral system means that people vote for an individual to represent their area, not directly for a party. Our system is not set up automatically to call a by-election whenever an MP defects or is removed from a political party, or indeed when a party of government moves firmly away from a manifesto commitment. Nevertheless, the disillusionment that voters are experiencing points to something larger—a fundamental problem with how our democratic system currently works.
The Liberal Democrats believe that our political system needs fundamental change to restore the trust that voters have lost. First, we need to change the way we elect our MPs.
Robbie Moore
Before the hon. Member gets on to how we should change the whole system, I am keen to understand the Liberal Democrats’ view on the petition specifically. Should a defection trigger a by-election?
Lisa Smart
No. The Liberal Democrat position is that elections should happen on a regular basis. We would re-implement the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, because we think it is healthy for people to know how long they are electing somebody for, rather than leaving the power in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day. I believe very firmly that the ultimate power should sit with voters rather than politicians, and that voters should know how long the term is. They should be able to boot people out at the next election, rather than having a special election that costs money and that may end up with the same result, but may not. We do not agree with the petition. However, we believe very strongly in people’s right to express their views through a petition.
We need to change the system and the way we elect our MPs. Under our current system, a Government can win roughly two thirds of the seats on roughly one third of the votes. Millions of people are represented by someone they did not vote for. Seats bear almost no relation to votes cast, and far too many people feel forced to vote for the person they dislike the least just to stop the candidate they really do not want to be elected. Proportional representation would change that. The Liberal Democrats have been advocating for a change in our electoral system for a long time. We already use proportional systems in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The vast majority of democracies worldwide use them.
John Lamont
It is. Does the hon. Lady not recognise that we have had that debate in the UK? Part of Nick Clegg and David Cameron’s coalition agreement was a referendum on the alternative vote, and the British people rejected it in very large numbers.
Lisa Smart
I could not be more delighted to go into details about different voting systems. The hon. Gentleman will know that AV is a preferential system, not a proportional one. I am talking about proportional representation. AV would have been a better system than first past the post, but a proportionate system would be even better. It has long been in the Liberal Democrat manifesto that that would mean fairer representation and more people having their say.
Graham Stringer
I am sure that everybody in this room is familiar with the arguments for and against PR. In moving the motion, the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) gave a very balanced speech. There was only one thing that I thought was unbalanced: the argument that somehow there would be less tactical voting in a PR system. A PR system is actually set up and designed for tactical voting. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) gave an opinion on that.
Lisa Smart
Many people, when talking about tactical voting, mean voting to stop somebody: a person has a preferred party or candidate, but lends their vote to somebody else to stop a third party they really do not want getting in. There are many different proportional systems—indeed, we have different systems in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—and I would happily debate many of them, but I think it would test the patience of this Chamber if I were to get further into the weeds about my favourites. I recommend the Liberal Democrats for Electoral Reform panel from the Liberal Democrat spring conference, where a number of us spent the weekend. I very much enjoyed being on that panel, which did get into the weeds. It might not be to everyone’s taste, but I assure hon. Members that it was a packed house with standing room only.
I will move on to the need to change and reform the House of Lords. It is simply indefensible that unelected peers continue to make laws for life in a modern democracy. The Liberal Democrats are committed to replacing it with a chamber that has a proper democratic mandate—one that reflects the country it serves, rather than the Prime Minister of the day. In a general election, the power sits with electors over who their MPs are. If they do not like something that their MP has done, they can choose somebody else at the next general election. Voters have precisely no power to do so with Members of the House of Lords. There are peers currently sitting in the House of Lords who have moved parties, and there is no mechanism to remove them for doing so.
Thirdly, the ministerial code must be enshrined in law. The fact that scandal after scandal has come out of previous Governments, and indeed this one, shows why there should be a set of legally enforceable expectations for Ministers and those in positions of power. Without that in law, we cannot guarantee that they will act with integrity, especially given that former Conservative Ministers are leaving the party rather than allowing themselves to be held to account. Right now, Ministers who act corruptly or behave improperly face, at worst, a quiet resignation and a comfortable future elsewhere. That is not accountability. Enshrining the ministerial code in legislation would mean that there are real consequences for those who abuse the public trust.
The recipient of a number of these defections is Reform UK, but it is not a party of insurgents challenging the establishment. It is more accurately described as a scrapyard for the very people who were the establishment and failed. Rather than accepting the public’s verdict on their failures in government, those politicians are seeking refuge in a party that wants to make us all less safe by dragging the UK out of the European convention on human rights, asking for payment for NHS services and platforming conspiracy theorists. Although by-elections for those who defect may not be mandated, the voters in those seats have the ultimate power—the power of their vote, come the next election—and I hope they will use it at every available opportunity.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to take part in this debate on automatic by-elections following Member defections. I thank everybody across the country who has signed the petition. I have brought with me a list of every MP who has ever defected. Given the lack of a time constraint, we could go through it, but I would prefer to concentrate on the arguments.
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on introducing this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) made an excellent contribution with some very powerful arguments indeed, made all the more persuasive by the fact that he is a much-loved local Member of Parliament. He has as much personal support as party support, and has defied political gravity in recent times. I absolutely sympathise with and understand a lot of the arguments he makes. I will outline an alternative viewpoint that relates not necessarily to principle, but to practicality and the challenges that may arise if a change of law were brought in to deal with the ongoing issue of Members choosing to change from one party to another.
I fully sympathise with the frustration that many voters feel when their Member of Parliament chooses to defect to another party. At a time when our country faces many pressing challenges, it is easy to understand why many people feel as though their representatives, if they defect, are choosing party politics over real-life concerns. I would not deny the reality that many voters choose their candidate in an election with party labels in mind. We should not be arrogant enough to assume that everyone voted for us as individuals, regardless of our party alignment. Despite my hon. Friend’s popularity, it is absolutely party alignments, labels and manifestoes that persuade people at general elections. We can do our best to be great servants to those we seek to represent, but much of the time that decision is made on a wider, more national position.
Like most Members, I am proud to work alongside like-minded individuals who share my core beliefs about how we can change our country for the better. Political parties have been an established part of our system for more than three centuries, and they have an irreplicable role in ensuring that the business of government and opposition can work effectively.
John Grobham Howe is said to be the first MP to have defected when, in 1698, he switched allegiance from the Whigs to the Tories, so the discussion today is certainly not about a new phenomenon. It is ultimately only Members themselves who can know their motivations for choosing to leave their existing party. I know that many Members would consider it entirely dishonourable to do so without seeking a mandate from their constituents, and I fully understand why many think that allowing a by-election to take place after defecting is very much the right thing to do. However, making that an automatic requirement could have unintended consequences that would only undermine Members’ standing as elected representatives of the people.
We who serve in this House do so as representatives of our constituents above all else, regardless of which party we represent. We are elected to do what we think is in the best interests of our constituents, above all other considerations. If a Member chooses to defect, that should be because they have judged, rightly or wrongly, that doing so is in the best interests of their constituents. Their constituents are, of course, free to disagree with that judgment, and may well choose to elect a representative of a different party at a later election. However, if we wish to uphold the principles that have made our political system one of the most enduring in the world, Members must be deemed fit to serve as representatives on the basis of their record of serving their constituents’ interests, and not simply on the basis of their party label.
Robbie Moore
I hope that I am not going to lose the Whip by taking a slightly different view from what seems to be my party’s position. Why would an individual not stand as an independent, if he or she had the confidence of getting elected? Surely there is a huge advantage in standing under the brand of a political party, because that inevitably brings a good element of the voter base to that individual. Will my hon. Friend expand on the difference between standing as an independent and standing as a member of a political party?
Charlie Dewhirst
Absolutely. There is a real challenge here, and I agree with the point that my hon. Friend made earlier. Leaving one political party in the House of Commons and joining a distinct grouping is one thing, but independence is a challenge, as I saw on local level when I was a councillor: some councillors were in the independent group, but there were also independent independents. The independent group had, in many ways, a political agenda, and started to work around that. If we were to bring in legislation, defining true independence could become quite challenging. Members may start to work together around certain political issues, and form a political direction, which would actually make them no different from any other small party in the House of Commons.
I am sympathetic to the point, and the challenges around situations that may lead an individual from being party aligned to going independent are varied, but although I agree with the principle, we are concerned with the practicality. On issues such as this, the Conservative party has always been a broad church, so I am sure my hon. Friend and I can agree to disagree today. I do not think that there is any question of his being called into our Whips Office straight after the debate; it would certainly be very unfair if he were.
That the voters choose an individual to be their sole representative is one of the greatest strengths of our constitution, ensuring a direct link between Members and their constituents. I take issue with the views of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), on PR, which would break the link between local people and an individual. It would almost make this entire debate irrelevant. How would we have a by-election if someone defected? Would the entire country vote in the by-election, to make sure that it is truly proportionally representative? That would not work. I have always been a supporter of the first-past-the-post system, which I believe is the best way to get representation of the people in this country. We put this matter to the test in a referendum not that long ago, and people made their views very clear.
Lisa Smart
We have not discussed PR sufficiently this afternoon. Does the hon. Member accept that there are different voting systems of a proportionate nature, some of which retain the constituency link?
Charlie Dewhirst
I absolutely accept that there are many different voting systems that one could employ. Those with a mix between a party list and a constituency list create a two-tier system. What if one of the individuals on the party list were to defect? How would that be resolved? It would create a system even more challenging than the one we already have, which has a direct link between local people and their representative in the House of Commons.
One of my concerns is that making the continuation of that representation conditional on membership of a political party might start to weaken that link, which is a strength of the first-past-the-post system, but there is also the question of how it would be dealt with under the varied systems that we have across the range of PR options. Making representation conditional in that way would reduce Members to delegates of their party rather than individuals chosen to represent all their constituents, regardless of who they voted for—a point that is hugely important to us all. As we have discussed, the threat of a by-election could be used to silence Members who feel compelled by their conscience to go against their party.
As I just underlined, that is where the challenge about how to legally define an independent comes in. I am very sympathetic to the point that those who go independent should not face a by-election, but those who move from one established party to another should. The danger is that introducing mandatory by-elections would encourage Members to favour loyalty to the party over serving the interests of their constituents, particularly if they believed that those two things were in conflict.
Of course, defection is only one means by which a Member can change their party allegiance. While the petition speaks only of defection to another party, there are other methods: resignation, the withdrawal of the Whip, parties’ restructuring and so on are all means by which a Member may choose no longer to represent the party for which they were originally elected. I am sure that no Member believes that every Liberal Democrat should have been forced to stand in a by-election when the Liberals and the Social Democrats merged.
This is not the first time that the House has considered the issue of Members changing political allegiance. Previous Governments and Parliaments have wrestled with how to reconcile the independence of Members with the expectations of modern party politics, and in each instance they concluded that the independence of Parliament and its Members should not be constrained through major constitutional change.
Graham Stringer
I am rather surprised that nobody has mentioned that there is a constitutional precedent for by-elections when situations change. It used to be the case that when Members were appointed to the Cabinet, they had to face a by-election. In my city, Manchester, there was a famous by-election when Winston Churchill had to stand again, and he lost. I think that was just before the first world war. Then, a change of circumstances meant a by-election. It is a very serious change of circumstances if somebody changes political parties. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s view on that constitutional precedent.
Charlie Dewhirst
Things have changed over time, and I dread to think how many by-elections we might have had in recent years had we needed one every time someone was appointed to the Cabinet. I suspect that would have cost the public purse something quite significant. In the period of which the hon. Member speaks, there was a slower churn of those in the Cabinet, and there was not quite the political turmoil that we have seen in recent years, which would make such a situation challenging. It is a fair point, though, because the change of circumstance in that situation is far less than the change of circumstance of moving from one party to another.
As I have said, it is not the principle of the issue that concerns me, but the practicality. If Parliament did introduce legislation, it would have to be absolutely spot on and watertight, to ensure that it did not degrade the link between individual Members of Parliament and their constituencies, and that the party system did not become more empowered through any such change. That is my principal concern.
Our constitution and political system have drawn their strength from the respect we have for tried and tested convention, and we must always be wary of the danger of rushed constitutional change and unintended consequences. We need only to look at the recent past to see how previous attempts to enforce rigidity within our system have failed. Most notably, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which was seen as an important tool during the coalition Government, ultimately was viewed to have failed and was rightly repealed during the last Parliament.
The independence of Parliament and of an individually elected representative to do what they believe is in the best interests of their constituents is one of the longest-standing conventions in our political system. While I sympathise with the frustrations of the petitioners and understand their desire to see the proposed change enacted, I believe we would be unwise to surrender that independence.
The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)
I, for one, feel robbed of your contribution to this debate, Sir Roger; I think it would have been fascinating. It genuinely has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and a privilege to listen to the debate. I have certainly learned a lot about historical precedents and other things; it has been fascinating.
I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and the many thousands of people across the country who have signed the petition and taken part in our important democratic and parliamentary processes. I also thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his thought-provoking contributions—it is important that we all challenge ourselves in this place—and, as I mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) has given me lots of food for thought as well. I thank everyone for their contributions.
At the last general election, the public voted for change following years of Conservative chaos. We saw a whopping 23 by-elections in just four and a half years prior to 2024. Those by-elections were caused by lobbying scandals, tractor videos, sexual misconduct, bullying—a horrible track record of MPs falling short of the standards that the public rightly expect of them. It is absolutely right that, in such circumstances, we have by-elections and the public are able to get rid of their MPs in that way. However, while I personally share the view of, I think, many of the petitioners from certain constituencies that defecting from the Conservatives to Reform is an awful thing to do—I notice that none of the hon. Members concerned is here today—I am not sure that it reaches the bar of requiring a by-election.
I have listened carefully to the contributions made by hon. Members from across the House, and I understand the concern at the heart of the petition. I am a true believer in party politics. I fundamentally believe, to quote the Labour party’s clause IV, that
“by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone”.
Only by working together with shared values can we ever truly achieve change.
I wanted to flag that in particular in answer to the point that the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley made about being an independent. We can bring so much more when we work together with our shared values, and that is a fundamental way in which we have been able to achieve change throughout history.
I joined the Labour party because I grew up in the ’80s and early ’90s under a Tory Government who seemed to accept that unemployment, inequality and poverty was a price worth paying. I made that choice to join a political party, and I could never be part of a party that believed in, or sought to uphold, a system of unequal privilege in this country.
I am Labour for a reason: I saw that only one party, throughout its history, has fought to give more power and opportunity to ordinary people, built great institutions for the many, such as the NHS, the Open University and Sure Start, and provided rights and protections for working people—and that only one party, at its heart, has the fundamental view that every child deserves to flourish, whatever their background.
Robbie Moore
I am always amazed when a Minister says at the Dispatch Box, “I have listened very carefully to the contributions,” yet they are reading from a speech that was written before they turned up to the debate. Let me ask the Minister this. A proportion of people will vote for the individual based not only on their name, but on their association with a political party. If they change their political allegiance during the Parliament, how does the Minister think that is fair to the wider electoral base?
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman is very impatient, because I was barely getting started on my speech. I will address that, because it is an important question that we have to challenge ourselves with, and it is right that we are here to debate it today, but I wanted to set out the primacy of party politics because, to me, it is about values. It is about what we believe in, and what kind of country and world we would like to build.
While I disagree fundamentally on many issues with Opposition Members, I recognise and respect that so many of them hold equally strong beliefs and values as those of us on the Government Benches, and that they are here to champion those party values in the name of public service, too. I appreciate—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will share this view—that when we cast our ballots at general elections, so many of us do so with a specific party manifesto, set of values or policy priorities in mind. People often elect the party that they want to govern based on a set of principles and priorities that they support or at least believe are preferable to those of the other parties.
As we have heard, people are also voting, albeit indirectly, for a particular Prime Minister. We cannot assume that the public do not see the weeks of general election coverage. The Prime Minister was on the front of our manifesto. People know that they are voting for a Prime Minister, because they know that the party with the largest number of MPs will send that person to 10 Downing Street.
When an elected MP leaves a political party, it is entirely understandable that voters may feel that the contract between them and their local MP has been broken, that trust has been broken and that a remedy, such as a by-election, is required to repair it. They may feel that they voted for that person not as an individual, but because of the shared values they believed they represented. They may feel strongly that they do not share the values of the new party that the MP has moved to. All of that is entirely understandable.
While I acknowledge why the petitioners—and, as we have heard, some in this place—may want to see a by-election to repair that, I believe that it is up to those MPs themselves to examine their conscience and their relationship with their voters, and not for this place to tell them what their principles should be. I have enough respect for and faith in the British public that, when that individual next goes back to their constituents to ask them for the sacred privilege, which we are so lucky to hold, of representing them in this place, the public will make their decision on the basis of all the evidence. They will decide whether that MP has their interests at heart, and whether they jumped ship out of principle—we have heard examples of that—or out of shameless political ambition. I will not point to any particular instances that we may have seen of that recently.
It is true that, while values tend to stay the same, parties can shift and evolve. I have seen that with my own party, as hon. Members have discussed. For example, in 2019, the British public had their say on whether they felt the Labour party had moved too far from where they were, or from where they felt we ought to be. Many people wrestled with that. Ultimately, we should have enough faith in the British public that they will assess the decision that their MP has made in defecting to another party and have their say. Some MPs have won after defecting to another party; others have lost. Ultimately, the public will weigh it all up and pass their judgment.
As the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley flagged, it is also important to remember that the public will make their judgment on the basis of a number of issues, not just the party allegiance of the MP. Despite the political differences I have with colleagues in this House, we have all come here to champion our communities and constituencies. Day in, day out, we support our constituents with casework issues, highlight the noteworthy work our local charities and organisations undertake across our communities, raise local issues closest to our constituents’ hearts and fix problems. As we all know, that vital work is personal to us individually, no matter which political party we come from. As such, much of the value of being an MP comes directly from our work with constituents, and they will ultimately price that into the decisions that they make.
It has been a long-standing constitutional principle in this country, most famously put forward by Edmund Burke, that MPs should deliberate and use their reason and judgment, as the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) said, and not simply be a delegate of either party or populist opinion. A by-election on the basis of a defection would undermine that principle.
If we mandated that an MP must lose their seat the moment they leave their party, we would fundamentally alter the nature of our democracy. We would also shift from a system in which an MP’s first responsibility is to their constituents, to one where, once elected, they are accountable to their party’s leaders in Westminster. As the Prime Minister himself has said, “Country first; party second.”
John Lamont
I am grateful for the Minister’s analysis. I wonder whether she applies the same logic to her colleagues who have lost the Labour Whip because they have not complied with instructions to vote for Government policy that their constituents do not agree with.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. There is always a balance and a trade-off, which we all make as MPs, between that judgment and a sense of shared and collective responsibility. It comes back to the point I made at the beginning: we cannot achieve much on our own. We achieve much more when we are together, and political parties rise or fall on unity. It is for every MP to decide where their conscience lies. If they genuinely believe that their party is going against the principles and the will of their constituents, they have the opportunity to make that decision, but, ultimately, they must pay the price by losing the Whip. That is party discipline and collective responsibility. The hon. Gentleman raises a really important challenge, which we all think about often.
In the scenario that I described, in which we shifted to a system in which, once elected, an MP is accountable to their party’s leaders in Westminster, MPs who disagree with their party’s leadership, or feel that their political party is moving in a direction that they are uncomfortable with, may lose an important way to express their dissatisfaction. In the last Parliament, former MPs defected from the Conservative party because many felt that they were unable to deliver on the promises they made to their country. I understand the appeal of an automatic by-election to petitioners and to some Members of this House, but that would not make our parliamentary democracy stronger.
We must also consider the more practical impact of the petition’s proposal on our constituents. We all know the importance of our constituents having their own voices represented in Parliament. A by-election is a significant event. Members across the House know that it is costly to the public purse but, more importantly, it disrupts a constituency’s representation in this place. During a by-election campaign the seat is effectively vacant; casework stalls, the community loses its voice in Parliament for weeks or months, and the focus shifts to campaigning and the result’s implications for the Government of the day, rather than the issues that matter most to local residents.
Under our current system, when an MP changes affiliation, that work continues uninterrupted. The MP remains in post, serving their constituents and helping to support them with local issues. Naturally, that does not mean that MPs should be unaccountable for defecting to another party, but, as I have said, the remedy for that already exists in a general election. Of course, if an MP feels it is necessary to seek a fresh mandate, they are free to resign from both their party and their seat and fight a by-election immediately. I personally think that that would demonstrate an integrity that the public would welcome. In either case, the crucial thing is that MPs remain accountable to their constituents.
We do, of course, have a mechanism—
John Lamont
I apologise for disrupting the Minister’s flow, but I would like to ask her to clarify what she just said. She seems to be arguing that she is opposed to a by-election happening at the point of defection, but I think she hinted at a personal view that was contrary to the view that she had previously been articulating.
Anna Turley
Forgive me; my view, and that of the Government, is very clear. It is for each hon. Member to decide; it is not for the Government or Parliament to have a mechanism that forces people. People should examine their conscience: if they feel that a by-election would enable them to rebuild trust with their constituents, it is important that they consider that. However, it is not for Parliament to mandate that for those who defect. It is about integrity. If they believe that they have broken a promise that they made to people, then that is up to them.
We already have a mechanism to remove MPs during the course of a Parliament. Under the Recall of MPs Act 2015, by-elections are triggered by custodial sentences, suspension from the House or false expenses claims. Some have argued that we should add defection to that list, but I strongly urge against that. The core philosophy of recall is that it is triggered by conduct, not a change in values or even, dare I say it, political ambition. Of course, I agree that it is right that MPs who fall below ethical standards or break the law are held to account for their behaviour, but to conflate political disagreement or even naked opportunism with ethical misconduct would set a dangerous precedent. Finding oneself at odds with the direction of one’s party or wanting to jump on the latest populist bandwagon is not a lapse of behavioural standards; it is part of political life, and I believe the public can be trusted to see that and make a judgment for themselves.
The Government believe—and I believe too, just to clarify for the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont)—that our current constitutional arrangements strike the right balance. They preserve much-needed stability in democracy and enable MPs who do change political parties to continue their vital constituency work, while reserving the public’s right to judge the work and principles of that MP at the ballot box. As chair of the Labour party and a proud member of this Labour Government, I strongly believe in political parties providing competing visions of the kind of world and the kind of country we would like to see and seeking a mandate from the public to enact them.
It is in the nature of our democracy, to support effective government in this country, that a party is able to command a majority in this House. Party values allow us to build our vision, turn our manifestos into reality, provide collective leadership and service, and enact the change that the country voted for at a general election. I understand why the petitioners and some Members across the House feel that an automatic by-election would add another layer of accountability in this place, but for the reasons I have set out, I do not believe that those changes would in any way enhance our parliamentary democracy.
Dr Savage
At the start of the debate, I suggested that we might make up for lack of quantity with quality, and I think we have delivered on that promise. I thank colleagues from across the Chamber for their most thoughtful, fascinating and wide-ranging contributions to the debate. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for her interesting diversion into the many other ways in which we could help to restore faith in our democracy, such as a fairer voting system and House of Lords reform.
I echo the regret expressed by a number of colleagues that parliamentary procedure precludes the Chair from jumping into the conversation. I am sure that that would have been a most fascinating—
Dr Savage
Yes—but I believe that this Chamber will be available until at least 7.30 pm, so perhaps we could have an impromptu seminar.
I trust that Mr McIlhinney and the other signatories to the petition will feel that we have done justice to their concerns and will appreciate the calibre of the debate, even if the constituencies that I mentioned at the outset are not going to be dusting off their ballot boxes any time soon. I thank everyone present for their most valuable contributions.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
As the hon. Lady said, there are occasions when quality makes up for quantity, and the House has behaved in an exemplary manner this afternoon. Thank you for your courtesy.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 737660 relating to automatic by-elections following Member defections.
Written Corrections
Ministerial Corrections
Education
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rosie Duffield
… Unfortunately, the Government’s funding announcement in their White Paper is just a drop in the ocean compared with what is needed to radically improve SEND services in east Kent. Can the Minister tell me what other steps she will take to deliver urgently needed improvements in SEND provision in my constituency, as the funding looks likely to equate to only a few thousand pounds extra per school?
Georgia Gould
My hon. Friend will know that we have recently announced support to local authorities like Kent in order to address 90% of their deficits. We are building three new special schools in Kent and putting in place £3.7 billion in capital investment, and the allocation for Kent will be coming onboard shortly.
[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 567.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Queen's Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould):
Georgia Gould
… We are building two new special schools and a new alternative provision in Kent and putting in place £3.7 billion in capital investment, and the allocation for Kent will be coming onboard shortly.
Health and Social Care
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Morgan
The Minister is probably about to draw his remarks to a close, but can I press him again on the mental health investment standard, which should ensure that the proportion of NHS spending on mental health goes up every year? In the last year for which we have numbers, it had gone up as a proportion of ICB spend, but had fallen as a proportion of overall NHS spend. Can the Minister commit that the Department will not be abandoning that standard, and that we will see mental health spending go up each year?
Dr Ahmed
I can certainly commit to the hon. Lady that mental health spending in real terms will go up every single year. It went up by £688 million in real terms this year.
[Official Report, 26 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 239WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed):
Dr Ahmed
I can certainly commit to the hon. Lady that mental health spending will go up every single year. It went up by £688 million in cash terms this year.
NHS Capital Spending
The following extract is from the Westminster Hall debate on NHS Capital Spending on 4 March 2026.
Helen Maguire
The Minister is making an important point about the vital need for capital funding in the NHS. I and a number of colleagues are here in the Chamber because St Helier hospital is falling apart, and unfortunately patients are being affected, but the hospital build programme has been delayed another three years. There has been lots of goodwill in the debate, but we are looking for additional investment in the A&E. I hope the Minister will take that away, and that there might be something about it in a statement soon.
Karin Smyth
The Chancellor has made her key decision to put us back on track, announcing in the Budget that capital health spending would increase by £15.2 billion by the end of the spending review period in 2029-30.
[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 387WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth):
Karin Smyth
The Chancellor has made her key decision to put us back on track, announcing in the Budget that capital health spending would increase to £15.2 billion by the end of the spending review period in 2029-30.
Written Statements
Single-source Defence Contracts: Profit Rates
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
The strategic defence review makes it clear that we are entering a new era of threat. This demands a new era for UK defence—one focused on warfighting readiness and the ability to scale and sustain capability at pace. A resilient, productive defence industry and strong supply chains are essential to that work. Element 2025-26 rates 2026-27 rates Baseline profit rate (% on contract cost) 8.56% 9.10% Baseline profit rate to apply to contracts between the Secretary of State and a company wholly owned by the UK Government, and where both parties agree (% on contract cost) 0.00% 0.00% Fixed capital servicing rate (% on fixed capital employed) 3.64% 4.05% Working capital servicing rate (% on positive working capital employed) 4.69% 5.25% Working capital servicing rate (% on negative working capital employed) 3.21% 4.18%
To deliver this, we need to ensure that our suppliers receive a fair return on their defence contracts, while also protecting the interests of the taxpayer. Each year, the independent Single Source Regulations Office undertakes a rigorous analysis of the profits earned by companies that undertake comparable work to our major defence suppliers. I am therefore announcing today that the Secretary of State has accepted the SSRO’s recommendation that the baseline profit rate for single-source defence contracts in financial year 2026-27 be set at 9.10%, an increase of 0.54 percentage points from 2025-26. He has also accepted the other rates recommended by the SSRO, which will come into force on 1 April 2026. These rates, which are set out at table 1, strike the right balance: they are fair to suppliers, reflect prevailing market conditions, and deliver value for money for the taxpayer.
Alongside this, the Government are progressing at pace the wider review of the Single Source Contract Regulations, as commissioned in the defence industrial strategy. We have already held workshops with industry and the SSRO, and we intend to publish the full report later this year. That review will consider how the framework can better support productivity, pace, innovation and access, while continuing to safeguard value for money.
The Government value deeply the contribution of the UK defence industry. A strong, competitive supplier base is essential to our security and growth, and that is what we are delivering through our defence industrial strategy. But that partnership must be grounded in fair returns, higher productivity and faster delivery, ensuring that defence spending translates directly into military advantage.
This approach—fair profit, strong governance, and a relentless focus on productivity and readiness—goes to the heart of ensuring that UK defence is ready to deter, fight and win.
Table 1: Recommended Rates by the Secretary of State for Defence
[HCWS1402]
Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025: Government Response
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
On Friday, the Government set out their response to the nuclear regulatory review 2025. The review found that while the United Kingdom has a strong safety culture, the current system for nuclear regulation and delivery is fragmented, slow, and overly cautious. The Government accept this assessment and shall modernise the system so that it is faster, clearer and predictable, while at all times maintaining high standards of safety and environmental protection. This is needed to deliver on the ambition we have for both for our civil and defence nuclear sectors.
The response we are publishing today addresses all of the review’s 47 recommendations and sets out a coherent and ambitious plan to streamline nuclear delivery in Britain.
We will simplify regulation. Projects that involve multiple regulators will have a single co-ordinating point of contact through a lead regulator model, with the Office for Nuclear Regulation as the default lead for nuclear fission. We will legislate to establish a commission on nuclear regulation to resolve cross-cutting issues and reduce duplication.
We will restore proportionality in decision making. Government will convene an independent expert panel to review how the tolerability of risk framework is interpreted, to guide regulators and industry in nuclear. Regulators will revise guidance, so that it supports proportionate, evidence-based decisions. We will clarify how proportionality, in nuclear, should be applied under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, without reducing protections for workers or the public.
We will strengthen culture, skills and digital capability. We will go further with the nuclear skills plan, and launch a nuclear digital programme to drive the adoption of new tools, such as artificial intelligence and digital twins, across design, regulation, and delivery.
We will speed up the wider planning and environmental system to support nuclear delivery. We will use the nature restoration fund and environmental delivery plans to provide clearer routes for meeting obligations, resulting in better outcomes for nature. For defence nuclear, the Government will bring forward an alternative pathway for compliance with the habitats regulations, where this is necessary in the interests of national security. We will introduce a proportionate biodiversity net gain framework for nationally significant infrastructure, and will legislate to constrain the duty for national parks and national landscapes. We will improve our nuclear siting policy by updating the national policy statement for nuclear, EN-7, to support fleet deployment, and will revise the semi-urban population criterion in a way that maintains public safety while expanding the range of viable sites.
We will make the planning pathway faster and clearer. We will streamline the pre-application phase for development consent orders, and strengthen the initial assessment of principal issues, so that examinations focus on what matters. We will also ensure that the geological disposal facility programme has the powers that it needs, including on land access and bespoke permitted development rights.
International co-operation remains important. The ONR is deepening work with partner regulators, including through recent agreements with the United States and Canada, and we will support a joint international strategy to reduce duplication and share effort. Implementation of these reforms will be overseen by a nuclear regulatory implementation panel, made up of senior figures from Government, regulators and industry, which will report regularly to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and relevant Secretaries of State.
Delay has a cost, so we are already working on some of the reforms, and aim to complete implementation by the end of 2027, subject to legislative timelines. To ensure that live projects like Sizewell C and the small modular reactors programme can benefit, we will begin updating processes, and will issue interim guidance immediately, so that improvements can start now, while we wait to take through legislation.
I want to thank John Fingleton and the taskforce for their work in bringing these issues to the fore, and I make the commitment to all that through this programme, we will cut duplication, strengthen safety by focusing on outcomes, and give investors and developers the confidence to proceed. We are delivering on these recommendations already. Taking these steps is vital for securing our energy future and sustaining the sovereign capabilities that keep our country safe.
[HCWS1398]
Fusion Strategy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is today publishing “A New Energy Revolution: The UK’s Plan for Delivering Fusion Energy”.
This strategy builds on the Government’s record £2.5 billion investment in fusion research and development secured at the spending review, supporting the UK’s growing fusion industry and reaffirming Britain’s leading position in the global race for fusion energy. We are turning the promise of abundant fusion energy into a reality, as we take long-term decisions while delivering tangible benefits now; for example, we are supporting over 10,000 UK jobs by 2030, driving inward investment, and giving industry the confidence to take fusion from the lab to the grid.
In support of this strategy, UK Industrial Fusion Solutions, to become UK Fusion Energy Ltd, has announced details of the STEP—spherical tokamak for energy production—construction partner that will build the world-leading fusion energy plant on the site of a former coal plant in West Burton in Nottinghamshire. Large-scale construction is expected to start by the end of the decade, with jobs supported in the near term through the building of research and development test facilities for key technologies and site preparation.
We are also harnessing the power of artificial intelligence to accelerate fusion design, modelling, and operations. The Government are investing £45 million to fund the world’s most powerful fusion-dedicated AI supercomputer, developed in collaboration between UK Atomic Energy Authority and the University of Cambridge.
We will drive progress towards fusion deployment by making the UK the first to offer a market framework for fusion energy, giving support and certainty to fusion developers as they make capital-intensive investments in new technology. We will work with industry, consumer groups and others to develop options to provide confidence to investors and ensure a fair deal for consumers.
I fully intend for the UK to be the home of fusion skills and innovation, backed by £50 million for skills development to train over 2,000 people in fusion-related disciplines, from apprentices to postdoctoral fellows, ensuring a comprehensive fusion skills pipeline to supply the sector at all levels.
This strategy underscores the UK’s role as a global player in fusion energy, and we intend to develop that further, anchoring a supply chain in the UK that can serve a global industry, as well as attract inward investment. Our forthcoming investment prospectus will set out exactly where opportunities lie for investors, developers and the wider fusion sector, and what capabilities, skills, companies and support they can draw on. As a signal of confidence in the UK fusion programme, the strategy is accompanied by a set of wider announcements, including UKAEA and Eni agreeing to establish a joint venture to advance fusion energy technologies. This new strategy also sets out for the first time how the Government’s record-breaking investment into fusion of over £2.5 billion will be spent.
Together, this package represents the UK’s clean energy superpower mission in action. It demonstrates that the Government are taking a bold and practical approach, addressing the asks of industry, creating the conditions for a globally leading UK fusion sector, and maintaining the UK’s position at the forefront of global fusion commercialisation.
I will place a copy of the fusion strategy in the Libraries of the House.
[HCWS1404]
Sustainable Development for Nature and Growth
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
This Government have committed to building 1.5 million homes and fast-tracking 150 major planning decisions this Parliament—these are essential for growth, communities, cleaner energy and better transport links.
Yet nature and biodiversity remain under pressure, and our planning system has become too slow and uncertain to support either development or nature recovery effectively. In the past, environmental requirements were challenging to navigate, blocking infrastructure without helping nature.
But this can be resolved. Independent reviews have told us that to remedy this situation we need smarter regulation, bringing better results for nature while easing the progress of sustainable development. We have already taken action to streamline the planning process through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, and to deliver better outcomes for nature through proposals for the nature restoration fund; building on the ambitious commitments set out in our environmental improvement plan. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has also set up the infrastructure board to scrutinise the planning needs of complex projects, and has commenced pilots for the lead environmental regulator to provide a single point of contact to developers on environmental issues.
We must build on this momentum and move decisively to a modern, outcomes-focused framework for environmental planning. That is why I am renewing the priorities of environmental regulation to build on the Government’s plan to deliver environmental progress and sustainable growth more effectively, as a genuine win-win.
The Government, regulators and developers must each play their part. Our regulators will continue to move towards a more proactive, solutions-focused approach, prioritising outcomes over process. Developers must have a better understanding of the local nature needs of the area they are building in, and the Government will provide the clarity and investment needed to bring this all together.
I will be driving this progress in five key areas:
First, the Government are setting a clear direction for our regulators, through the new strategic policy statements for Natural England and the Environment Agency. Their publication delivers on one of Dan Corry’s key recommendations and sets a clear mandate for outcomes-focused, place-based decision making that supports economic growth while upholding all legal and environmental standards.
Secondly, to support this, we are confirming £100 million of investment over three years in our regulators for specialist staff, digital casework systems, and improved guidance, all of which builds on the significant progress made in the past year to deliver quicker and better environmental advice.
Thirdly, to keep critical national projects on track, we are establishing a new DEFRA infrastructure unit, which will oversee major projects and resolve issues early and quickly. This builds on the work of DEFRA’s infrastructure board.
Fourthly, for the first time, I will also bring developers and Government together through a development industry council, to work through practical challenges and agree shared, sustainable solutions.
In addition, we are continuing to develop our lead environmental regulator model and are announcing East West Rail as the third major project to benefit from this streamlined approach. This model strips out duplication, provides better co-ordination between regulators, and removes the potential for conflicting advice, and will help the project unlock £6.7 billion in economic growth, support 100,000 new homes, and deliver better, more frequent rail connections across the Oxford-Cambridge corridor. I have written to my colleagues who have constituencies along this route to inform them of our progress.
The benefits of this new approach are already visible. The DEFRA infrastructure board has taken early action on issues related to environmental regulation, resourcing and capability, by engaging early with developers and challenging our ALBs to problem solve upstream for priority projects.
This package marks a decisive shift towards delivering growth and nature recovery hand in hand. By strengthening regulators, improving predictability and working more closely with industry, we will deliver the next phase of Government action to accelerate the infrastructure the country needs while protecting the environment.
[HCWS1405]
Angiolini Inquiry Part 3: Terms of Reference
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
On 7 February 2023, the Government published the terms of reference for part 3 of the Angiolini inquiry.
Part 3 of the inquiry was commissioned to examine the career and conduct of former Metropolitan police officer David Carrick, following his conviction for multiple sexual offences in January 2023. He was subsequently convicted of further sexual offences in November 2025.
Following a request from the chair of the inquiry, Lady Elish Angiolini, the Home Secretary has agreed to make some amendments to the terms of reference for part 3. The result of these amendments is that the inquiry will now be able to consider evidence related to allegations of criminal behaviour prior to and during David Carrick’s policing career. The amendments also make explicit reference to psychological and/or psychiatric reports written about David Carrick as material that the inquiry may consider.
The chair’s intention with these amendments is to better understand the potential drivers and motivation for Carrick’s offending, with a view to assisting police forces in understanding how to better identify and disrupt perpetrators of these horrific crimes during the recruitment and vetting stages and ensure those unfit to serve have no place in policing.
The Angiolini inquiry was launched in January 2022 following the horrific murder of Sarah Everard by a then-serving Metropolitan police officer; the report for part 1 was published on 29 February 2024. Part 2 of the inquiry, examining broader issues in policing such as vetting, recruitment, and culture, commenced on 11 May 2023 and is currently ongoing, with a report on the prevention of sexually motivated crimes against women in public published on 2 December 2025.
A copy of the amended terms of reference for part 3 of the inquiry will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1400]
Women in the Criminal Justice System
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Justice (Lord Timpson) has today made the following statement:
"I wish to update the House on the Government’s work to improve outcomes for women in or at risk of contact with the criminal justice system, and to set out next steps following the publication of the women's justice board report today.
Although women account for only a small proportion of those in custody and serving community sentences, they face distinct and complex challenges. Evidence shows that women in custody are more likely to have experienced domestic or sexual abuse, trauma, mental ill health and substance misuse. They are also more likely than men in custody to be primary carers. Reducing the number of women entering custody is essential to breaking cycles of harm that affect families and communities.
The women’s justice board was established to support the Government goal of enabling more women offenders to be managed in the community. At the request of the Deputy Prime Minister, and at my request, members of the board have produced a report offering recommendations to reduce the number of women in prison, and to ensure women receive the support they need across the system to turn their lives around.
A key recommendation in the report is the need for sustainable, long-term investment in women’s specialist services for delivering gender-specific, trauma-informed support. In line with this, I am delighted to announce that the Government will provide an additional £10 million in funding for women’s community and voluntary organisations over the spending review period, bringing total funding over this period to £31.6 million. This uplift will strengthen diversion pathways and build capacity within the women’s community sector—supporting the sustainable, resilient services called for by the women’s justice board.
I am very grateful to members of the board for their leadership, expert judgement and unwavering commitment to improving women’s justice.
As we move from strategy to delivery, the women’s justice board will now come to an end. To support this next phase of work, we will transition to a new women’s justice advisory group. This group will act as a distinct advisory forum, providing external insight, expert advice and constructive challenge to support implementation.
Improving outcomes for women in the criminal justice system remains a priority for Government. We are now going to consider carefully the recommendations in this report and how we are best able to deliver reform in this vital area.
I will deposit a copy of the report, ‘Women’s Justice Board recommendations for reducing women’s imprisonment’, in the Library of the House.”
[HCWS1401]
Media Literacy Action Plan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
Today I am laying before Parliament the Government’s media literacy action plan. It sets out our commitment to fostering a safe, informed and resilient digital society.
Media literacy is an essential everyday skill that supports people to understand and take part in modern life. It helps people of all ages to: make sense of the information they encounter online and assess whether it is reliable; communicate safely; and navigate the internet with confidence. It supports understanding of how platforms and new technologies, including artificial intelligence, shape what people see and share, and enables informed choices about personal information. It also supports participation in everyday activities, including exploring new interests, connecting with others and taking part in democratic life. It is central to digital inclusion and to ensuring that people can benefit from online services and opportunities.
The importance of media literacy, and the need for cross-Government co-ordination, was highlighted by the Lords Communications and Digital Committee in its 2025 inquiry. While the Online Safety Act 2023 provides the regulatory foundation for safer online experiences, regulation alone cannot address the challenges created by misleading information, harmful content and rapid technological change. Significant work on media literacy is already taking place, with Government Departments, Ofcom, charities, educators, libraries and industry partners delivering media literacy activity across the UK. Education and public empowerment are essential, and the Government’s wider programme of work, including the consultation, “Growing up in the online world: a national consultation”, will support skills development and help to build resilience across society.
This plan sets out a clear approach for a single, co-ordinated, cross-Government framework for the next three years, establishes shared principles and priority areas for action, and provides a clearer picture of the support available across the UK. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has provided funding for a pilot media literacy campaign, and the plan otherwise integrates media literacy into existing initiatives within departmental budgets.
Over the next three years, the Government will focus on priorities in building public awareness of media literacy and supporting access to trusted information; preparing children and young people for a digital future; boosting local initiatives to support people facing barriers to participation; and ensuring a coherent, co-ordinated approach across Government and with partners beyond it.
Through this work, the Government’s ambition is to ensure that everyone can take part in the online world with confidence and benefit fully from the opportunities it offers.
[HCWS1399]
Youth Employment
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
At the Budget, the Chancellor committed more than £1.5 billion to back young people through the youth guarantee and changes to the growth and skills levy.
Today we are going even further. We are announcing almost £1 billion more to help young people into work and training, unlocking up to 200,000 jobs and apprenticeship opportunities by investing in:
The youth jobs grant, an employer hiring incentive worth £3,000 per young person aged 18 to 24 who has been on universal credit and looking for work for six months;
A new apprenticeship incentive, £2,000 for non-levy paying small and medium-sized enterprises in England when they take on new employees aged under 25; and
Expanding the jobs guarantee to 22 to 24-year-olds, meaning all eligible 18 to 24-year-olds across Great Britain will benefit from a fully funded six-month guaranteed paid employment opportunity.
Our ambition is for every 16 to 24-year-old across Great Britain to access opportunity. These changes take the total investment into the youth guarantee and the additional investment in the growth and skills levy to £2.5 billion over the next three years, supporting almost 1 million young people, and creating up to 500,000 opportunities to earn and learn.
This will begin in April, when the first phase of the jobs guarantee will go live for 18 to 21-year-olds in Birmingham and Solihull, East Midlands, Greater Manchester, Hertfordshire and Essex, Central and East Scotland, and South-west and South-east Wales. This will be followed by national roll-out in the autumn of this year for 18 to 24-year-olds.
Further reform to the growth and skills levy
There has been a 40% drop in young people starting apprenticeships over the past decade. This is why the Government are setting out the next stages of the growth and skills levy reforms, to reverse this sharp decline in apprenticeship starts for 16 to 24-year-olds and address the rising number of those not in education, employment or training.
To support this, we are announcing the expansion of foundation apprenticeships into hospitality and retail. These are sectors that traditionally employ large numbers of young people and provide strong entry points into sustained employment, while also supporting retention and progression.
We are also introducing new apprenticeship units aligned to industrial strategy priorities, to give employers greater flexibility in how they upskill their employees. This will make it easier and faster for businesses to address their critical skills needs in areas including AI, construction and engineering, and we will develop further units informed by ongoing input from industrial strategy growth-driving sectors.
We will prioritise youth apprenticeship starts within the growth and skills levy, stopping the 40% decline in apprenticeship starts that has occurred over the past decade.
This will mean that the Government are no longer funding three leadership and management apprenticeship standards that are largely used by employers for older, established staff as continuing professional development, but are instead using the funding for new apprenticeship starts for young people. A further 13 standards that do not sufficiently support young people or our industrial strategy ambitions will also be defunded.
Streamlining the existing offer ensures that our increased investment delivers maximum value for money, supports clearer routes into skilled jobs, and creates headroom for investment into new opportunities for young people and employers alike.
[HCWS1403]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
, My Lords, good afternoon. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Treaty Scrutiny in Westminster (International Agreements Committee Report)
Lord Goldsmith
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the International Agreements Committee Treaty Scrutiny in Westminster: Addressing the Accountability Gap (10th Report, HL Paper 168).
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, it is fitting that my final act as the outgoing chair of the International Agreements Committee is to open a debate about the process of treaty scrutiny in Parliament. I am delighted to see that so many present and past members of the committee will take part today.
The inquiry we launched last year was designed to take stock of how scrutiny has operated in the committee’s first five years. Our conclusion, in short, is that the current framework for treaty scrutiny under CRaG is, to quote one of our witnesses,
“a weak and insufficient mechanism for securing meaningful accountability”.
I will briefly address the main reasons leading to that conclusion.
As many will know, the framework for treaty scrutiny is set out in Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, commonly known as CRaG. This legislation gives both Houses of Parliament 21 joint sitting days to consider a treaty and decide whether to vote against ratification. This process has not fundamentally changed in 100 years.
The first issue is that the CRaG process does not allow enough time for scrutiny. It is frankly impossible to conduct an in-depth, evidence-based review of a significant treaty within the 21-day CRaG deadline. Remember, this deadline is for Parliament to debate and vote on the treaty; the International Agreements Committee and its officials have even less time to produce their report for Members of the House to consider ahead of a debate. Your Lordships will appreciate that such a rapid timescale takes no account of what is involved in proper parliamentary scrutiny, in particular the evidence gathering.
Most treaties laid in Parliament do not require detailed scrutiny, because they are routine or technical, but the minority of significant treaties deserve more attention than the timetable under CRaG allows. The Government have accepted that some important treaties merit more time. Since EU exit, Governments have, by concession, allowed Parliament more time to consider free trade agreements. Parliament typically has about three to four months to conduct an inquiry into a free trade agreement because, crucially, the International Agreements Committee receives the treaty text and explanatory documents after the agreement has been signed, but before the CRaG clock starts ticking. The recent debate—in this Room—on the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with India was the outcome of such an in-depth inquiry.
But free trade agreements are not the only type of treaty that warrant this kind of enhanced scrutiny. Significant multilateral agreements, such as the Paris climate change agreement or the new World Health Organization agreement on pandemic preparation, is one other obvious category. Then there are bilateral treaties where there is a high degree of public interest; recent examples include the Rwanda asylum partnership agreement and the agreement with Mauritius on the Chagos Archipelago.
In the trade space, your Lordships may not be aware that the enhanced scrutiny procedures that I have described apply only to treaties formally classified as free trade agreements and not to other potentially important trade agreements, such as mini-deals on digital trade, technology or critical minerals. Importantly, they also do not apply to understandings or commitments not included in formal treaties that need ratification, such as memoranda of understanding or the very important understandings on tariffs reached by His Majesty’s Government with the United States of America.
For important treaties that are not FTAs, the only mechanism to secure more time is to ask the Government for an extension of the 21-day period. But the Government have shown themselves reluctant to grant extensions, even in cases where they accept that the public interest is high and there is no urgency to ratify. The Chagos Islands agreement was such a case. I know there are strongly held opinions in this House and elsewhere about that agreement, but whatever differences Members may have on its merits, I hope we can all agree that the treaty deserved more detailed scrutiny than the CRaG process allowed. The IAC had just over three weeks to produce a report in time for the scheduled debate.
Our report asked the Government to make a commitment to accept a reasoned request from the IAC for a single extension of the scrutiny period of up to 21 days, unless there are compelling operational reasons to the contrary. We thought that a modest, eminently reasonable approach, and I regret that the Government’s response did not even directly address the proposal. They said that they need the flexibility to decline an extension but declined to state the specific circumstances in which that might be necessary. Since the committee’s proposal would not prevent the Government declining where there is clear reason to do so, I urge them to reconsider the committee’s request. I invite the Minister to take that away, if nothing else.
A second major problem with CRaG is that scrutiny is triggered by the form of an international agreement, rather than its substance. Some treaties are excluded from scrutiny entirely if they are not subject to ratification, or, the Government may choose—it often is a choice—to use a non-legally binding instrument to achieve their aims. Our report highlights research by the Commons Library which shows that, in relation to the expulsion of illegal migrants, the Home Office frequently chooses non-binding arrangements with third countries rather than treaties subject to CRaG scrutiny—as, indeed, we saw with the first stage of the Rwanda scheme; we pointed that out and the Government then reached a treaty. Even where a treaty is ratified and subject to CRaG, amendments to that treaty might be excluded from scrutiny. Everything depends on the process the Government choose to adopt, rather than the importance of the measures. This in itself creates an obvious scrutiny gap.
The third, and perhaps most fundamental, issue is that even when CRaG applies, the role of Parliament is very weak. The power of this House could be described, at best, as the power to ask the Government to think again about ratification. The Commons at least has the power to delay ratification, but that is more theoretical than real, as the Government have a tendency to refuse time for debate on treaties in the other House, and, without a debate, that recommendation to delay ratification cannot take binding effect.
The weakness of Parliament’s role in relation to treaties is in stark contrast to the position in most other countries. The vast majority of other countries require legislative consent for at least some treaties. This includes many countries with dualist constitutional systems similar to the UK’s, where treaties are not automatically part of domestic law. I do not know how many times I have heard it said that because we are dualist we do not need parliamentary scrutiny. That is completely untrue. Internationally, the UK is an outlier in relation to treaty scrutiny. During our debate on the India CETA, a number of noble Lords powerfully made the argument that the benefit of being able to say, “That will not wash in Westminster”, was of great value in trade negotiations.
At the risk of pre-empting my noble friend Lady Chapman’s reply, I will say a few words about the arguments that Governments of both parties have traditionally advanced to defend the status quo. First, it is said that the light-touch approach of CRaG is justified because Parliament gets to scrutinise treaty-implementing legislation. But scrutiny of implementing measures is not an effective substitute. Parliament needs to be able to look at a treaty as a whole, and the policy reasons underpinning it, but the policy is locked in by the time Parliament looks at implementing measures. Moreover, legislation may not even be required for a specific treaty and, when it is, the legislation is often limited to specific aspects.
Secondly, the Government say they need flexibility to strike deals in the national interest and that CRaG provides an appropriate balance between this flexibility and accountability to Parliament. That is patently not the case. The reality is that the CRaG Act gives the Government so much discretion at different stages of the process that the balance is skewed overwhelmingly in the Government’s favour. Paragraph 46 of our report lists the various ways in which the current framework allows the Government to avoid or limit scrutiny, including by choosing the form of an agreement and deciding whether to extend the time for scrutiny.
We therefore concluded that there is an accountability gap and that reform of the current scrutiny framework is needed. To address problems in the short term, we proposed a set of practical and operational measures to make the current framework under the CRaG Act more effective. I welcome the Government’s willingness to accept many of these recommendations, and I urge the Minister to make it a priority to put them into practice.
However, such operational changes cannot fix the fundamental defects that I have described and the imbalance of power between Parliament and the Executive. I believe that there is a powerful case for legislative reform to address this and I call on the Government and my noble friend to engage with the IAC and with Parliament more widely to bring treaty scrutiny into the 21st century.
At the conclusion of the recent debate on the India agreement, I tried to capture this problem by urging that the scrutiny of treaties should not be a second-class citizen when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny. The point I was trying to make was better and more eloquently made by the great Walter Bagehot, who argued in The English Constitution that, because treaties can have as much impact as domestic laws, it is illogical to require the elaborate assent of representative assemblies to every word of the law while not consulting them even on the essence of the treaty.
While CRaG has made some inroads on the deficiency, our report and the evidence we received shows that it is a miserly and inadequate response to this accountability gap. I hope, therefore, in this final act as outgoing chair—as I finally pass the baton to the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston, who I am glad is in his place—I can persuade your Lordships to encourage my noble friend the Minister and her colleagues to take a courageous and bold approach to reducing the accountability gap. I beg to move.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, we have already sung the praises of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and I am delighted to do so again in relation to this excellent report and his chairmanship of this committee over the past few years. I also commend the team who put a huge amount of effort into creating the report, which I think people have found enormously useful. It is very powerfully written.
It is 100% clear that the current process of treaty scrutiny falls far below what is expected in a democracy and what is seen to operate in other countries, such as Australia. I am embarrassed to quote Bagehot. I have taken him from the other side, because he is clear in my view that the prerogative of treaty making lies with the Executive, which I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was referring to. He is correct that the work of making an agreement with another country or multinational body is indeed the work of the Executive. However, these agreements are central to the policy-making and laws of this country, and it is also the prerogative of Parliament—I think he is quite clear about that—to scrutinise the work of the Executive post the treaty’s creation and before it can be properly ratified.
The issue we have is not with the Executive’s role, but with the absurdly short time—which is very clearly demonstrated in this report and has been mentioned by numerous similar committees over many years—given to us to properly assess the validity of any agreements that we as a nation enter into. In my mind, effective scrutiny ensures a better thought-through process. It can actually aid negotiations, and publicise and bring popular support and awareness to the treaties themselves—an issue which I think noble Lords and the Government will acknowledge as vital if they are to be used properly by businesses and people at large.
I am not naive enough to suggest that the Government will change the CRaG process any time soon. In my time as a Minister, the officials—around whom much is designed, I am afraid to say—were equally forceful in their position. But can the Minister assure us that the Government will make as much additional effort as possible to ensure that we have as much transparency and warning as possible for treaties that do not gain the extended CRaG timeline, as FTAs do?
I have been extremely grateful for the engagement the Minister has given me personally on this matter. I met today the FCDO chief legal officer, who was also extremely helpful in trying to ensure that there is an elasticity around the interpretation of concepts such as transparency and pipeline. However, it would be good to have some details on that and some firmer commitments in terms of where we can get extensions and how the other parts of the process can fit together.
My second request is for the Minister to write to me with answers to the following two questions, unless she has them to hand. I am interested in finding out how many treaties we have signed but not yet ratified. This is not unimportant, since it will help us to understand the flow of work for the IAC and to see how we are progressing on executing the broad international agreements plans. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has already referred to the fact that we are aware of, and indeed in many instances encourage, other kinds of non-binding agreements entered into by Ministers with other countries and bodies. They can be very useful tools for engagement. How many of these types of agreements are there? What sectors do they cover? What has been the effect, positive or negative? I think this is a very serious issue and I am sure the Minister is curious about the answers to this question.
Treaties and agreements are central to our foreign policy—indeed, trade and defence is diplomacy—but we are unsure about the efficacy of our overall plan. Indeed, do we have one? Do we have a foreign or trade policy other than simply to try to do as much as possible? I recommend that the Government develop a plan as rapidly as possible. I do not believe we had such a plan under the previous Government. I mention this because the situation with the WTO and, indeed, our relationship with the USA over the situation in Iran only emphasise the problems we face without a proper idea of where we are heading and why. To this end, the IAC is planning on writing a report that focuses on the changing world order—sadly not for the better, in my view—and in particular on how our trade instruments, which we have just mentioned, both binding and non-binding, and the various treaties and agreements we use, make us as a nation stronger and richer. I hope the Government will support this report and take note of whatever we produce.
I worry that we are entering a phase of global affairs where international law is seen as some sort of woke, left-wing agenda to hinder a nation’s ability to self-govern, and that on principle we should ignore findings or rulings we dislike and withdraw from the international trade system where it suits us. In my mind, this is very dangerous. We are a trading nation and we need to fit within a global order in order to prosper. The nature of treaty scrutiny fits entirely within this. Parliament has to be in a position to endorse the actions taken on our behalf by the Government, and I ask the Minister to take our findings in the report we are presenting today very seriously. If the Government do not, it will lead to further erosion of the systems and structures that, in my view, have allowed us to dominate international trade and have kept us safe from conflict for 70 years. As Hobbes, the philosopher, wrote, a world without enforceable laws is a miserable and unpredictable one, where the arts and industry cannot flourish. That is why I commend this report to the Committee.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I am loath to repeat what has been said before, but I want to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for this report and for outlining its principles very clearly, which are, to encompass them in just one sentence, that the current legal framework in which we operate is not good enough and does not work in the interests of our people, Parliament has to work to ensure that it is fit for purpose and we need to make sure that that change is ahead of us. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for his work and for his clear explanation.
The matter before us is that the Government’s response to what has been put before them is. “Well, we’ll have a look at absolutely anything you want us to, but what we will not do is enter into a statutory change”. In fact, somewhere within the response there is the wonderful phrase that we hear so often, “Parliamentary time is not available”. The reason for this work is primarily contained in a single sentence in paragraph 39:
“Treaties are now not just about high policy affecting relations between states, but deal with a huge range of issues directly touching on matters of domestic law and people’s daily lives”.
It is that function, which is charged by the CRaG legislation, that is so poor in the way it can be interpreted to provide an answer to that single point inside the report.
I would like to ask the Minister how co-ordination works between the FCDO and those who provide the background work on developing the treaties and other matters that come before us. It seems to me that most of what we hear comes from either the Department for Business or the Home Office, and that these proposed treaties coming before us are both devised and run by those departments. I would like to understand better the relationship between the FCDO and the implementing departments that are responsible for the development of the treaties before us, so that we can seek better engagement. At the moment, it looks to me as if the Government’s response is, “Keep taking the paracetamol because there’s no need to bother the doctor”. In other words, the Government are basically saying, “Make do with what you’ve got because we can’t make a firm diagnosis and make the change that is required”. That is not something we wish to hear, and nor does it benefit the purposes of the treaties and their impact on the human lives of so many of our people.
On that, I will address the issue of the devolved Parliaments, which the committee has taken in its stride in trying to understand how they deal with these matters. Given that so many of the treaties affect the devolved Parliaments’ working relationships and working activities, as well as the legislation they apply—on education, health, transportation, roads, planning, the provision of social services, agriculture and much more—it is, at the moment, very difficult for the Assembly and the other devolved Parliaments to respond in the given time. Imagine it: we have 21 days and we give it to them and say, “Why don’t you tell us what you think?” By the time we get an answer back and their committees have sat, we have well exceeded that time. So I want to hear from the Minister what more the Government can do to encourage and assist the Assembly and the other devolved Parliaments so that they can deal with these matters properly.
The third bundle of activity, which has already been referred to, concerns the new way of doing free trade agreements, treaty agreements and so on—what the Government call “NBIs”, or “non-binding instruments”, in their response—which seem to be coming before us in a huge way at present. In their response, the Government give an explanation and say that they will do more of them if they can; we have also heard that in evidence from witnesses on the government side. If that is going to be the practice of the future, who will decide how these matters must be dealt with? The Government say that they will
“treat it like all other significant policy commitments”.
So the Government will decide whether it is a “significant policy commitment” and will then provide
“appropriate and timely information to Parliament”.
Information is not scrutiny, though. That is what this debate and this report are about: looking for appropriate scrutiny of what is happening, so that things can be improved in order to better the lives of the people of this country.
I am, therefore, pleased to support the recommendations in this report and ask the Government whether they intend to take the bold steps stated in the report, even though they have indicated that they cannot find the time.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, your Lordships’ Institutional Agreements Committee, on which I have the honour to serve, is a relatively newly established committee, with a mandate that in its vagueness perhaps reflects its novelty. It is a good step that we should be debating today the committee’s own report on its early years, so well introduced by our recently rotated chair, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the incoming chair, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston.
The first point to make is, as all the evidence we took records, that our Parliament is an outlier—probably better described as a backmarker—among democratic parliaments attempting to scrutinise their agreements with third countries, behind the US Congress and the European Parliament. That is not a place that we should accept as Britain navigates its way through increasingly choppy international waters.
For all the territory that we have traversed since the committee was set up, I record with gratitude that we have been given much help, in particular by the Department for Business and the FCDO. Even so, gaps and weaknesses have been revealed in our task of helping to apply the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, which is our basic duty. Those gaps and weaknesses could be remedied by modest changes. None of those that I will put emphasis on would require primary legislation. Here are three examples that I hope the Minister will reflect carefully on and respond to.
First, and by a long way foremost, is the need to address the choke point imposed by the limit of 21 working days for the committee to take evidence, report to the House and hold a debate on an agreement that the Government consider is covered by the CRaG procedures. I note, incidentally, that the choice of whether or not an agreement falls within the scope of CRaG procedures is entirely a matter for the Government. They have many other forms of agreement—memorandums of understanding being the favourite—by which they can evade those procedures, and they frequently do. It would be a great help if the Government would publish a text, setting out clearly the criteria that they use to make their choice as to whether the CRaG procedures need to apply.
Of more significance is the need to introduce more flexibility into the application of the 21-day limit. This hampers the taking of evidence by the committee and the drafting of its report. It is with some shame that I admit that, on one occasion recently, the committee was compelled to send forward to the House a report on which it had been unable to take any evidence at all. There is an easy remedy, put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, which I strongly endorse. The Government should agree that, as a general rule, they would grant one—I repeat, one—extension of a second 21-day period when the committee submitted a reasoned argument for so doing. The Government would retain the right to refuse such a request if they could demonstrate that doing so was in the national interest. The committee has shown plenty of flexibility on its side, when, for example, it agreed that the UK-France one-in, one-out agreement needed immediate application, without any of the committee procedures being engaged.
The second example is the rather bizarre fact that the Government accept the need for a CRaG process when an agreement is bilateral, but not when it is plurilateral or multilateral, even if it imposes binding legal obligations on the UK. More and more agreements fall into the latter two categories. A recent example was the decision by the Government—a very welcome decision in the committee’s view—in their trade strategy to join the World Trade Organization’s interim dispute settlement procedure. This requires the UK to accept a ruling in a dispute between it and another country in the interim procedure.
In fact, the committee welcomed this step, but it did not welcome being cut out of the process of approval. Further examples could arise later this year if a pandemic convention is successfully negotiated on a multilateral or plurilateral basis, or if a WTO arrangement covering e-commerce is agreed, as we hope it will be. So, this distinction between bilateral and multilateral legally binding instruments makes no sense at all and certainly does not contribute to parliamentary scrutiny.
Thirdly, as more international agreements with binding legal obligations with the UK are negotiated by departments other than the Department for Business and Trade or the FCDO in the lead, there is a crying need for better co-ordination in briefing the International Agreements Committee and in ensuring that it can effectively carry out its scrutiny responsibilities, on which the noble Lord, Lord German, made some relevant remarks. This could easily be achieved by circulating guidance to all such departments and ensuring that they apply the procedures meticulously and in a similar fashion.
If the three points that I have put forward were addressed, we would have a far better system of parliamentary scrutiny, without any need for primary legislation or any loss of royal prerogative.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the committee and its chairman on the report. I hesitate to participate in this debate since I have limited expertise in foreign affairs, and still less on the scrutiny of foreign treaties, but I was puzzled by the report’s focus on the scrutiny of treaties after they have been negotiated. By then, surely, it is too late to influence the substantive content of any treaty. Parliamentarians cannot revise a treaty and would reject it only if it were demonstrably malign. All Parliament can do is accept or reject a treaty.
Surely it would be more valuable to scrutinise the Government’s negotiating mandate at the start of negotiations. We do not do so because Governments rarely, if ever, publish the mandate they have given our negotiators. By contrast, the EU often does publish its mandate. As a result, I know more about the aims of the EU in the current reset negotiations than I do about my own Government’s. For instance, I know that the EU intends to secure a—I quote from the title of the mandate it gave its negotiators—
“financial contribution from the UK towards reducing economic and social disparities between the regions of the Union”.
That is in addition to cash payments the EU is demanding towards its administrative costs in each of the sectors now being negotiated.
This is an issue on which I am in rare agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, who said very pithily in the debate on these negotiations on 26 November:
“We also suffer from a degree of timidity in what we are putting forward, and the other side suffers from a bit of excessive ambition. I do not think we should be paying contributions into the EU budget, that it is right to try to charge us €10 billion to join SAFE, or that it is right to try to charge us for integration into the EU electricity market. These things are a common benefit—they suit both sides—so why should we pay?”.—[Official Report, 26/2/26; col. 777.]
If Parliament has an opportunity to express a view on issues such as this at the start, rather than when it is too late, that could surely strengthen the Government’s negotiating hand.
I have been struck by how many negotiations seem to have gone awry for the UK over the years. Most recently, the way the rationale for the Chagos deal has unravelled has been very disturbing. The incoherence of the Government’s approach to the reset negotiations suggests that a similar failure is in the making. But it is not just this Government’s negotiations: the withdrawal agreement started off just like the current reset negotiations, as I shall show in a moment.
There seem to be recurrent weaknesses in the way the FCDO negotiates, which might be alleviated if we had debates on the scrutiny of mandates rather than outcomes. I make it clear that any such weaknesses, even if they reflect the culture of the FCDO, are ultimately the responsibility of Ministers and Parliament. Ministers are responsible for the advice they take and the culture they tolerate. In my experience, officials do respond to clear guidance from Ministers. Parliament should, therefore, examine the FCDO culture that Ministers allow to prevail.
I will mention just a couple of weaknesses that seem to beset our approach to negotiations. Both perhaps reflect typical aspects of the British character. The first is a belief that making early concessions will generate good will and elicit corresponding concessions from the other side later. This naive belief makes the UK prey to the EU practice of demanding key concessions as a price for opening negotiations. The EU refused even to start reset negotiations unless we had first agreed—signed, sealed and delivered—to restrict the catch of fish from our waters for another 12 years. This supine Government committed us to that so that, even if the negotiations fail, we will have conceded it.
The EU employed the same gambit in the withdrawal negotiations, refusing to proceed unless the UK agreed that there should be no hard border in Ireland. Since the EU was threatening to erect a hard border, the UK had to accept whatever the EU deemed necessary to avoid it erecting one, in practice subjecting Northern Ireland to EU law and creating a border with Great Britain. My noble friend Lady May sadly signed up to that.
The second congenital or prevailing weakness is a very British aversion to rows, scenes and failure—or the prospect of failure. General de Gaulle in his memoirs said that when he was utterly dependent on Britain to arm and equip his Free French forces, he had only to threaten a row to equip another division. This aversion to rows, scenes and admitting failure results in the most egregious weakness of the British approach to negotiations: the failure to prepare, let alone deploy, what negotiators call their BATNA—their best alternative to a negotiated settlement. Sometimes, no deal can be better than a bad deal. It was Parliament, through the Burt-Benn Act, that deprived government of the option of exercising its BATNA, walking away from negotiations or threatening to do so—with very damaging consequences for the outcome of the withdrawal agreement negotiations.
Normally, I hope that parliamentarians would use the option of scrutiny at the beginning of negotiations to insist on the Government including a BATNA—a best alternative to a negotiated agreement—therefore stiffening our negotiators’ spines in future negotiations.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, it is very welcome that we have, in the space of a fortnight, two chances to debate committee reports from one of our most senior committees—I say that as a recent member of it. I find it is often the case that the House does not see the work going on in committees; we should see more of it, and it is good to do so today. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith for his excellent introduction and, of course, for his chairmanship in the time that he was on this committee.
The problem at the heart of this debate is how we should balance the current right of the Government to negotiate treaties and to ratify them using the royal prerogative against the rights that Parliament has, or should have, in all other policy matters. In the past, treaties were largely concerned with war, peace and international policy more generally but, today, trade policy is growing in importance, not just because of its return to the UK, having previously been dealt with by the EU Commission and EU Parliament but, most importantly, because it is evident that modern trade deals increasingly bring with them changes to a wide range of domestic policies. As we know from recent experiences in what is agreed outside parliamentary sight in bilateral trade discussions and, as referred to already, as we have seen in treaties such as Rwanda and the Chagos Islands, it is often necessary to look at collateral changes that follow in primary legislation. This impacts directly on existing terms and processes.
In short, treaties, whatever form they take, are drivers of policy and are as important to the people of this country as changes foreshadowed in manifestos. As these treaties and trade deals shape who we are as a nation, it surely follows that Parliament should examine them to the same standards as primary legislation. Our report lays out why the current arrangements are not as comprehensive, and certainly not as complete, as they should be. Parliament should have a major role to play in this process, one that can and will aid the Executive as they set up the trade agreements and make the treaties that are so urgently needed if we are to secure growth and prosperity in the future. It is very disappointing that this Government—my Government—are following the lines set by the previous Administration and seem unwilling to improve trade treaty scrutiny. Previous speakers have stressed how bad the current arrangements are. I wonder why we cannot have a workaround—I will propose one later in my speech—which would give us time while new legislation is being proposed.
My suggestion goes back to the discussions that led to the Grimstone rule during what is now the Trade Act. I led the Opposition Front Bench in the debates on that Bill, which lasted over three years, and I proposed the rule when it became clear that we were having difficulty in finding a way to engage Parliament. There was then, as now, no appetite to amend the procedures under CRaG. I now suggest that some variation of the Grimstone rule might be needed here. That rule sets up a process under which, when treaties are being contemplated, the IAC gets information about the negotiating rounds, documents that describe the Government’s strategic approach and periodic reports, as well as sight of the draft before it is finally ratified. This works well and could easily be implemented for all treaties, because it gets around the problem we explained in the report: when it comes to the formal approval process under CRaG, the strict timetable and limited powers of the two Houses do not give Parliament the time and authority that it needs.
As we say in our report:
“the scrutiny process under the CRAG Act is a weak and insufficient mechanism for securing meaningful parliamentary accountability… Scrutiny of implementing legislation is no substitute for treaty scrutiny”.
A balance clearly has to be struck between the flexibility that the Government need to negotiate in the national interest and the transparency and scrutiny that the public interest requires. The CRaG Act does not get the balance right, because the Government have too much discretion to act in ways that lead to the evasion of detailed scrutiny, including by refusing to grant adequate time for Parliament to examine and debate treaties. There is therefore a strong case for legislating in this area, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. In the interim, perhaps we could introduce the Chapman rule.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for his fair-minded chairmanship, and intellectually able and collegiate steering of our committee. It was particularly welcome to me, as a refugee from the European Affairs Committee.
Others have discussed the report and its conclusions, the most striking being that there is a strong case for reforming, by law, the arrangements for effective parliamentary scrutiny of international treaties under the CRaG Act 2010. Indeed, the report suggests, as other noble Lords have mentioned, that the UK is an outlier from other countries where Parliament has more of a say over treaties that sometimes require legislative consent.
I believe that treaties should remain a royal prerogative power. We need not be swayed by the example of continental states, most of which are relatively new or have emerged from revolution, war or violent struggle. By contrast, the UK’s constitutional arrangements emerged over centuries; they brought stability and the potential for change, and ensured the accountability of the Government and Parliament to the electorate. This was demonstrated at the 2019 general election, when the central issue was whether Parliament should decide the terms of the treaty with the EU or the Government on behalf of the people’s wish expressed in the referendum. Our system allowed the will of the majority to be followed, where a more continental system would have allowed a parliament, out of touch with those wishes, to thwart it.
However, I share the view that effective parliamentary scrutiny of government treaties is necessary—particularly that afforded by Parliament as a whole and by both Chambers, as happened with the vitally important agreements of the 1920s and 1930s. I agree that more time is needed, and I am interested in my noble friend Lord Lilley’s proposal for a pre-negotiation mandate debate. Then, as now, treaties were deeply political, which was something to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, referred to when he mentioned the Chagos question. But does today’s consensus-centred approach of Select Committees tend to mask this central feature of their political nature? The expectation of an inquiry is that officials must do the lion’s share of the initial drafting: they should draft the papers, the terms of reference and the report; they should prepare the draft questions for members to put to witnesses; and they should take the lead in selecting witnesses.
The aim of consensus deprives the committee of its political adversarial dimension. The assumption is that a scientific inquiry based on evidence is being conducted, which is judged to be neutral because it comes from expert witnesses. But those chosen disproportionately reflect the consensus—the centre-left view of our public service, media, academe and establishment. A worthwhile consensus includes and expresses a diversity of views. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, could not have been more encouraging of a diversity of opinions, but the system weighs against their being expressed fully, as does time. By contrast, a debate in and out of Parliament allows for a diversity of opinion.
Perhaps a straightforward way to improve the system we have would be for greater input by members to encourage and reflect a variety of political views, and for specialist witnesses to be of different political persuasions. Instead of the expectation that hard-working officials initiate the draft terms of an inquiry or report and prepare the questions, members’ views should actively be sought and reflected before and during each stage to frame the terms, select witnesses and highlight important points. Minority reports should be permitted and welcomed. In the end, parliamentary scrutiny would be the winner. The House of Lords Select Committee would be doing what it should to make that scrutiny more effective. It would be scrutiny by Parliament on behalf of the electorate, who would have the final say.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I need to respond to the rather surprising compliment from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I can do so because I agree with a number of things that he said, in particular on the case for parliamentary scrutiny during negotiation and before a deal is struck. I am sure that we all agreed with his strictures on the negotiating stance of his noble friend Lord Frost. I join in the tribute to the committee and its outgoing chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, under whom I served, and let us not forget the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who stood in so well for him when he had to step aside. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, who was by far the most sympathetic Minister with whom we did business, and to the incoming chairman, who maintained the Grimstone tradition.
There is an accountability gap; the report proves it very satisfactorily and clearly by comparing our procedures with those of comparable countries, including those with dualist systems. They have more say than we do. However, there is also a gap relative to the past. We have much less say now than we did when we were in the EU. With our Ministers taking part in Council decisions on opening, handling and concluding negotiations, Parliament’s scrutiny reserve meant that Ministers could be and were summoned to answer our questions before casting their votes. I served on our EU committee and four of its sub-committees, and I can confirm that their scrutiny, unlike today’s, was real. Moreover, once the Lisbon treaty came into force in 2009, our Members of the European Parliament enjoyed the right to be kept immediately and fully informed at all stages of every treaty negotiation led by the Commission—on trade, investment, agriculture, fisheries; any subject where full EU competence applied. Of course, they also had the right to vote on the outcome—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I was making the point that the European Parliament has the right to vote on the outcome of any treaty negotiation, of course: treaties require its positive consent. Its debates informed ours. My point is not just that there is an accountability gap relative to the European Parliament, but that our Government are now much less accountable to our Parliament than they were 16 years ago when CRaG was debated and agreed. So it really will not do for the Government to assert, as their reply to the committee does, that
“the CRaG Act strikes a careful balance between the power of the Executive to conclude and ratify treaties and the power of Parliament to scrutinise treaties subject to ratification”.
If CRaG got the balance right, by definition, the balance is wrong today. Or did careful Prime Minister Johnson correct, by Brexit, a mistake made by the careless Prime Minister Brown? I do not think so.
Two years ago, the Opposition Front Bench spokesman on trade in the other place stated that
“the CRaG process … is clearly not fit for purpose”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/3/24; col. 869.]
I agree. So let us not have any more of this “careful balance” nonsense now. I am not naive enough to expect that legislative time will be made available for major CRaG reform. I recognise that the Government’s response to the committee is not all nonsense; nor is it all just, “What we have, we hold”. The Government are prepared to discuss possible improvements in the way CRaG works. My plea to them is: be constructive about that process. Put a parliamentarian in charge of the process: that is, someone who has been a poacher. Do not leave it to the grim official gatekeeper/gamekeepers like me.
The status quo is acutely unsatisfactory and unbalanced, and five years of unbalance is long enough. As I said in our debate last week, our treaty negotiators will be more powerful if the ratification of the outcome of a negotiation is no longer known to be a foregone conclusion of farcical formality.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, page 8 of our report states baldly that
“governments since 2019 have not listened to Parliament”
in respect of treaty scrutiny at Westminster. So the question before us is, “Does there exist, as is stated in the report, an accountability gap?” Further, do the Government recognise that such a gap exists? If so, are they prepared to respond positively to meet that gap? In short, will they deal with it, with the aim of strengthening parliamentary oversight? Alas, the answer is, “Only marginally, if at all”. The Committee will be disappointed by the Government’s somewhat Panglossian reply to the report.
I recall being a young diplomat in about 1961 and hearing a joke doing the rounds among colleagues. It was a spoof draft for Ministers replying to the recommendations of a parliamentary committee: a model, all-purpose response. I still remember some parts of the suggested reply. “We are most grateful to the committee. We welcome and pay tribute to its hard work, which has made a valuable contribution to our consideration of the subject. We commend its expertise and wisdom and have examined with great care its conclusions. But Rome wasn’t built in a day and we aim to continue to work closely with the committee in a positive dialogue”.
As I read the preamble to the Government’s response, I detected echoes of that spoof from more than 60 years ago. It is of course true that the Government have made some limited advances, but, overall, when I read their response, I saw the echoes of that earlier spoof. The response states:
“The Government respects and values the work of the Committee … The Government has carefully considered the report … the Government is keen to work with the Committee … progress can be made in many areas by the Government and Committee engaging in more dialogue and by working together to improve working practices … The Government does not believe, however, that there is a strong case for more fundamental reform”.
It is very disappointing, but not wholly surprising.
I have made selective quotes, but, essentially, the Government have rejected the committee’s recommendations on the basis that the provisions of CRaG continue to strike “the right balance” between the Government and Parliament, albeit with very limited concessions, and that Parliament has all the tools necessary to do the job of scrutiny. Essentially, we leave by the door through which we entered, and the Government seem wedded to the status quo. I think it is unnecessary to examine each part of the recommendations. That has been done in a very legal and good way by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and other contributors. The only jarring bit has been an element of the rehashing of the EU debate with the magnificent obsession with the EU of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley.
I will make two final observations. The first is that I was somewhat heartened by the different spirit, the more positive spirit, of Secretary Kyle when he appeared before the committee. I only wish that we could nail that spirit to clear undertakings for the future. He recalled that he had been extremely frustrated as a Back-Bencher in respect of the Government and implied that he was sympathetic to the work of this committee. My final observation is that, if a firmer base is not established, this will be seen as another missed opportunity to fill what we see as the accountability gap, because Parliament and our committee are unlikely to have another chance to raise this issue in this Parliament. Hence, this may be the one and only opportunity in this Parliament to make the democratic advance in scrutiny advocated by the committee.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lord, I welcome this report and the reports from other committees, including the Constitution Committee, on the subject, but I rather regret that they are necessary. I was involved in the passage of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. I served on the Joint Committee on the draft Bill and, when the Bill was introduced, I managed to get an amendment accepted covering the provision of explanatory memoranda to Parliament.
With the benefit of hindsight, I realise I should have gone further, utilising the leverage of the wash-up to press for an amendment to provide for every significant treaty negotiated by government to be subject to approval by affirmative resolution by the House of Commons. That is what the Hansard Society has pressed for. What this report recommends—I think at paragraph 70—is crucial, and it is entirely feasible in legislative terms. Alex Horne, a former senior legal adviser to several parliamentary committees, has drafted a Bill to amend CRaG to achieve this.
This leads to the key points I wish to make. I very much welcome this report, but I do not extend that welcome to the Government’s response, which I fear is what is to be expected from the Executive. There is a clear executive view, whichever party is in power, which is at odds with a parliamentary view. Negotiating treaties, as my noble friend Lady Lawlor said, takes place under prerogative powers. Treaty-making always has been and should remain within the gift of His Majesty’s Government. It was wholly inappropriate during the Brexit negotiations for the House of Commons to try to wrest control of the process from Ministers. However, while treaty-making—that is, negotiating the terms of a treaty—should rest with the Executive, treaty approval should rest with Parliament. The provisions of CRaG were designed to give both Houses the opportunity to object to a treaty, and for the Commons, ultimately, to prevent its ratification.
The problem is that the Executive have difficulty accepting that Parliament should have the capacity to say no. They may pay lip service to the principle, but in practice they want Parliament to stay out of the process. They had and have the whip hand in the control of the timetable.
There is a clear difference between the executive and parliamentary views, encapsulated in the different definitions of power. Power can be defined in pluralist, elitist and institutional terms. The pluralist view is the traditional one, where A gets B to do that which B would otherwise not do. It can take two forms: the coercive and the persuasive. The Government clearly favour the latter, believing that Parliament should have a persuasive capacity only. That is clear from their response to this report. The emphasis is on scrutiny—in effect, on examining and commenting. The Government’s response does nothing to concede that Parliament should have the capacity to say no to what they have negotiated. They are prepared only to discuss ways in which Parliament may be better informed as an aid to enhancing scrutiny.
Parliament needs to be more assertive to ensure that the provisions of CRaG have teeth. Having the power to say no would provide the basis for achieving what my noble friend Lord Lilley has advocated. Committees examining treaties need to be complemented by the House having not just the processes but the political will to act on their recommendations. To achieve that, we need to provide that parliamentary approval is required for significant treaties, as defined in Alex Horne’s draft Bill. We have the reports of the various committees. We do not need any more. We need to act to ensure that Parliament is a watchdog with teeth and not simply a bark.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow that speech, which was a useful and authoritative view on this topic. I will attempt to sum up some of the issues, but I will first make a couple of observations.
First, since the change in the machinery of government in the last Parliament, the focus of the equivalent committee in the House of Commons has been very much dimmed. Now that it is a Business and Trade Committee, it is absorbed in a whole range of issues and cannot focus on trade as it did. Your Lordships’ committee has been carrying the lantern on this since that change.
I will not comment on many contributions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, for reminding me what I had been missing since I last heard him speak. On the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, when on a committee we have an opportunity to debate the terms of reference; there is a full opportunity for every member to affect and change them and to suggest or insist on—if they want to—particular witnesses. I feel that there is room to scrutinise.
We wait for an International Agreements Committee debate and then two come along within a week. It gives us a final chance to thank our now retired chairman for his work, as well as all my colleagues. This will be my last time speaking as an alumnus of the committee. It is an important committee and I am very encouraged that the new chair, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, is embracing many of the themes of this report.
It was clear from the evidence we received that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 offers too little to the legislature while the Executive hold most, if not all, of the cards. If nothing else comes from this debate, I hope that the Minister will develop some empathy for the challenge this committee has in delivering useful information to the Executive. That is what we seek to do, along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, suggested.
In truth, I felt that many of the recommendations in this report were modest. We are suggesting evolution rather than revolution, and clearly the Government’s response was disappointing, but I will come to that. I will just go through some of the issues that were raised.
First, the committee’s well-worked justification for flexibility of scrutiny time seems reasonable to me. Your Lordships heard that we recommended that the Government should normally agree to any reasoned IAC request for a single extension of the 21-day CRaG period for significant treaties and should refuse only where they can give operational reasons. Of course, there are sometimes justifiable operational reasons for something to be done within a certain time. To date, the Government have rarely used their power to extend the 21-day CRaG scrutiny period for significant treaties, despite IAC calls for automatic or reasoned extensions.
The quality of our reports is directly linked to the time that we have to make them, and the number and variety of witnesses that we can call and hear. Nothing about the amount of time that we have has significantly changed since Ponsonby. I remind your Lordships that we are talking about the 1920s, not the current noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. But here, as others have, we should credit the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for chivvying him. I was on the equivalent Front Bench pushing at the same time, and things have improved as a result of the modifications that the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, brought forward—we have had access to documentation prior to discussion of free trade agreements—but I remind noble Lords, as our retiring chairman said, that this covers only FTAs, not other significant treaties. They are equally—sometimes more—in need of extra time to get the input that the committee needs to give them proper consideration. We need to get that evidence and we need time to consider it, irrespective of whether the treaty is an FTA or a significant other treaty.
The excuse given is that scrutiny of implementing legislation is somehow a meaningful proxy for scrutiny of the original treaty. Even when there is such legislation, this is simply wrong. In that regard, I cite the Chagos treaty: the International Agreements Committee was unable to get the time we needed to give that treaty real scrutiny. We could not get witnesses; we just did not have time. Had we had time, we could have produced a much more comprehensive and useful report, which the noble Baroness and her colleagues might have used to avoid some of the problems that have appeared in the paving legislation following that treaty. The committee is a utility that the Government can use to look in advance at the sort of problems that might arise in paving legislation, before that legislation is actually framed.
In looking at the longer-term legislative reform of CRaG for significant treaties, particularly trade agreements, I am clear that there should be a requirement for positive parliamentary consent before ratification, rather than relying on the current and never-used power to delay. I note in passing that even the theoretical power of delay relies on the Commons getting time in the House to have that debate, which we know is not a guarantee; indeed, it has not happened in significant cases.
We have heard about treaty explanatory memorandums, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, because I did not know about that piece of work, which he just told us about. Treaty explanatory memorandums should be upgraded and they should clearly explain why the Government believe that the treaty should be ratified, including its impacts and policy rationale. These should also be extended to encompass the roles of the devolved authorities—a point that my noble friend made.
As we have heard, there has also been an increasing creativity when it comes to making agreements that are not treaties under CRaG, thus avoiding proper process altogether. These are primarily through a memorandum of understanding, but also through manipulating the actual process itself. This takes, in essence, a huge body of important work out of scrutiny at all. An example of that is the agreement on pharmaceutical policy with the United States of America. It is an agreement and it has far-reaching powers over our NHS, but it received absolutely no scrutiny whatever because it is not within CRaG. That is a very good example of when important things are pushed through without the scrutiny that they need. We have to move from the Executive-dominated system to one where Parliament can shape things along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—mandates are something that we discussed a lot when I was on that committee—and properly scrutinise them when they come to us.
Given the importance of this, the Government’s response was all the more disappointing. The response to our report is, in essence, cursory, and I thought the spoofing of it by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, was uncanny in its accuracy. The only thing it did not add was consultations, which I think is the other issue. This response is fobbing off what we wrote—I am afraid to have to say that—and it fails to address the core findings of the inadequate scrutiny time, poor information-sharing and excessive executive discretion. At no point do the Government respond to the core criticisms levelled by the IAC and experts such as the Hansard Society that demonstrate how the process tilts far too much towards government lagging behind international standards, as was made. We should not be surprised.
Similar reports making similar criticisms have received about the same length of shrift from the Government of the day since 2011 or 2014: each has found a way of rejecting mandatory votes; rejected central repositories for non-binding instruments or broader reforms, such as a debate on mandates; and sought to prioritise so-called agility over enhanced scrutiny. I should be downhearted about this Government’s engagement with this report—and I am—but it seems to be a law of nature that any Government, of whatever stripe, will seek to avoid the purview of any part of the legislature. Perhaps this is the time for a Government to kick against what seems to be ingrained DNA in the process.
I say to the Minister that the issues laid out in this report are important. Parliamentary scrutiny should be there to help government work and it should be there for the process of democratic scrutiny. I hope that she will rethink the Government’s response and embrace the spirit, if not the letter, of this report.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, like others, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for so ably introducing this debate and setting out the findings of his committee. It is indeed a thought-provoking and timely report, and the committee is right that Parliament should be given a full opportunity to scrutinise the terms of the Government’s treaties with other nations. I also particularly enjoyed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. If I was not so afraid of the results, I would be tempted to look back through Hansard at the number of times that I as a Minister might have used some of those phrases in reports before the House. I suspect the results would not be good, so I probably will not.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, outlined, the current position is that His Majesty’s Government make treaties under the royal prerogative, and foreign policy more generally is the responsibility of the King’s Ministers. Of course, Members of Parliament may seek to bind the Secretary of State to recognise a state, as with the Palestinian Statehood (Recognition) Bill, and parliamentary committees may seek to recognise states, as the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee did in 2023 when it declared that Taiwan is already an independent country under the name “Republic of China” and it possesses all the qualifications for statehood. I probably agree with the second statement rather than the first.
Even though I profoundly disagree with the current incumbents, it is, in my view, Ministers who ought to decide these matters. We have to protect the role of the Government to ensure that Ministers are able to respond to the challenges and give leadership on the world stage. Again, although I believe that the current crop does not do that, they should have the right to do so once elected. Changing that fundamental principle by shifting power from the Government acting under the prerogative to Parliament would, in my view, be unworkable. We agree with the Government that there is not a strong case for more fundamental reform of parliamentary scrutiny.
Parliament may of course scrutinise, challenge and deny the Government the necessary implementing legislation—as indeed we are seeking to do at the moment on a treaty of which I will not remind the Minister lest she roll her eyes again—but it may not overrule His Majesty’s Government in their exercise of the prerogative in signing a treaty. By that, I do not mean to say that Parliament’s sovereignty is limited—the Crown is of course sovereign in Parliament—but there is, in practice, no mechanism available to Parliament to veto a treaty. I hope that the Committee will bear with me for a second as I develop that point.
The introduction to the committee’s report gives a useful background to the Ponsonby rule of 1924, which was referred to earlier, but its description of the rule is incomplete. The committee is correct to say that the Ponsonby rule requires the Government
“to lay treaties before the House after signature for a period of 21 days”,
but has neglected to recognise that, as reported in Hansard on 1 April 1924, Arthur Ponsonby went on to say:
“as the Government cannot take upon itself to decide what may be considered important or unimportant, if there is a formal demand for discussion forwarded through the usual channels from the Opposition or any other party, time will be found for the discussion of the Treaty in question”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/4/1924; cols. 2004-05.]
The laying of treaties before the House is just one part of the Ponsonby rule, and it is unfortunate that the committee failed to reflect that in its report. I know that I have previously explained this point; I looked at it in detail for our debates on the Diego Garcia Bill.
While I am on that point, I also note that the committee dubiously claims that:
“until recent times Parliament on the whole paid little attention to treaties laid before it by the Government”.
Given the amount of parliamentary time devoted to debates on the treaty of Rome, the Maastricht treaty and the Lisbon treaty in the past, I find that claim slightly vague.
When the aforementioned Diego Garcia base treaty was laid before the House of Commons, a request for a substantive debate was made through the usual channels by the Opposition, but on that occasion the request was denied. That decision by this Government was in clear breach of the commitment by Arthur Ponsonby on behalf of the Labour Government at the time, albeit over a century ago.
Where the Government refuse to grant time for a debate on a substantive Motion in the House of Commons, as they have done in this case, the provisions in Section 20(3) to (6) of the CRaG Act, which set out the process by which the House of Commons may prevent the ratification of a treaty, become, in essence, worthless.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I was developing a point about the Government’s refusal, under the Ponsonby rule, to grant a debate in the House of Commons on the Diego Garcia Bill. Their refusal to do that prevented the ratification of the treaty, making the CRaG Act, in essence, worthless in that respect.
Of course, this principle was not just outlined by Sir Arthur Ponsonby so long ago; it was also repeated in the House of Commons by the then Europe Minister, Chris Bryant MP, a member of the current Government. At the time, he said:
“If Members—whether Front Benchers or Back Benchers—sought to debate a motion, the Government would ensure that there was a debate within the time”.
He went on:
“I hope that I have reassured the House that the Commons would always have the right of veto, should it choose to implement it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/1/10; cols. 216-18.]
Following the passage of the CRaG Act, we have learned that these assurances were empty words, in a sense, and that the Government have ditched a Labour principle that lasted almost a century.
I have tabled a Written Question on this point; perhaps the Minister might be kind enough to answer it today. Do the Government still consider themselves bound by the Ponsonby rule in full? If they have decided to abandon it, that may be defensible, but what is not defensible is the lack of transparency around this apparent, fairly major change in government policy—if, indeed, that is what has happened. I hope that the Minister will clarify that in her remarks at the end.
Turning to some of the wider points made by the committee, there may well be a case for extending the period in Part 2; I agree with Members who spoke on that matter. Greater transparency around decisions to extend that period would be extremely useful. The example of the Australian and New Zealand practice of publishing a national interest analysis alongside a treaty is also convincing, and I hope that Ministers will look at that proposal closely.
The New Zealand approach to sequencing, which the committee highlighted in its report, is also a very sensible proposal. We agree with the committee that sequencing is important, but I gently ask whether a rule is needed on this. Does Parliament not already have the necessary procedural tools at its disposal to ensure proper sequencing in respect of treaty ratification if the House of Commons, in particular, chooses to use those powers?
Finally, I again thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the rest of the committee for this extremely useful report on this important topic, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Government in response to this debate. I am well aware of the poacher-turned-gamekeeper nature of the response that I am about to give. I remember saying something very similar to what the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, shared with us earlier. I probably said it to the noble Lord opposite, regarding some implementing legislation around Brexit, and I definitely said it in the other place when we were debating various approaches to the Brexit negotiations between 2016 and 2019. It is important that we all approach this in the spirit of openness and candour. I very much enjoyed what my good noble friend Lord Anderson had to say; it was almost as though he was reading from my script.
Having said all that, I have in my mind what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said; I always enjoy his speeches. He said that he did not anticipate a surprising reaction from the Government today, but that he was looking for empathy for the arguments made. He will get that. It is one thing to complain about a process while in opposition, or even to read the excellent report conducted by the committee; it is very different to hear the arguments made in the way that we have this afternoon. I admit that when I first saw this debate in my diary I thought, “Well, that’s an afternoon”, but it has been a really interesting and engaging opportunity. All noble Lords here are people I have found myself debating on various sides of both Chambers over quite a few years now. There is a band of—mostly—brothers who are interested in this topic. I will take forward with empathy the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
The Government’s position today is what it is, but that does not mean that it can never change and things cannot evolve over time; they often do. Some of that is in the hands of those who want to see change and depends on how effective they are at corralling the argument and drawing others to their cause. Let us see how noble Lords here get on in the next few years.
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith for tabling this debate and to all members of the committee who have taken part. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for his work as chair until January this year. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, to his role. It was good to meet him and discuss some of these issues in anticipation of this debate, and I very much look forward to working with him as we go forward.
As many noble Lords have said, treaties are a cornerstone of the international system. By turning aspirations and commitments into legally binding obligations, they provide the certainty that states, institutions and individuals need for stability, security and prosperity. Scrutiny is, as noble Lords have said, a vital part of the process. The Government—this is where I get into the speech made by my noble friend Lord Anderson—respect and value the committee’s role. The committee’s report raised a number of key issues. The Government’s response—I completely hear how disappointed some members of the committee have been in it—was clear, if somewhat disappointing to some. We want to address the issues where possible. We think some progress can be made without legislation.
I was asked about the number of treaties that are signed but not ratified right now. I do not know the answer to that. I would like to know the answer to that. One thing that we could do to assist the committee in the future is to be clearer about the pipeline of agreements that are coming so that it can anticipate better. I think that would be a helpful thing that the Government could and should do, so we are taking some steps in response. We are committed to ensuring that the committee has better sight of forthcoming treaties. The FCDO’s treaty unit is working with committee secretariat staff on a more robust system to ensure that the secretariat has a clearer picture of the pipeline of treaties to be laid in Parliament. We hope that this will help the committee in planning its work.
We have also committed to updating the template used for Explanatory Memorandums, which we are now doing in consultation with the committee secretariat. That should help on the devolved Administrations issue as well. This Government have a very clear desire to improve the way that we work with our devolved Administrations and Parliaments. That template might assist, in a small way, in making sure that that happens more effectively. It should help departments focus on the information most useful for scrutiny, such as a clear articulation of the UK’s national interest in becoming a party to a treaty. The updated guidance will also encourage departments to explain any implications of a treaty for devolved functions and the consultation carried out. It will also encourage departments to provide advanced information about treaties that the committee is likely to be interested in. This includes sharing the text of such treaties with the secretariat after signature, unless policy considerations prevent it. Actions such as these should help the committee to make better use of the 21-sitting-day scrutiny period. These actions reflect the evolution of treaty working practices. They add to earlier arrangements relating to trade agreements—the Grimstone commitments—instigated under my noble friend Lady Hayter’s time as chair, but clearly my noble friend Lord Stevenson also had an important role to play in that.
The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about cross-Whitehall and how the FCDO works with other departments on their treaties. My most recent experience is the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction treaty. That policy area was led by my friends in Defra. They hold the policy expertise but, because it is a treaty, we took the parliamentary lead. There are cross-Whitehall processes, there are write-rounds; lots of people will have an opinion about whether we should do something like that. In that case, it was relatively straightforward because it had a long lead-in time, there was good awareness of the issues around it and widespread support. I do not have a huge amount of experience of how that would work when it would be more contentious, but I would anticipate that, if there were a serious objection to the UK entering into some sort of negotiation around a treaty, that process would be used to make sure that those issues were resolved before the United Kingdom took any steps towards becoming a signatory.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, said that implementing legislation is not a substitute for scrutiny. This is an important point, and I think he is right. It is not. When there is implementing legislation, noble Lords often do not feel that they have had adequate opportunity to take part in a debate prior to that; or perhaps they did, but some time has elapsed. Often, during implementing legislation, you find yourself debating whether you should do the treaty in the first place and having to say that actually we have already voted on that. It can make it slightly confusing for those trying to participate and to shape what happens.
This is a really interesting point. I do not think that implementing legislation is a substitute, as it can help to tease out some of the misgivings around a particular treaty. This is not an irrelevant point to make, but I do not think that legislation would ever be seen entirely as a substitute for scrutiny. We understand the appetite for changing scrutiny procedures. The procedures specified under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—this goes to another point made by my noble friend Lord Anderson—strike a balance between the critical role in Parliament in scrutinising treaties and the Executive’s right to negotiate for the United Kingdom internationally.
However, there is clearly a strong sense among many parliamentarians that this balance is not right. I can commit to thinking about this matter some more; I cannot commit to changing it, but I hear where noble Lords are coming from. Even though this is not a priority for the Government to change immediately, Governments should not ignore these strong feelings when they come from their fellow parliamentarians. It is good to commit to considering this further, although I must be straightforward with noble Lords this afternoon that the Government are not in a position of wanting to revisit this issue or make any legislative change.
As it is, the CRaG Act gives Parliament the power to vote against ratifying treaties, and Parliament can of course use other mechanisms, such as Questions, to hold the Government to account. The statutory framework allows the Government to speak clearly, with a single voice, on behalf of the United Kingdom—this is important; former Ministers have pointed to it relatively recently as something that they have found to be of value, and I would tend to agree with that—and retains flexibility to enable the UK to act nimbly. In a world that is becoming more complex and fast-moving, we should not underestimate the importance of this. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said about grim official gatekeepers or gamekeepers; that was a bit harsh, if I may say so, but I heard the noble Lord’s argument and his desire for change.
Noble Lords had a lot to say about debates and votes. The Government accommodate committees’ requests for debate during the scrutiny period where they can. In the case of the 100-year partnership treaty with Ukraine, for example, the Government extended the scrutiny period to enable a debate to be held. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, I do not know why the other place declined to offer the debate that was sought on the British Indian Ocean Territory treaty. However, requiring an affirmative vote on treaties would risk limiting the Government’s flexibility to negotiate treaties effectively. I note what noble Lords have said on this matter and expect that it will continue, as it should, to be a subject of interest and consternation to noble Lords. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who called the process miserly and inadequate; it sounds like it would have been him, as it was a very eloquent way of putting things. On the other side of it, is it appropriate and flexible? That is really the nub of what we are trying to resolve.
On the 21-day scrutiny period, which several noble Lords spoke about, the Government will of course properly consider requests for an extension to the scrutiny period on a case-by-case basis. This is slightly different from the requests made by the committee. I am happy to take this away. Sometimes deadlines need to be agreed by either side in a treaty and we need to move at pace to fulfil international obligations, but it is a fair challenge. We set out in our written response how we will approach these requests. We will consider carefully other factors raised by the committee and the length of extension it requests. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord German, about whether 21 days is enough for devolved Administrations to consider these things.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was particularly concerned about international comparisons. The UK approach is broadly in line with countries with similar parliamentary systems. The UK Parliament has the same length of time to scrutinise a treaty as the Parliament of Canada, and more than those of Australia and New Zealand. The EU’s scrutiny arrangements will be different because it is a multinational organisation with 27 countries, so one would expect them to take a very different form.
I differ in substance on non-legally binding instruments. The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, asked a fascinating question about how many of these things there are. I do not even know how many I have signed, and I have been a Foreign Office Minister for almost two years. They are an incredibly useful diplomatic tool. They are not legally binding because they do not contain anything particularly contentious in terms of policy. They are about shared history and values, respecting the rights of women, agreeing to work together on supporting indigenous people to save the rainforest, the sorts of things that Parliament would not want us to be constantly presenting to it. Nevertheless, how many there are is a fascinating question. We may have to decline to give the noble Lord an answer on the grounds that it would take too long to find out, but a department-by-department inquiry might be made. I will think about it and work out how we could give a more helpful answer.
Non-legally binding instruments can contain important policy content and should be treated in the same way as other expressions and statements of existing government policy. They are not about new policy. Where they raise questions of public importance, the Government may need to bring them to the attention of Parliament. There is a question about the process for that and whose judgment it is. There have been elaborate sifting committee mechanisms to do this. I am not sure that that is what Parliament really wants to do, but if it is, it should say so. It could be done in a variety of ways. We often use Written Ministerial Statements for these kinds of instruments. As I say, they are not binding and they have a very different status and standing with states and organisations.
To conclude, this debate has demonstrated a shared belief in the critical role of Parliament in scrutinising international treaties. It has highlighted a range of views on how that scrutiny should work in practice, although I would not want to say that that was an evenly balanced—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry that I did not manage to conclude what was left of my speech before the Division Bells rang, slightly earlier than we expected. There is an important debate on media to follow, so I will not take too much longer.
The Government believe that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 continues to provide a suitable and proportionate framework. However, the FCDO’s treaty unit will continue to work with the committee and its secretariat to ensure that our ways of working best deliver the balance between efficient executive function and accountability. I will consider further the issue of multilateral and plurilateral agreements. We very much welcome the committee’s continued engagement and I once again thank my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith for tabling this debate.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, do the Government still consider themselves bound by the Ponsonby rule?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I answered that in saying that I did not know why the debate in the other place, which the noble Lord thought the answer to that question hinged on, did not take place. I thank noble Lords for their contributions.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, I have a few things to say, though I recognise that there is another debate to follow. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. This has been another debate where a lot of thoughtful things have been said, most of which I agreed with. I actually agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that there is merit in the negotiating mandate being the subject of debate, and that has happened. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was not right that two things were missing from the report; it touches on the negotiating mandate in paragraph 55(a) and sets out the Ponsonby rule fully in paragraph 30.
I again thank all the members of the committee who participated in making the report, but I particularly thank the officials. I have made this point before, but they do an extraordinary amount of work in a very short time. If I may, though it is invidious, I will slightly embarrass her by particularly thanking and singling out Cathy Adams, who is leaving the committee and your Lordships’ service as international legal adviser. She has been an extraordinarily valuable member of staff and I thank her personally as well as on behalf of the committee.
I listened very carefully to what my noble friend said. I listened more carefully to what she said than to what she read out, if she does not mind my saying so, as there were hints of what my noble friend Lord Anderson of Swansea said, as she recognised, in her responses. I know that work is going on; I have heard that and we are thankful for it, but there is more to do. I suggest that she rereads this debate in those long hours when she has nothing else to do. I recognise that that is a tall order, but it is important, as everyone in this debate has recognised, as treaties affect the lives of people every day, to spend time on them in the way that we spend time elaborately looking at primary legislation. We do not do this for treaties, but we should. I am sure she will keep that in mind and direct her colleagues’ attention to it.
I ask her also to understand what goes into the process of writing one of these reports. I was a bit surprised, talking to officials on a previous occasion, that they did not really understand why we needed to get the evidence that we do. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, thinks we should not, but I would take issue with that. It is important to have an evidence basis for the work done by the committee. That takes time to bring together, and it is one of the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was quite right to underline the need for additional time.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I did not say we should not take evidence, but simply that we should have a greater diversity of expert witnesses.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. I think we have much more diversity than she is giving us credit for, but she has perhaps not been a member of the committee for quite as long as I have.
I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister for recognising that the defence of, “Do not worry, there is implementing legislation”, is not an answer to the concerns raised by the committee. With those comments, and the kindly meant suggestion that the Minister comes back to this debate, I beg to move.
Media Literacy (Communications and Digital Committee Report)
Baroness Keeley
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Communications and Digital Committee Media literacy (3rd Report, HL Paper 163).
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on the report of the Communications and Digital Committee’s inquiry on media literacy. In doing so, I will focus particularly on national leadership, the responsibilities of technology platforms and delivery in schools. This inquiry was the first undertaken after I took over as chair of the committee in early 2025, and I place on record my thanks to all the members of the committee, our witnesses and our excellent committee team, who worked hard on the inquiry, the report and the communications around the publication.
Media literacy is fundamental to a healthy democracy. An early inquiry by the House of Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee concluded in its report that:
“In the digital world, our belief in what we see, hear and read is being distorted to the point at which we no longer know who or what to trust”.
There is even more urgency now because rapid technological change, particularly the rise of social media and generative AI, has transformed how information is produced, distributed and consumed. One of the most striking consequences has been the growing dominance of online platforms and social media as primary news sources. Ofcom data from 2024 found that 71% of people consume news content via online providers, overtaking television news at 70%. This is accompanied by a steady decline in news consumption by TV, radio and newspapers. This shift changes what people see and how they see it. Online platform recommender algorithms tend to prioritise content based on keeping the user engaged rather than focusing on accuracy or public interest.
In a world of polarising views and declining interest in traditional news, it is more important than ever that children and adults have the skills to think critically about the content they access and create. It is encouraging that the UK has improved in international rankings for media literacy since our report was written. In the Open Society Institute’s 2026 European media literacy index, the UK ranked 10th, having previously ranked 13th. However, we should not be complacent about that improvement nor assume that the positive trajectory will continue without sustained effort. It was clear from the evidence we received that we are not currently doing enough in the UK, either in schools or outside them, to improve media literacy. A key concern for the committee was that the Government may not be dedicating sufficient attention or resource to this issue. We heard that, despite the aims of the previous Government’s 2021-24 media literacy strategy, the UK’s media literacy sector remains fragmented, underfunded and underevaluated.
This may in part reflect how responsibilities for media literacy are divided between the Government and Ofcom. Following the introduction of new duties under the Online Safety Act 2023, Ofcom now has a statutory duty to publish a media literacy strategy. Until this morning, the Government did not have an explicit up-to-date media literacy strategy and their activity on this appeared to be folded into wider work on digital inclusion and online safety. In their response to our report the Government said they would publish a media literacy vision statement. The new media literacy action plan published today as part of the Government’s Protecting What Matters social cohesion strategy appears to be the main vehicle for that vision. It is a welcome step towards greater clarity and co-ordination.
However, important questions remain about the scale of ambition, the resources attached to the plan and the extent to which it responds to the specific concerns raised by the committee, so I ask my noble friend the Minister what resources and delivery mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that the plan translates into tangible action and measurable improvements in media literacy.
The action plan refers to strengthening community-based provision, including through libraries and other trusted spaces, which we welcome. But without discrete long-term funding lines dedicated to media literacy, there remains a risk that initiatives are short term and piecemeal. Action 20 in the plan, to provide funding for local projects that support media literacy under the digital inclusion innovation fund, is a telling example. The Government awarded funding to over 80 projects but only one explicitly references media literacy, although the action plan does identify two further digital skills projects that partly cover it. Moreover, I understand that this funding must be used by the end of March 2026.
The committee recommended that:
“The Digital Inclusion Innovation Fund should include significant long-term investment in discrete media literacy programmes”.
Clearly, that has not happened yet, with at best three out of 80 projects covering media literacy. Can my noble friend the Minister clarify when the funding provided in the digital inclusion innovation fund runs out and update us on when we might see significant long-term investment in discrete media literacy programmes, rather than it being an add-on to broader digital inclusion work?
There is also a question over whether the action plan provides the sustained direction and cross-government co-ordination necessary to close the gaps that our inquiry identified. The committee concluded that, although Ofcom may have statutory duties on media literacy, it is not the right body to deliver a nationwide media literacy programme. We were clear that only the Government can fill the current “leadership vacuum” on media literacy delivery. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister how the Government will ensure that the action plan published today is delivered in a way that complements Ofcom’s statutory strategy and avoids the duplication or confusion of roles. Can he reassure us that the two bodies are working together effectively?
We also call for the Government to nominate a single Minister to take responsibility for its media literacy work. In their response, the Government explained that Kanishka Narayan MP has clear “ministerial responsibility” for online
“media literacy coordination and strategy in government”,
while my noble friend Lady Lloyd has responsibility for media literacy insofar as it relates to the Government’s work on digital inclusion. The media literacy action plan also mentions the DCMS Minister, Ian Murray MP, and DfE Minister, Olivia Bailey MP. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure us that the Government’s media literacy work benefits from coherent and unified ministerial engagement, with clear co-ordination and accountability?
I turn now to the responsibilities of tech platforms. The committee felt strongly that technology companies must do more. We considered that tech platforms have a responsibility to help their users to assess what they see on the services and to understand why they are seeing it, where it has come from and whether it can be trusted. However, at present, the platforms face no formal requirements to support media literacy.
Ofcom has developed a set of best practice design principles for media literacy, to which some platforms have signed up, although these recommendations are advisory rather than legally enforceable. There is also a troubling lack of transparency, since only platforms hold the data that would demonstrate what impact any media literacy interventions would have on user behaviour.
The Protecting What Matters strategy talks about increasing transparency around how the platforms operate and giving independent researchers greater access to platform data. That is welcome, but the media literacy action plan will need to spell out in detail how and on what timetable those commitments will be delivered. At present, it makes almost no reference to the role of platforms in supporting media literacy.
Our report called for the Government to establish stronger requirements on technology platforms to implement and evaluate media literacy interventions and to ensure that Ofcom is empowered to take robust action to hold the platforms to account. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us how the media literacy action plan will strengthen Ofcom’s ability to evaluate platforms’ media literacy interventions? What concrete steps will be taken to ensure meaningful data access for regulators and independent researchers? I also welcome his view on whether Ofcom’s current best practice approach remains adequate to ensure that the platforms are truly playing their part in supporting media literacy.
Given the scale of the impact that tech platforms have had on our media and information environment, the committee felt that funding for media literacy programmes
“should substantially come from the technology sector”
itself. However, the Government rejected our call for a levy on platforms to fund media literacy initiatives. Will the Minister say what is the Government’s view on how the gap in funding for large-scale, long-term media literacy interventions will be addressed, if not by a levy?
Finally, I turn to the curriculum and the committee’s central theme: the need to embed media literacy throughout the education system. Children and young people need to engage with this topic repeatedly throughout their time in school, starting from an early age. Yet we found that, at its worst, the teaching of media literacy in schools is being relegated to one-off lessons or even an annual school assembly. That is clearly not good enough.
According to Professor Lee Edwards of the LSE, the Department for Education has in the past shown little interest in treating media literacy as a valued subject. It is therefore welcome to see that the media literacy action plan has the support of the Minister for Early Education and that it includes several actions for the Department for Education. We also welcome that the Government took up the recommendations of the Curriculum and Assessment Review on the need to enhance the coverage of media literacy in primary and secondary curricula.
The Guardian Foundation observed that,
“the key to success is to make sure teachers and schools are properly supported and ensure media literacy does not become an additional burden on already stretched educators”.
Media literacy demands specialist knowledge and confidence from teachers, particularly as the media landscape continues to evolve, so investment in initial teacher education and continuing professional development will be essential.
The need for improved training to enable teachers to teach media literacy effectively was a consistent theme in our evidence. We heard that,
“30% of teachers cite a lack of relevant training as a barrier to delivering effective media literacy”.
Although the action plan recognises the need for teacher training, it refers loosely to “support” for teachers “in line with” the recommendations of the Curriculum and Assessment Review, along with training focused on,
“teaching media literacy skills related to counter-extremism and misogyny”.
Media literacy goes further than those two important areas.
Will the Minister give us further detail on how the Government will ensure that media literacy is incorporated effectively into teacher training and continuing professional development plans to improve teacher training on media literacy? Will he also provide an update on the timeline for delivering the changes set out in the Curriculum and Assessment Review?
Today’s media literacy action plan is a timely opportunity to address the concerns set out in our report, particularly around leadership, funding and delivery in schools. The question is whether the Government will now match their stated ambition with the necessary resources and leadership. I beg to move.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start, I ask noble Lords to ensure that they stick to the five minutes’ speaking time. Although the time allowance is advisory, the Grand Committee may sit only until around 7.45 pm. We need to conclude the debate before then, and a vote is expected in the Chamber, so I ask noble Lords to stick to their time and end at five minutes.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I will try to be mild, obedient, good and kind. Let me say how delighted I am to speak in this debate. I applaud the Communications and Digital Committee’s report on media literacy, and the splendid way in which the noble Baroness introduced today’s discussion. She had so many questions for the Minister that he will be pleased that I have decided to withdraw all my questions because they were all covered by her speech, which was so rigorous and thoughtful. This is a serious topic which discusses the depth and breadth of how we sustain a democracy today. The report has been written with diligence, professionalism and foresight. Committee members from all parts of the House have prepared a document which well merits scrutiny and, I hope, action.
The report makes clear that a failure to prioritise media literacy presents a threat not merely to individuals but to the functioning of democracy. New technologies and social media algorithms have dramatically transformed the wider information environment, and many citizens are poorly equipped to navigate it. As the report says, less than one-third of adults are confident that they can identify AI-generated content—an alarming statistic when you consider the pace at which generative AI tools are advancing. This is not a marginal concern; it affects trust, safety and political discussion.
I am sure that members of the committee will have seen the speech by the outgoing DG of the BBC to the Royal Television Society on the participative society. He says that the media sector is witnessing,
“an all-out assault on trustworthy information … journalism is now completely or partially blocked in over 75% of the world … Press freedom is at its lowest point in history”.
He goes on to say that “The Economist research”—I declare an interest as a trustee of the Economist—
“from 180 countries over 80 years showed the … connection between low press freedom and democratic decay”
is very serious.
“Information … warfare is a growing security threat. Russia, China, and Iran are investing billions in propaganda”,
while the World Service budget is £350 million. Maybe the Government should take that responsibility.
Misinformation and disinformation are rampant”,
according to the European Broadcasting Union. That is very serious situation indeed. However, BBC has prepared a constructive response. It wants to provide media literacy. It wants to,
“build local services, deploying cutting edge technologies to increase verification, as well as strengthening local journalism”,
and expanding the World Service.
Much has been said about the importance of young people and education. I want to refer to the English-Speaking Union, which started in 1918 and has become a magnificent organisation dedicated to teaching young people about scrutiny, fact-checking, analysing media, data, sources, propaganda and stereotypes. It is now the largest debating organisation in this country, and I feel that if a partner is needed, not simply from government, people could go very far to find better than what the English-Speaking Union provides.
I always like practical examples of what I am talking about. I do not like just to moan about the Government. I will give a great plug for one of my favourite magazines, The Week. It is the ultimate media literacy training magazine. It is a summary of news stories and opinion columns published by other papers, so it is not an echo chamber. Some are based on articles from overseas, often first published in a foreign language. Last week, its piece on Tehran quoted the Daily Mail, UnHerd and the FT; the piece on Dubai quoted the Sun, the Guardian and the Economist. The review of Rose Wylie’s exhibition at the RA quoted the FT, the Times and the Telegraph—they may be more similar in their categories.
There is a great deal to be done, and the matter is urgent. Let me say again how much I applaud the work of the committee. I look forward to the action that the Government will take to follow up its many recommendations as well as the excellent questions asked by the noble Baroness.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, when our committee published its report on media literacy last year, we used words such as “crisis” and “leadership vacuum”. They were not chosen lightly. One in four UK adults finds it difficult to distinguish true from false information online, one in three believed a fake news story was real and 42% of all crimes are now scam related. United Kingdom has slipped from 10th to 13th place in the European Media Literacy Index. The question before us is not whether the problem is serious—that is beyond doubt—but whether the Government’s response is adequate and whether progress made so far justifies confidence that it will be. When I was putting together my short but perfectly formed contribution, it was before we received the Minister’s letter of plans and actions, so I want to deal with that in a moment.
I start where credit is genuinely due. As our chair mentioned, something has moved on the curriculum. The Curriculum and Assessment Review, published last November, identified media literacy as a priority. The Government accepted the recommendation to make citizenship education compulsory in primary schools, with financial media literacy embedded within it. The schools White Paper published last month recommits to embedding media literacy across the curriculum, with revised programmes of study expected by spring 2027 and teaching from September 2028.
These are welcome steps and I do not dismiss them, but I must be candid with the Committee that warm words and future promises are not the same as delivery. Our report called for media literacy to be anchored in a core subject such as English instead of computing. We called for it to begin in early years, with age-appropriate progression through every key stage. The Government have indicated a direction of travel, but we do not yet have the detail, resourcing or accountability mechanisms to ensure that, when 2028 arrives, what is taught in classrooms across the country is consistent and sufficient. Teacher training remains a glaring gap; without equipping teachers, we are building on sand.
On funding, our report was direct. Long-term, stable media literacy provision cannot rest on short-term government grants or the good will of technology platforms. We recommended a levy on large technology companies to create a sustainable and independently administered fund. Canada’s MediaSmarts is already co-funded by Meta, TikTok and Google. The Online Safety Act already provides for a fee levy on platforms for Ofcom’s regulatory work. Extending that model to media literacy is legally and practically achievable. The Government have not yet responded to this recommendation and I urge the Minister to address it directly as, while we wait, Meta has already suspended third-party fact checking in the United States. Platform priorities tend to shift and voluntary commitments erode. The sector cannot continue to depend on good will.
On governance, our report found that media literacy sits scattered across DCMS, DSIT and the Home Office and efforts are therefore fragmented, underfunded and undervalued. We called for a named Minister with clear accountability. This too has not been acted on. I want to be constructive, for I do not expect wholesale Whitehall reorganisation, but media literacy needs a champion at ministerial level who wakes up every morning for it. Without that co-ordination, which we need, it will not happen. Ofcom has repeatedly said that it cannot do this alone. It is a convenor and catalyst, not a curriculum authority or funding body. It should not be left holding a responsibility that the Government should fully discharge.
I am running out of time. A start has been made. We need a named Minister, a levy on platforms, a clear curriculum commitment with resources to match and a serious effort to reach adults who are being left behind. The democratic health of this country depends on citizens who can think critically about what they read and share. This is not an aspiration, but an urgent necessity. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I am proud to be a member of the Communications and Digital Committee, which produced this report. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, for focusing and steering us towards the important conclusions we reached. Following the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, I will focus on the significance of trusted news sources and how digital users can use them to cut a path to truth through the jungle of misinformation on the internet. The spread of AI has created as many problems as solutions. It is a blight on our society. Anyone can create an AI deepfake image at home in a few seconds. This has meant that misinformation and disinformation are everywhere and growing by the second.
The problem has only been compounded by the use of AI systems as the main source of news for so many people. I have been worried by an impressive new study by European public service broadcasters, which found that there were issues with 45% of AI news summaries. For example, when using satirical source material, AI delivered it as the truth. It found the responses were often one-sided and did not provide the context for the user to understand the issue properly. Gemini even added words to direct quotes. The AI assistant struggled with fast-moving news stories and intricate timelines involving multiple actors. This report and many others highlight the unreliability of so many AI news sources. Now is the time to ensure that political energy is focused on promoting our trusted providers of information and directing users towards them.
I urge the Government to support the CMA’s strategic market status investigation into Google search. It is important that when an AI overview appears at the top of the search, it declares its sources of information and gives links to the websites that provided the trusted source of information. I also urge the Government to support the PSBs with magnified discoverability as they start to move into partnerships with video-sharing platforms such as YouTube and TikTok.
A week or so ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, said in Oral Questions that the Government are considering Ofcom’s recommendation for PSB material on video-sharing platforms to be given more prominence and fair terms; can the Minister build on this answer? I, too, am glad to see in today’s government report on media literacy that the Government want to place an obligation on the BBC to support media literacy nationwide. The corporation is at the forefront of this battle for truth. As the report points out, the BBC’s Bitesize assistant is an important aid for young people.
To build on this, there is an initiative called the Other Side of the Story to help develop young people’s critical skills, which is a partnership between BBC Education and BBC News. It helps people respond to misinformation and fake news, telling participants to double-check what they are reading, as fake news is often opinion dressed up as fact. The course warns that echo chambers which develop on social media are dangerous if users are searching for objective news. They are advised to break out of these echo chambers by looking at other people’s points of view and the opinions of those with whom they agree. However, action 4 in the Government’s report, to support BBC media literacy, will have no effect if it is yet another obligation to deliver services without funding that extra responsibility. Can the Minister reassure us that those media literacy duties will be fully funded by the Government?
Local media is another source of trusted news, recognised by action 3 of the Government’s report. The Communications and Digital Committee took interesting evidence from the Guardian Foundation. I am very persuaded by the effectiveness of its Media Literacy Ambassador programme; set up in 2023 by a group of colleges in Derby, it harnessed the power of peer pressure. Young people are trained up to be ambassadors in how to spot fake news and develop critical faculties and they train up their peers. Last year this meant nearly 1,500 young people trained up over 5,000 other students. Unfortunately, DSIT funded this excellent scheme for only 18 months, until the end of 2024, and now it has stopped. I therefore call on the Minister to re-establish support for such a powerful programme.
The Government have recognised in action 3 that involving students and local media in news stories relevant to their local area is an effective way of drawing people to an understanding of trusted sources. The problem is that, as many noble Lords know, there has been a collapse in local media. Can the Minister say whether extra funds will be available to support action 3 and bring the local media into the community?
I am glad the Government have finally recognised in today’s report the importance of media literacy for the future of our young people and our country. These are warm words indeed. I will be watching closely to see how these words are turned into actions.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I contribute to this debate with a little temerity. Having only recently joined the Communications and Digital Committee, I was not present to hear any of the evidence or representations received prior to the preparation of what is undoubtedly a very comprehensive report. That being said, I congratulate those who were present and the committee on a very useful contribution to government and wider thinking on what is undoubtedly a major topic of the 21st century. The fact is that the creative industries contributed £124 billion in gross value to our economy in 2023 and supported 2.4 million jobs, while the AI sector itself contributed £11.8 billion to our economy in 2024 and now employs around 86,000 people.
The growing strength of both industries underlies the emphasis placed by the Government in their AI Opportunities Action Plan on resolving the uncertainty around intellectual property and reforming the UK text and data mining regime—TDM—which they have said is
“hindering innovation and undermining our broader ambitions for AI, as well as the growth of our creative industries”.
Their preferred approach is to adopt a commercial exception in the case of TDM, with an opt-out mechanism and associated transparency obligations. This would align the UK’s approach with that of the European Union, although, as the report sets out, it could provide risks in the protection of the creative industries.
What is needed now more than ever is smart regulation that protects creators and rights holders but is also proportionate, practical and supportive of growth. The Government must work further and faster to bring this much-needed certainty for AI and creative industries alike by publishing their approach to future changes to copyright law. They must seek to adopt an approach that strengthens the current gold standard protections afforded to creators and safeguards their livelihoods while providing the guardrails and clarity sought by AI companies to enable them to innovate and harness the potential of AI to drive economic growth.
There is also a wider need for us as legislators to try to find faster and more adaptable ways of keeping up with the speed of innovators and entrepreneurs. It is a difficult challenge, but one that I have been advocating for a long time. While we consider more immediate priorities, we should also seriously look at codifying the many laws and regulations already in place to see where adaptation could fit them to handle the challenges the report identifies and provide the protection and redress that our new technological age demands.
The report is also right to highlight the need for transparency from larger AI developers, which it recommends should be given statutory weight. However, this must not come at the cost of placing disproportionate burdens on smaller businesses that would probably see them relocate abroad and undermine the UK’s potential to become an innovation-friendly environment for AI start-ups. Again, this can be achieved only by those smart regulations I have referred to, which proportionately balance the needs of the creative industries while encouraging investment in emerging technologies.
More fundamental, however, is the need to improve the UK’s capability to build responsibly trained AI systems by investing in sovereign AI. The Government have committed £2 billion towards strengthening the UK’s potential for AI sovereignty through the Sovereign AI Unit, new compute infrastructure and AI growth zones. It is essential that the UK builds domestic models with far greater transparency around training data and development processes rather than relying excessively on opaque overseas systems that are arguably harmful to not only our national interests but our future success in these fields. Not only will this protect those national interests in an increasingly uncertain technological world, but it will unlock growth and encourage future investment in the industry.
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I too served on the Select Committee that produced this excellent and timely report. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Keeley on her leadership and commend our recommendations to the Minister. Media literacy skills are key to protecting our democracy and the well-being of our society by ensuring that citizens can recognise misinformation and disinformation. Trust in news and institutions is dangerously low, yet audiences have access to ever-increasing volumes of content, whether accurate or spurious.
The Government have a responsibility to ensure that their citizens, young and old, have the skills to think critically about the content they consume and create, both online and offline. As our report stated, it is not enough just to outsource media literacy to the regulator, Ofcom, which is tasked with implementing the important Online Safety Act. The Government must lead by appointing a senior Minister to oversee delivery across Whitehall by co-ordinating cross-departmental activity within education, public services and local government. The new working group, although welcome, is not enough.
The online world touches every aspect of our lives and, with the advent of generative artificial intelligence, we must be better prepared to understand how we are affected by what we read. It is not just news, but how we access public services such as health; our employment, entertainment and relationships are all impacted. That is why the committee called for a public awareness campaign to encourage media literacy, and I am pleased that the Government have listened. However, this alone will not counter all the harms that our society is experiencing online, which bleed into the real world, corroding trust, polarising communities, undermining democracy and coarsening public discourse.
The increasing misogyny and violence against women and girls, and the tragedy of young men having their lives ruined by toxic influencers, can be blamed in part on material perpetrated online. There must be tools to build resilience and give people the chance to use technology for good outcomes, rather than to live as victims of the all-powerful online platforms, which need to show some social responsibility. I know the Government have rejected our recommendation for a media levy on tech companies to help fund independent media literacy initiatives, but the tech companies should play a bigger and better role in enabling their consumers to have a safer experience online.
I was pleased to see that the recently published action plan, Protecting What Matters: Towards a More Confident, Cohesive and Resilient United Kingdom, recognises the need to strengthen digital and media literacy
“so people can engage critically with online content and access reliable information”.
I warmly welcome today’s publication of the Government’s media literacy action plan, which addresses many of my concerns.
The findings of the independent review of the school curriculum are an important first step. Media literacy is not just an add-on; it is not enough to cover it only in an English class or the occasional assembly. It needs to be embedded across the curriculum and it needs to start early. So many subjects are accessed online that critical thinking is required throughout, including in sciences and history as well as citizenship. Can the Minister give some assurance that teachers will be actively supported to provide this new level of media literacy? Our report called for updated teacher training and continuous professional development to ensure that teachers feel better equipped to deliver lessons. I regret that the new curriculum will not be implemented in full until September 2028.
The Government’s recently announced consultation on children’s social media use to ensure healthy online experiences is welcome. I hope its conclusions will further boost the commitment made to ensure that media literacy is fundamental to both individual empowerment and democratic resilience, because adults also need support, not just as parents and carers to help their children navigate the internet safely but as citizens and consumers. The shocking level of online fraud revealed by Lloyds last week showed that someone in the UK lost money to a fraudulent seller on Facebook or Instagram every six minutes. The public want to see social media platforms do more to protect them from scams and I welcome the Government’s recognition in the action plan that they need to do more to inform the public.
Media literacy is as fundamental to modern life as reading and writing. Young people must engage positively but cautiously in this digital world. Society needs resilience to fight the determined efforts of bad actors to undermine our values. The Government must lead this battle.
Baroness Fleet (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, on her leadership in producing this report by the Communications and Digital Committee, on which I serve. I declare my interest as a long-time journalist, including as editor of the Evening Standard for seven years.
In the time available, I will highlight one key element of the media literacy report, which is fundamental to the future of media literacy—news. Where do we get our news from and can we rely on it? How can young people best be taught to analyse news information, and especially to identify misinformation and disinformation? TikTok and YouTube are the most-used news sources for 12 to 15 year-olds, but where can the truth be found?
The majority of Britons still turn to the BBC for news. For generations, the BBC was trusted to present news accurately and impartially. I fear that that is no longer the case. There are of course many examples every day of great and brave journalism on the BBC, but all the good is washed away by outrightly bad journalism characterised by distortion, bias and inaccuracy. When the BBC’s failings are exposed, their executives are begrudging to admit their errors.
There are numerous recent examples of the failings of the BBC that have had far-reaching consequences—the Trump edit, for example, in a recent “Panorama”—yet when the BBC’s most senior executives were told about the distortion of Trump’s speech, they hoped that no one would notice. A whistleblower exposed the cover-up; the BBC finally acknowledged its error and apologised. Trump has escalated his complaint to a $10 billion legal battle.
Why was no action taken once it was discovered, eight months before it was publicly exposed? Because the most senior executive, DG Tim Davie, and his head of news, Deborah Turness, saw nothing wrong in the edit. Does this portray sloppy editing, as they suggested, or blatant bias?
The BBC’s recent pronouncement on Holocaust Day that 6 million people had been murdered by the Nazis instead of 6 million Jews shows how deep institutionalised antisemitism is at the BBC. Remember too Bob Vylan’s vile antisemitic chants at Glastonbury. The DG was present and did nothing to stop the broadcast. How did these grave errors occur?
Danny Cohen, former director of BBC Television, told MPs in November that the BBC has
“a systemic problem which the organisation is unwilling to admit to and therefore cannot fix”.
He went on to say that until the BBC
“cleans house and addresses issues with biased reporting, poor due diligence, and open antisemitism … it will continue to face a crisis of credibility”.
Danny Cohen’s views are shared by many former and current employees. A dossier compiled by the former staffer, Michael Prescott, for the BBC’s editorial standards and guidelines committee presented damning evidence of malfeasance. Davie and Turness had to resign. Their removal does not solve the problem but just highlights the state of the BBC’s news division. This is central to our whole media literacy report. The challenge will be to root out the bad apples and train a new generation to appreciate accuracy, impartiality and outstanding broadcasting.
The answer is definitely not a new DG who is a former executive of Google, as has already been referenced today. Trusted journalism that represents views across the political spectrum must be at the heart of the BBC, with appropriately qualified leadership. I note that trusted journalism has nothing to do with funding; it is down to judgment. If the BBC cannot be relied upon to produce accurate and balanced news, which is essential to media literacy, levels of trust will fall further. A BBC that is not trusted is not sustainable. With the charter review on the horizon, it is more important than ever that the BBC gets its house in order.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, for securing this important debate and the committee on an excellent report. As ever, I declare my interest as a teacher.
The report talks about thinking critically about the content that we create and consume both online and offline, because there is a problem: when we talk about media literacy, we instantly think of AI and deepfakes, but offline is important as well. Most people are aware of the ability of AI to produce remarkably realistic media. In fact, there are plenty of people who have randomly filmed remarkable events—perhaps their cat biting a shark—only to have it dismissed as AI. The critical point to understand is that unless we witness an event at first hand, everything that we look at has been edited by other people. Some examples are more obvious than others.
I was at boarding school in the 1980s during the miners’ strike. We got to see all the main national newspapers and would read at least the front page of each of them. There were different stories in the Mirror to those in the Sun, which would usually have a picture of Arthur Scargill doing Hitler salutes on the front page. But we have usually read the papers that reflect our beliefs and have had them reinforced by what we read long before algorithms.
This has been going on since mankind first learned to communicate. There is a theory that Harold was not actually hit in the eye with an arrow; it is just a clumsy darn on the “Bayeux Tapestry”. Richard III was not, in fact, the “poisonous bunch-backed toad” of Shakespeare; his scoliosis was painted in later. There are other great examples of fake news pre-internet. The Cottingley fairies became famous in 1917 when 16 year-old and 9 year-old cousins photographed themselves playing with the fairies at the bottom of the garden. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle used these photos to prove that fairies not only exist but reproduce sexually, because one had a belly button. Mercifully, he died before one of the girls admitted that the fairies were cut out from a picture book, the belly button was a pin holding the paper to a plant, and they were translucent as the result of a slow shutter speed and the wind blowing the paper fairies around.
Picture editors have always had great power. One told me that they would always pick the best available shot of Princess Diana and the worst of the then Duchess of York. The iconic photo of the naked Vietnamese girl Phan Thi Kim Phúc running towards the camera with her back covered in burning napalm is less dramatic when you see the full uncropped negative, with the photographer walking next to her casually reloading his camera. The much-sanctified BBC always accompanies a story of the House of Lords with a picture of us in ermine. The Guardian, surprisingly, has us in suits.
How do we teach media literacy in schools to equip our young people to be critical consumers? Might I once again suggest a solution that I have suggested before, this time to a different Minister? In response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review, the Government said:
“The secondary curriculum will both mirror and be a graduation of this core content, encompassing the vital threads of government, law and democracy, climate education, financial and media literacy”.
But where do we fit this into our crowded and knowledge-rich curriculum? Religious studies has to be taught to the age of 18 in maintained schools. I say stop: rather than embedding it across the curriculum, we could teach religious studies, government, law and democracy, climate education and financial and media literacy as a subject under the umbrella of citizenship, instead of just religious studies, with as much weight given to it as maths and English. If it was well planned and well taught, our students could become engaged and informed citizens. It could be fun to study and—equally importantly—to teach. Enthusiastic, well-informed teachers are good teachers.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register: as an adviser on emerging technologies, not least AI, to Endava plc, the Crown Estate, Submer Ltd and Simmons and Simmons LLP. It is a pleasure and an honour to take part in this debate, as it was to be a member of your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Committee, so ably led by the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, who opened this debate with erudition and eloquence, setting out all the key recommendations of our report’s findings. In many ways our report could be summarised in one phrase: critical thinking. It is important to so many of the issues currently facing all of us, not least young people, and is vital to our continued flourishing and humanity.
There are at least three reasons why media literacy matters today. The first is democracy. Trust is in crisis and collapsing under a barrage of misinformation and disinformation. We highlighted that in the Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee report in 2020, and it has gone only one way since then. The second reason is economic. We have an epidemic of fraud, mostly perpetrated on platforms, yet, in the Government’s recent fraud strategy, platforms are not included in APP reimbursement; I ask the Minister why. The third reason is our very being in society. When AI is all around us, media literacy must flow like a golden thread through us all and every interaction that we have. Those are three reasons.
Three groups are to be congratulated and are set out in our report, including librarians and community groups for everything they do, often in spite of, rather than alongside support. Can the Minister outline what support librarians and community groups are going to get through this new plan? Similarly, Becky Francis has already been rightly highlighted for her curriculum review and all of the good points that were made in that in terms of media literacy. To that end, when will the statutory provisions be brought forward that can enable the media literacy provisions set out in Becky Francis’s review? When we talk about Ofcom, all too often, in so many areas, more and more gets put on Ofcom, with media literacy the latest to be put at its door. Will the Minister consider speaking to Ofcom about looking at its definition of media literacy, which currently does not include the phrase “critical thinking”? It is critical that that changes.
I also ask the Minister what is happening with the Government’s media literacy working group set up last May. How often has it met? What impact and output has it had? Then there is the Digital Inclusion Action Committee. What action has it taken, how many meetings has it had and what is its impact? We have already heard mention of the Digital Inclusion Innovation Fund. It is hurtling towards the end of the current funding period at the end of this month. What is happening with funding at the end of this period and what will be done to assess and analyse the projects that have been funded?
If we want safer lives, secure lives and successful lives, we need media literacy—ML will enable us to live with the LLM. Our report talks about the need for government intervention. Their plan, published today, talks about the need for effective regulation. It is quite right; I agree. I would add that we need not only effective regulation, but right-sized regulation. It is good for citizen, consumer, creator, innovator and investor. Right-sized regulation is good for all of us, as all history, not least recent history, shows us. When will we see the statutory requirements to enable the Francis review provisions on media literacy to come forward? When will we see further legislation on online harms and how we already need to address the shortcomings of the Online Safety Act? It was so long in the making but is already deficient with so many of the current technology challenges.
When will we see more Government action on media literacy? When will we see an AI Bill brought forward? There was one line in the last King’s Speech about an AI Bill being brought forward in 2024, yet it did not appear. A consultation was due last autumn. We are in the spring of 2026 but, still, there is no consultation. Now, we hear that there is unlikely to be any AI-specific legislation in the upcoming King’s Speech, likely this May. In conclusion, we need legislation; we need it now for all our futures. Ultimately, it is our data and our decisions. We challenge and we choose—if we get this right together—our inclusive digital futures.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Keeley on the comprehensive way that she introduced our committee’s report on media literacy, of which committee I am lucky to be a member. I also welcome the Government’s media literacy action plan that was published today. The committee’s report covers considerable ground but, in my time today, I want to focus on media literacy in schools. In doing so, I must remind the Committee of my interests, especially chairing the board of trustees at E-ACT and my work with Pearson Education.
Last year, I carried out research into how we might teach media literacy to young people. As part of that work, I met a Cambridge professor who described the rise of disinformation as a war between autocracy and democracy. This may sound dramatic, but it captures why I have devoted considerable time to this issue. There has always been the disinformation of propaganda and the misinformation of gossip and tittle-tattle, but what we face now is fundamentally different. These age-old problems are massively amplified by AI creating credible fake content. We saw Cambridge Analytica’s interference in the Brexit referendum. We see foreign interference in elections through disinformation bots on social media. Technology has transformed the scale and sophistication of the threat to our democracy.
In my research, I also met the Guardian Foundation, the Financial Times, the Economist, the BBC and others. Collectively, they offer a considerable body of support material for teachers but with piecemeal take-up while we await the proper place in the curriculum for media literacy. I have also spoken to examination boards and, crucially, to young people. What has emerged is growing awareness of the importance of doing more on media literacy, now reflected in the curriculum and assessment review’s commitment to strengthen media literacy in English, citizenship and PSHE. This is welcome, but I dread a knowledge-rich approach that simply teaches young people about how the media works without the practical experience of creating media content and developing genuine critical thinking. The disinformation we face, particularly AI-generated content, requires much better critical thinking skills, yet our current system of teaching to the test with its high-stakes accountability actively works against developing thinking skills. We teach model answers to predicted questions and mark schemes, but not how to think independently and critically. We must free teachers across all subjects to teach thinking, not just to drill test responses.
I also urge the DfE to explore using project-based qualifications to teach media literacy effectively. The FPQ, HPQ and EPQ offer a ready-made framework. Why not incentivise young people to learn about the media by creating journalistic content across the media types and assessing it using these existing qualifications with their accompanying UCAS credits? This combines practical creation with critical thinking in an authentic context. I hope the new curriculum finds space for this approach, especially at key stages 3 and 4 when young people are most actively engaging with social media and most vulnerable to misinformation and AI hallucination.
Media literacy is a democratic necessity. If citizens cannot evaluate information critically, the foundations of informed debate and democratic decision-making are weakened. The Government’s action plan today is welcome, but on education we cannot wait until 2028 for curriculum implementation. We must make progress now in anticipation of lowering the voting age to 16 and as AI becomes embedded in our lives. The committee has done a good report that has elicited a good plan from the Government, but we now need implementation at pace and at a scale that this democratic emergency demands.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and her committee for this remarkably informed and necessary report. I say so as a former schoolteacher and teacher of religious studies, a former ITV and BBC political journalist and now chairman of a major London university and a professor of leadership at a business school in the US.
The issues contained in this report absolutely matter. I agree with the report’s statement that media literacy is a vital life skill and with the response of the Government that media literacy and digital inclusion go hand in hand as individuals need the skills and confidence to engage safely, critically and effectively in the digital world.
But there is one category of citizen excluded from consideration by this report and the Government: people in prison. Currently, there are around 90,000 men and women—it is largely men and a few thousand women, because they do not misbehave as much—in our prison system. This morning, I made my third visit in eight days to the same prison in south London where I and my network of 35 visitors have a regular commitment. In the 120 visits I have made in the last 10 years to prisoners in the south of England, I have seen a whole cohort of people whom we have a major responsibility for but no commitment to around media literacy. In fact, there is no mention of them in this report or the Government’s response. Whether we like it or not, the truth is that all those in prison, with a few exceptions, will come out of prison at some point and they will be ignorant of media literacy and incapable of understanding exactly what is proposed in the committee’s brilliant assessment or even the Government’s response. They are media literacy denied.
Of course, that assumes that they are denied phones, iPads, laptops and everything else in the digital world to contain their corrupting, bad behaviour and make sure that they are reformed. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, pointed out, and as was further emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, 42% of crime is scam crime, which is not committed by people in prison but by people outside. Excluding those in prison from access to media literacy and media availability is destructive, divisive, discriminatory and unhelpful.
Ministers in the Ministry of Justice will say that, for prisoners to leave our system, which is not very good, and be excellent citizens, they will need employment, which requires education, and positive relationships. Being digitally excluded makes it harder for them to achieve any of those three outcomes. No wonder that, in so many ways, we have such a huge repeat offending rate—currently it is around 60% to 65%—and we are paying more to keep people back in prison than it would cost to send a great child to Eton or any other elite private school.
We must realise, as I hope the Government do, that if there is to be an integrated strategy between departments then it is about time we woke up to the fact that those in prison deserve media education, often for a long period of time, which can be best deployed through access to ring-fenced digital systems. That is perfectly capable in today’s world; there does not need to be mass availability of everything. To pretend that young men, and some young women, in prisons are incapable of intelligent engagement is not to understand the kind of characters they are. We must realise that they deserve the same level of inclusion that we seek for everybody else.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, as a recently joined member of the Communications and Digital Committee, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Keeley on her leadership, other committee members on the report and their contributions today, and other noble Lords who have supported the issue over many years and shared their wisdom and expertise in this debate. The Government’s choice to publish their media literacy action plan as the first step in their strategy to develop a safe, informed digital nation today is a positive response to all that mutual work and an important step in achieving a more aligned and cross-departmental approach to this crucial issue. Unfortunately, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I spotted it only this afternoon so it somewhat impeded my speech. Much has already been said and I do not wish to repeat the well-made points already made. I will therefore focus on issues that have not been touched on and put some questions to the Minister.
I declare an interest as a previous chair of Goldsmiths, University of London, and current chair of Camden Council’s STEAM project, which brings together all the primary and secondary schools and youth services in the borough, working with local employers such as Google and the Roundhouse and anchor institutions such as the Crick to progress young people from all backgrounds in high-skill sectors. Because of that, I look at these developments from the point of view of those we are seeking to support—the students, young people and adults—and those seeking to support them. I very much agree with the local implementation recommendations, but strongly believe that we need to create branding, visibility and resourcing; that needs to be brought together and accessed simply and in similar ways across the country.
Focusing on education, the emphasis on media literacy in the curriculum is very welcome, but, as has been said, it is one of the changes on which schools will have to work in short order. Some of the others include the change in modernised qualifications, putting creativity and arts back in the curriculum and the enrichment agenda. In policy terms, we tend to take each issue separately, so it is good to see digital literacy and media literacy being taken hand in hand, but it is vital that one key centre brings all of the support and access to resources for media literacy together in one easily navigated place; my noble friend Lady Keeley mentioned this in her introduction.
In this instance, it seems that the National Centre for Computing Education is there to support digital and AI, but, as has been said, the emphasis on media literacy across English, history and citizenship, which is absolutely vital, is missing. We need, therefore, to think about the resourcing for that. In addition, within computing and digital, it is vital that there is, as my noble friend just said, an emphasis on learning about the morals and ethics of how productions are made.
As regards voting age, youth services, which have been touched on, need to be able to access the same kinds of resources to support their work. Can the Minister confirm that—or at least ask whether—youth services will be able to access those if a centre for media literacy is set up?
Post-16 education seems to me to be a missing area. It is not really touched on. In terms of media literacy, the emphasis is on pre-16 education. The Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, which looked at A-levels, T-levels and the new V-levels, seems to be silent on these issues. I ask the Minister to ask his colleagues in the DfE and DWP whether they can say why that is and what their plans might be.
Further education and universities also seem to be missing. Local collaborations and partnerships could be utilised to support schools and youth services in preparing and supporting young people on media literacy. Again, I ask whether that could be explored further, with further information made available.
Finally, in terms of those offering support, the BBC has identified itself as key. We hope that this issue will be part of its charter priorities. Other public service broadcasters and platforms need to be able to co-ordinate that, too. It is essential to have one place for all of their combined partnerships to be brought together.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and the Communications and Digital Committee on their timely report, which is clear-eyed about the scale of the challenge before us.
The report makes a compelling case for media literacy being no longer a specialist skill but a fundamental requirement for democratic participation. The concern is urgent. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, less than one-third of adults are confident that they can identify AI-generated content. Further, a 2024 Ofcom survey found that 52% of UK adults now use social media as a news source. That combination of mass dependence on social platforms and mass difficulty in evaluating what appears on them is precisely the vulnerability that the committee is right to address.
The report highlighted that provision has been uneven and fragile. As the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, said, media literacy in schools has at times been limited to a one-off or an annual assembly, or confined to optional subjects, making provision a postcode lottery. Outside school, it has fallen largely to underfunded third-sector organisations with no long-term strategic vision. The committee was right to conclude that only the Government can drive real progress.
The curriculum and assessment review, published in November 2025, and today’s media literacy action plan, recommended strengthening media literacy in English and citizenship and introducing a statutory requirement at primary level. Updated RSHE guidance, taking effect from September 2026, will address AI, deepfakes and online misogyny. These are welcome steps, but they must be matched with proper teacher training. I am glad that there has been a recognition of this in the action plan. Teachers have been clear that media literacy must be statutory and curriculum-aligned, not a tick-box exercise.
In speaking today, I want to focus on one aspect of media literacy that is sometimes overlooked: visual literacy. Much of today’s communication is no longer primarily textual; it is visual, multimodal and increasingly generated or altered by artificial intelligence, with around 5 billion constructed images shared every day. If media literacy is about understanding messages, visual literacy—the ability to interpret, question and evaluate images—is now one of its core components. As Alison Cole of the Cultural Policy Unit has argued, it should be regarded as a cornerstone of media literacy itself.
There is already practical evidence of what this can look like. Art UK’s Superpower of Looking programme is active in nearly 3,000 schools, developing children’s visual literacy through engagement with works of art. Oxford University’s Picture This initiative is evaluating such approaches in building visual literacy and the oracy skills that feature prominently in the curriculum review. The Government should ensure that visual literacy is explicitly embedded in the reformed curriculum, not left to individual schools or voluntary programmes. Nor is visual literacy merely a school concern. Sweden’s Psychological Defence Agency published a report earlier this year arguing that it has become essential national infrastructure in an age of deepfakes and algorithmically amplified disinformation.
The skill of careful, critical observation is equally transferable in professional life: the New York Police Department has used art to improve officers’ capacity for unbiased visual assessment. We should treat visual literacy as the civic competency that it is. This matters because the current regulatory framework has not kept pace with how information is now communicated online. There are no general obligations on social media platforms to identify sources of content, verify factual information or label AI-generated images. Clearer labelling, particularly where content is presented as factual or depicts a real person, would be a practical step towards restoring transparency, provided it distinguishes deceptive uses of AI from legitimate creative work. Denmark has already legislated to give its citizens rights over their own digital likeness, and the United States is actively considering similar federal protections. The UK should be engaging with those developments rather than waiting.
The report gives us a clear direction. The task now is to act on it, by embedding visual literacy in our schools, improving transparency around AI-generated content and developing legal frameworks that address real harms without stifling creativity.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for intervening in the gap, but I very much wanted to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and her committee and speak to a report that is both is both timely and very necessary. In doing so, I declare my AI interests as in the register.
We are faced with a landscape of algorithmic manipulation, proliferating deepfakes, a torrent of disinformation and, of course, online fraud. The committee is right: a failure to prioritise media literacy is a threat not just to individuals but to social cohesion and democracy itself. In the era of generative AI, media literacy is, as the committee makes clear, a requirement for modern citizenship. Our current approach is indeed fragmented and underresourced and lacks strategic vision. Ofcom’s own evidence, highlighted by the committee, shows little improvement in core skills over six years. In that context, the Government’s claim in their response that they and Ofcom have met the mounting scale of the challenge is simply not credible.
Like my noble friend Lord Storey, I welcome the completed curriculum and assessment review, which commits the Government to publishing revised national curriculum content by spring 2027. However, as the committee recommends, media literacy should be embedded across the curriculum and teachers should receive sustained support. This should arrive earlier.
As the committee urges, we need media literacy to be prioritised across government, not bolted on at the margins. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that one of the key tests of the effectiveness of the new media literacy action plan will be whether that takes place.
The Government cannot simply continue to outsource their responsibility in this area to the regulator. Although I welcome Ofcom’s new three-year media literacy strategy and its tougher use of behavioural audits under the Online Safety Act, which the Government rightly highlight, it is, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, deeply disappointing that, more than 20 years on, Ofcom still has not brought its definition of media literacy up to date by explicitly recognising critical thinking—although I detect slightly different language in the media literacy action plan. Ofcom should, as the committee says, set minimum standards for platforms’ media literacy activity and be empowered to hold them to account.
You cannot build media literacy on foundations that do not exist. As the committee and many stakeholders argue, we must treat connectivity as an essential utility and invest accordingly. The vision from our Benches is empowered citizenship: not a nanny state that tells people what to think but a literate state that gives people the tools to think for themselves. That is, in essence, the spirit of the committee’s report.
I urge the Minister to treat this report not as suggestions but as an urgent road map. We need, as the committee sets out, a unified strategy, a robust and critical definition of media literacy and the digital infrastructure to underpin it all.
Finally, I say in closing that I believe the BBC is not the problem; it is part of the answer. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, this has been an encouraging debate, although the Government’s response to our report was a little last-minute, as has been said. My noble friend Lord Storey did not even know that we now have a Minister to cover this. That was not his fault: rather, it was a matter of the delivery of the action plan.
My skin in the game goes back even further. I was on the Puttnam committee that gave pre-legislative scrutiny to the Communications Act 2003—the Act that created Ofcom—and one of the responsibilities we wrote into Ofcom’s mandate was education on media literacy. I think it is fair to say that Ofcom had other things to do in the first 20 years of its life: nevertheless, media literacy was something important, and the technical, social and economic changes that have taken place since 2003 have only increased its importance.
When I was not embroiled in student politics, I was at UCL studying economic and social history. One of the things that always stuck in my mind was the famous Lord Sherbrooke quote after the 1867 Reform Act that we must now set about educating our masters—the realisation that an extended electorate was safer if it was an educated electorate.
We have almost the same problem now in reverse. We have a technology that can inform that electorate and a real need for the electorate to understand the various parts of the technology that gives them information now. In my more pessimistic moments, I think that the threat to stable government, democracy and the workings of liberal democracy—in a broader sense, not a party-political sense—are probably under more threat now than they have been in my lifetime. We have to equip our societies to see, assess and respond to those threats as a matter of real urgency.
We now have three Ministers leading on this area according to the information received today. I always hated the term junior Ministers, but that is what they are; they are not heads of their departments. I agree with much of what has been said. There is a need for cross-government co-operation on this, and I have had some experience of that. That ability to get cross-departmental co-operation needs real leadership from the centre, so I hope it does not do too much damage to his reputation to suggest that as well as the three Ministers announced today, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Darren Jones, who serves as Minister to the Prime Minister and has a fairly blank menu to fill in, could do a real service by making sure that there is the kind of co-operation that has been advocated for today with cross-departmental working. Perhaps only a Cabinet Minister with direct access to the Prime Minister would be able to achieve that.
I was hoping that we would have unanimity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and others have said, on the importance of the BBC in delivering this capability to our society. I hope that as part of the charter review responsibility for media literacy is given in part to the BBC, which can use its tremendous skills to deliver it.
Interestingly, as many of us do, I mentioned to my son John that I was speaking on this debate. He said, “Oh, you should look at ‘Crash Course’ on YouTube”. I said, “What’s ‘Crash Course’?” He said, “‘Crash Course’ is an American programme on media literacy”, so looked at it and it is very good. I am not suggesting that we start from scratch on this. Although we quite often criticise our American cousins for various aspects of their media, at local level and at this individual level, they are showing that media literacy can be taught and understood. I am not that defeatist on this.
I have wandered on; I am sorry. We have a battle on our hands and the technology is complex. The BBC is something not to be destroyed but defended. It has extended its responsibilities. The majority of the Committee would keep to that, I think. However, I still fear that the power of big tech is influencing government in a worrying way. Perhaps it is for Parliament to take the actions that will make sure that our society is protected from what is, as I say, probably one of the most disruptive technologies since the invention of the printing press.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, for introducing this debate. I thank her and her fellow members of your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Committee for their hard work in producing this report on media literacy.
The opening sentence of the report puts it starkly:
“Social cohesion is at risk and democracy itself is threatened by inadequate media literacy”.
In looking at the annunciator and keeping a close eye on the time throughout this debate, I noticed that, at the moment, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is making a Statement on social cohesion in the Chamber. In some ways, it is unfortunate that we have such a clash, because I know that the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate would have made useful contributions. Perhaps that makes the point about this being an activity that engages many government departments; I am sure that the Minister will ensure that the comments made in this debate are shared with the noble Baroness and his colleagues across government.
The way in which we all consume and interact with the news is changing rapidly. However, although that has opened up a world of choice, it has also created, as noble Lords have said, personalised echo chambers where complex algorithms, rather than thoughtful and experienced news editors, are increasingly determining what we see. We cannot rely on what we read or trust that what is before our eyes is trustworthy and balanced. Artificial intelligence is playing an increasing and uncertain role.
The media we consume are becoming vastly different between the generations and between people of different political persuasions; in many ways, the public forum is becoming a smaller and more segregated space. Children especially now operate in a world that seems alien to their parents and teachers—or, at least, a world with which these conscientious adults are struggling to keep up—which is why my colleagues on these Benches have sought to shield children under the age of 16 from the harmful effects of social media, protecting children from pornographic, violent and extremist content until they are adults and able to engage on a different basis.
We on these Benches welcome many of the recommendations in this thoughtful and detailed report. For instance, we welcome the recommendations on updating Ofcom’s definition of media literacy, as noble Lords have remarked, to make more explicit reference to critical thinking; and on addressing the need for more joined-up thinking across government departments so that we can look at this issue as needs be.
As noble Lords know, I have long argued that Governments do not need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to media literacy education. Teaching people to have a healthy scepticism and an independence of thought around the sources and material in front of them does not require new subjects or new curricula. The report of your Lordships’ committee concludes that media literacy ought to be
“integrated within a number of subjects”.
I welcome that conclusion. Subjects such as history, English literature and the history of art have long taught students to interrogate sources in front of them; to ask who created them, for which audiences and for what purpose and to be curious about what has been omitted.
Promoting greater media literacy does not have to mean specific lessons on critical thinking but, rather, encouraging critical thinking at every point in the classroom in history, art, science, English literature, English language and more. Sadly, very few of our state schools offer history of art at GCSE or A-level. Can the Minister say what the Government plan to do to work with brilliant organisations such as Art History Link-Up and the Courtauld Institute, which are working to reverse that? Also, what will they do to follow up on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about initiatives such as the Superpower of Looking, which do so much to promote visual literacy—as important a skill for the digital generation as it was for analogue ones.
The Government also propose to reduce the number of exams by 10%. Exams should not be a memory game, of course, but a test of how well students engage analytically with ideas and sources. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on the changes the Government are pursuing with regard to exams and assessments, and how these can be used to improve critical thinking skills. An important element of promoting critical thinking is protecting freedom of speech and expression, allowing diversity of thought and encouraging students to challenge accepted nostra.
We should be teaching students to disagree well, just as we try to in your Lordships’ House. To that end, I agree with the comments that my noble friend Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone made about the importance of debating. Organisations such as the English-Speaking Union do tremendous work in promoting debating in and outside schools. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Cambridge Union, which has a long-running schools debating competition that tries to spread debating in schools. I commend the work that the Government are doing on oracy in strengthening this important work. The noble Baroness, Lady Caine of Kentish Town, is right that this is about strengthening access to the arts in and outside schools. It is through arts institutions such as the Roundhouse, which she mentioned, that we engage people of all backgrounds in that sort of critical thinking.
I was glad that libraries were mentioned throughout the debate and in the Government’s response. At a reception held by Libraries Connected and CILIP here in Parliament last week, I was pleased to meet professionals from four library services, in Newcastle, Northumberland, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire—not, I am sure, chosen alphabetically—which have been working to try new ways of tackling digital exclusion and boosting media literacy in their areas. These include pop-up demonstrations, bookable sessions providing an introduction to AI, and one-to-one support.
However, as the report notes, library services
“are already overstretched and under-resourced”,
so it is important that we equip local authorities to invest in a resource that is already there and can play such a valuable part in delivering this agenda. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he agrees with the very sensible suggestion from Libraries Connected that there should be public library representation on any external bodies that are set up to scrutinise the Government’s work on the new media literacy action plan.
I welcome the announcement earlier this month that the Government will publish a new strategy for our public libraries. As noble Lords know, I commissioned an independent review of public libraries in the last Parliament, which was very well conducted by my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton. I hope that the new strategy will build on the insightful thoughts she gave in that review and, crucially, the engagement she had with public library professionals from across the country.
The report highlights the importance of local media, which we know is trusted far more than national and international media. To that end, I echo the points noble Lords made about copyright and AI, which is threatening the very existence of trusted news journalism. As my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond noted, the Government are moving painfully slowly in the face of rapidly changing technology. I echo the points made about the importance of the BBC and public service broadcasters in this regard, particularly at a moment when we look at the BBC’s royal charter. I echo the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, about ensuring the prominence of our public service broadcast content in a crowded media field.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughts, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, in view of the limited time that we have, I shall try to speak as quickly as I can to allow the committee’s chair to sum up. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed such thoughtful and compelling insights this afternoon. I thank my noble friend Lady Keeley for securing this timely debate.
The quality of the discussion reflects something on which I believe the Grand Committee is united: media literacy is now a foundational skill. It underpins people’s ability to navigate the digital world with confidence, resilience and independence. Media literacy brings clear benefits to individuals and to society as a whole. It gives people the confidence to understand the information they encounter, recognise what is trustworthy and make choices that support their well-being. It helps parents guide their children with clarity and reassurance. It empowers young people to explore ideas safely and participate in learning and creativity. It supports adults of all ages to feel more capable and in control as they navigate an increasingly digital environment.
A media-literate society is also harder to mislead. It is better able to engage constructively in public debate and more confident in using new technologies. In short, it contributes to a more resilient, more connected society in which everybody can take part. Our ambition is therefore very clear. We want every person in the United Kingdom to benefit from strong media literacy skills and to feel informed, confident and able to participate fully in the digital world.
Achieving that ambition requires a whole-of-society effort. The Government have an important leadership role, but lasting progress depends on co-ordinated action across our public systems, including health and education, and on close co-operation with regulators, civic society, industry, communities, families and other related or interested stakeholders. When each part of society contributes, we create a digital environment that supports opportunity, strengthens trust and helps people thrive.
The Communications and Digital Committee’s report highlighted both the importance of media literacy and the need for stronger co-ordination in how it is delivered. Since the report was published, and since the Government set out their response, we have focused on strengthening delivery and learning across the system. This work is now being taken forward through the cross-government media literacy action plan, which brings departments, regulators and partners together behind shared priorities and sets the direction for the coming years.
Within this plan, we have established a clearer framework for delivery. It is grounded in evidence, aligned with Ofcom’s statutory responsibilities and focused on the areas where media literacy can make the greatest practical difference. This reflects a deliberate shift from strategy to action, ensuring that our commitments translate into support that reaches people and communities across the country.
Alongside this, the Online Safety Act provides an important foundation. It establishes the regulatory protections that people rightly expect when they go online, while also strengthening the wider environment in which media literacy can develop. The Act updated Ofcom’s media literacy duties. Ofcom already had a statutory responsibility to promote media literacy, but the Act introduces more targeted responsibilities. These include helping the public understand harmful online content and behaviour, including misinformation and disinformation, and addressing risks faced by groups who are more likely to experience harm, including women and girls.
The Act also requires Ofcom to publish a media literacy strategy. The first of these was issued in October 2024, as some noble Lords mentioned, and has already begun to shape practical delivery. Ofcom is now taking forward a range of initiatives under that strategy. These include training for teachers, targeted support for older adults, work focused on elections and AI-generated content and the development of a place-based approach that strengthens local delivery through trusted community organisations. We are also working closely with Ofcom to ensure that our approach complements the regulator’s role and supports co-ordination across the wider system. I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions we have heard today.
I will now turn to points raised by several noble Lords in response to the themes that have emerged across the debate. Due to the pressure of time, if I have not responded to all questions, I will get my officials to go through Hansard and ensure that every question is answered, with a copy placed in the Library.
My noble friend Lady Keeley spoke about the importance of leadership and co-ordination. I want to be clear that the Government have strengthened their approach in response to that challenge. Strong cross-government working underpins our approach. Media literacy has been embedded across key policy areas, rather than treated in isolation. The media literacy action plan brings departments, Ofcom and partners across society into a single, co-ordinated effort shaped by evidence and the practical experience of those delivering the work on the ground.
This is the first time that the Government have taken such a comprehensive approach to media literacy. The plan has been shaped through collaboration across government and is informed by lessons from civil society organisations and international partners. Our aim is simple: to meet people where they are, through the places and institutions they trust, and to build on what we know makes a real difference.
In practice, this means raising awareness of media literacy and improving access to reliable information, preparing children and young people for a digital future, strengthening support in communities for those most at risk and ensuring that government action complements Ofcom’s statutory responsibilities. Funding for the local media strategy will be announced very soon. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is currently considering whether the BBC’s contribution to media literacy should be more clearly reflected in the public purposes. Taken together, this creates a more joined-up and effective approach, and we will continue to support effective co-ordination and delivery across government.
By 2029, the action plan aims to make a tangible difference by improving critical engagement with online content and access to trusted information through education, libraries and local services. We will keep progress under review and publish updates on GOV.UK so that families, educators, communities and parliamentarians can see how delivery is progressing and how our approach evolves as new risks and opportunities emerge.
My noble friend Lady Keeley also asked how the Government will ensure that media literacy receives sufficient focus within wider digital inclusion work. Media literacy is a core part of our work on digital inclusion. It helps people build the skills and confidence to use online services safely and effectively. Consistent evaluation of the media literacy programme is crucial. The media literacy action plan includes action to encourage the use of the Ofcom evaluation toolkit to ensure consistent, high-quality education. The digital inclusion innovation fund was designed to build an evidence base for effective digital inclusion interventions. The project will conclude by March 2026. Lessons from the fund will inform future support to help more people get online with confidence.
Several noble Lords asked about social cohesion. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, there is a Division in the House, so the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes. There was a medical emergency in the Chamber earlier, which is why everything is out of sync. We have a hard finish at 8 pm, so if noble Lords vote swiftly come back, we might start before the 10 minutes is up so that we can complete.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, before we were interrupted, several noble Lords had asked about social cohesion. On 9 March, MHCLG published the Protecting What Matters strategy—which the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, mentioned and which was the subject of the Statement during dinner break business this evening—a cross-government package of measures to support integration, strengthen social cohesion and counter extremism.
Media literacy is referenced as a supporting element within that wider plan. That is why it is embedded in the digital inclusion action plan and supported through the £11.9 million Digital Inclusion Innovation Fund and its associated committee, chaired by my noble friend Lady Armstrong. This funding backs innovative projects delivered through trusted local settings, particularly reaching vulnerable and excluded groups.
We agree with my noble friend that technology platforms also have an important role to play. That is why companies such as Google, through Be Internet Legends, and Meta, through Get Digital, are already reaching millions of people. Ofcom’s strategy rightly places collaboration with platforms at its heart, including through media literacy by design. The Government welcome Ofcom’s consultation on how platforms, broadcasters and streaming services can go further, with recommendations expected in spring 2026.
The Government also recognise the importance of sustainable funding for media literacy. However, we do not believe a separate levy is the right approach. Media literacy is already supported through programmes linked to wider priorities such as online safety and digital inclusion, alongside Ofcom’s role. This avoids duplicating the Online Safety Act levy or placing additional burdens on businesses.
Several noble Lords asked about having a specific Minister responsible for media literacy. I spend most of my time at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and I can assure noble Lords that my colleague in the other place, Minister Narayan, holds ministerial responsibility for online media literacy, providing strategic leadership and championing join-up and delivery across government. I also assure noble Lords that he has regular conversations with the Technology Secretary on a daily basis to ensure that media literacy is at the heart of the Government’s agenda.
The committee also reminded us that, although media literacy is a vital life skill, many adults remain unaware of its value or how it relates to their daily lives. This is why the Government are using their voice to raise awareness and guide people towards trusted support. In February, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology launched the “You Won’t Know until You Ask” campaign, which supports parents and carers of children aged between eight and 14 and focuses on something very simple: encouraging conversations about what children see online. Many parents want to have these conversations but are unsure where to start. The message of the campaign is straightforward and reassuring. Parents do not need specialist knowledge. They simply need to ask. The campaign is currently running across Yorkshire and the Midlands. By testing it regionally, we can learn what works best and how to reach families effectively.
Alongside this campaign, we have launched the new “Kids Online Safety Hub”, developed with the Department for Education. The hub offers practical guidance to help parents ask open questions, build trust with their children and encourage critical thinking, which several noble Lords mentioned this evening. It also connects families with trusted advice and support. The campaign and the hub are grounded in evidence and shaped by expert input and testing with parents. Early engagement has been encouraging, particularly through schools and trusted community networks.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for drawing attention to the independent curriculum and assessment review, chaired by Professor Becky Francis. As noble Lords know, a consultation is currently happening; we hope to be able to publish its findings by spring 2027, with implementation in 2028. The review was clear that media literacy is a vital skill for young people in a rapidly changing digital world. The Government have welcomed the review and are taking steps to progress its recommendations. As part of that, we are committed to strengthening media literacy in the updated national curriculum. We want all children to leave school with the knowledge, understanding and skills to enable them to use technology creatively and purposefully while becoming discerning consumers of information.
Several noble Lords asked how far media literacy will be embedded in the curriculum and what support teachers will receive to deliver it effectively. Regulation alone cannot equip young people for the digital world they experience every day. Children and young people need the ability to think critically about the information they encounter—I agree with all noble Lords on this. They need to understand how platforms, algorithms and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, shape what they see and how content spreads. Media literacy will be embedded across subjects more clearly so that people learn to recognise misinformation and disinformation, including AI-generated content, and understand how messages are constructed across different media. Changes to the English curriculum at GCSE will support pupils to question what they read, recognise persuasive techniques and identify emotionally charged language.
We are also strengthening citizenship education so that children begin developing these skills early, with age-appropriate learning continuing throughout secondary school. Updated programmes of study will be consulted on this year, with a new national curriculum following in 2027 and teaching beginning from 2028, as I mentioned earlier. We have already taken steps in this direction.
In the interests of time, I will touch on a couple more points and then conclude. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, spoke powerfully about the changing nature of how information is created and consumed. I am grateful to him for highlighting the growing importance of visual literacy. As images, video and AI-generated content increasingly shape the information people encounter online, the Government recognise the need for individuals to be able to interpret, question and assess not only what they read but what they see. We will continue to consider how media literacy, including visual literacy, can be strengthened and kept up to date as technologies and online behaviour evolve.
Several noble Lords asked about democracy. More than two millennia ago, the Athenian historian Thucydides—please forgive my pronunciation—warned how falsehood can erode democratic life, so this is nothing new: it goes back 2,000 years. Today, misinformation and deliberate disinformation spread swiftly online, often outpacing accurate information and eroding trust in institutions and the democratic process. The Government are responding with measures such as the Online Safety Act, which assigns greater responsibilities to technology platforms to tackle harmful and misleading content online. However, regulation by itself is not sufficient. Enhancing media literacy and critical thinking, which is so often mentioned, is crucial for citizens to evaluate information responsibly and to preserve trust in democratic debate and the integrity of our elections.
Finally, we are closely monitoring international developments on digital replicas and engaging with stakeholders on the implications for the United Kingdom. These issues will be considered further in our forthcoming report on copyright and AI.
This debate has shown the strength of feeling across the Committee about the value of media literacy and the importance of getting this right. The question before us is no longer whether we act but how quickly and effectively we deliver. For the first time, the media literacy action plan provides a single map for the work ahead. It brings together education, regulation, trusted information and local delivery in a way that is practical, evidence-led and focused on improving people’s outcomes across the country.
Our ambition is clear: for everyone, whatever their age or background, to have the confidence and skills to navigate the online world safely and thoughtfully. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their insight and the generosity shown in their contributions. The perspectives they have shared this afternoon will continue to inform our work. A more media-literate society is not simply better informed; it is more resilient, more confident and more connected. That is the future we are working towards, and I look forward to continuing that work with noble Lords across the Committee.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister and all noble Lords who have spoken in this wide-ranging debate, with some excellent questions. I thank the Minister for saying that he will later answer any questions to which we have not had an answer.
With a subject as wide-ranging as media literacy, it is difficult to cover everything. I take on board the points noble Lords made about post-16 youth services being an important area, as well as people in prisons. We had quite a rush towards the end of our inquiry to fit in with the timing of the Francis review. Given what happened in that review and that we now have the media literacy action plan, we were probably right to go with that timing, rather than taking longer. It is always difficult.
I welcome the emphasis on critical thinking and thinking independently, which was one of the key things to come out strongly in the debate, as well as the discussion on visual literacy, which we cannot forget. The need for Ofcom to update its definition came up again and again, so we should perhaps keep on that. On the subject of libraries, which were mentioned, we must remember that so many libraries are now run by volunteers, so let us not think that they can take on extra responsibilities without the funding that goes with that. I end by welcoming the wide support for the committee and its report.
House of Lords
UK Public Servants: International Secondments
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
To ask His Majesty’s Government what standards of behaviour apply to UK public servants on secondment to international organisations where UK civil service standards may be higher than those of the temporary secondment.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
Civil servants seconded outside the Civil Service, including internationally, do not cease to be civil servants and are expected to carry out their role with dedication and a commitment to the Civil Service and its core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. The provisions in the Civil Service Code and of their employing department continue to apply to them at all times.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I thank the Minister. I should declare from the outset that my Question is not related to any individuals but, rather, is a question of policy. She will know about both the reputational damage to Civil Service morale and the fact that public confidence takes a hit when perceptions of lower standards take hold in public life. If, as the Minister explained, oversight by the home department continues and the Civil Service Code continues to apply, why is misconduct investigated not by the UK Civil Service but rather by the international organisation, which may represent lower standards than we would have? Are the Government minded to conduct a review to make sure that there is joined-up appraisal and performance assessment of people who may be away for several years?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Obviously, standards are an important part of the regime—not least because the Prime Minister has now given me responsibility for them. On the specifics that she asked for, whether the individual is on secondment nationally or internationally, as best practice, the department should continue to conduct the performance reviews of the secondee. The host will provide the department with appropriate input for these purposes, to agreed timescales. Alternatively, the department can agree that, for the duration of the secondment, the host conducts performance reviews. The host organisation is required to seek consent from the department to do so. The department must also consult the HR, pay and reward, and legal team where appropriate. This was reviewed last September, so we have no additional plans to review.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is right that we expect the highest standards of our civil servants, but what does my noble friend make of the statement that emanated from Reform UK that a Reform UK Government would expect to dismiss the top civil servants in every government department and replace them with people seen as more likely to implement the party’s priorities? Does she agree that if we go down that path, we will undermine the integrity of the Civil Service and do this country a great disservice?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right, and it suggests quite how unserious Reform UK is about governing. We have an independent Civil Service for a reason. It acts without fear or favour; it is subject to a stringent code of conduct, and it is there to make sure that our public services are delivered. Any suggestion otherwise is for the birds.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, the latest Civil Service staff survey, published last month, shows that, for example, more than one in 10 Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office staff and one in 10 Cabinet Office staff report having experienced bullying or harassment in the workplace in the last year. Can the Minister tell us what safeguards the Government have in place to ensure that such highly inappropriate behaviour is not exported inadvertently to international organisations?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. Every member of the Civil Service is subject to the Civil Service Code, regardless of seniority, and we expect them to be held accountable and to treat all staff with appropriate levels of respect. Obviously, Ministers are subject to the Ministerial Code. There is extensive HR support within government departments, both within the FCDO and my own department, and I would expect everyone to undertake the appropriate training—and to be dismissed, where appropriate, if such behaviour was found.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, as the Infected Blood and Grenfell Tower inquiries made clear, having a Civil Service Code is one thing but ensuring that it is properly followed is quite another. Can the Minister therefore set out what specific consequences apply when the code is breached—whether by those in conventional employment or by those on secondment—and confirm whether serious instances of non-compliance are routinely escalated to senior Ministers and to No. 10, including in cases involving secondees or officials posted overseas? Furthermore, will she also explain how conduct is reflected in performance management and in decisions about future appointments, in particular how an individual’s conduct and performance while on secondment is assessed and taken into account?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness has asked four questions, so I will answer as many as I can. For all of them, the answer is the same, which is that chapter 4 of the Civil Service management code outlines what conduct we expect, the disciplinary process and how civil servants should apply it. I would expect every civil servant to stick to everything within the code and, if not, to be managed appropriately.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Having worked in an international organisation for five years and having seen some shocking conduct, it crosses my mind that the Government could do well to ask the British-appointed directors of those organisations to keep a very close eye on what goes on with respect to standards and to report back regularly, and for the Government to make public reports where they can on such information. Will the Government consider putting such an arrangement in place?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am not sure how many secondments would work on that basis, but we already have in place keeping-in-touch conversations, where those who have been seconded must have regular conversations with their home department, as well as everything determined within the secondment agreement. Every secondment undertaken, both into and out of the Civil Service, is done on a case-by-case basis, so there is a bespoke secondment agreement which would allow some of those conversations to be formalised.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, clearly, as my noble friend has said, there are procedures and codes in place for our own civil servants, whom I hold in the highest regard. The noble Lord mentioned our own civil servants who are working in international organisations. I wonder what, if anything, we can do to ensure that bullying and harassment, for example, are properly dealt with in international organisations when it is not happening to our own civil servants who have been seconded to those organisations.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend raises an interesting point. This is about who we end up seconding staff to and what happens while they are there, and the things they may see. There is a clear process for any concerns that arise during a secondment process. The secondment can be terminated early and we can withdraw people, especially in the international space. It is also one of the reasons why we have those keeping-in-touch conversations, because, as our employees, we still have a duty of care towards them regardless of where they are working. We need to make sure that we know what environment they are operating in and that we can protect them wherever they are.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I do not believe the noble Baroness answered the last part of my question. Why are misconduct investigations undertaken by the international organisation, which may have lower standards, when the Civil Service Code applies, which may have higher standards? Should they not be undertaken by the home department from where the secondee goes abroad?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I apologise; I thought I had answered the question. If a member of our staff is on secondment elsewhere and there are disciplinary concerns, the secondment process is likely to end and the disciplinary process will be dealt with in their home department and not by where they are seconded.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that accountability of the Civil Service is crucial as well? It is important that Ministers can hold civil servants to account. Do we know how that is best managed? It seems to me as though we need to hold them to account, but there needs to be no bullying involved.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend, but I suggest that it is always about your individual management style; for example, as a Minister, working with people and bringing them on a journey with you, making sure that you are able to deliver collectively and collaboratively in your policy area. But it is also about ensuring that culture change exists both within the Civil Service and elsewhere, so that anything considered as bullying and harassment is not acceptable in the 21st century.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister completely satisfied about the complexity and glacial progress which confronts civil servants who wish to make a complaint about another civil servant? In my experience, that seems to be a ponderous, unnecessarily arduous, distressing and very long-standing procedure.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness has had significant experience of ministerial office. I have not, but among the civil servants who I have worked with, if there are those who may have made complaints, I am not aware that they have faced that experience, but if she has specifics she would like to raise with me in terms of where there are challenges in the system, I would be more than happy to have that conversation with her outside the Chamber.
NHS: In-house Software Capabilities
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Hanworth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for sustaining and enhancing the in-house software capabilities of the NHS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, NHS Digital services are built and run to rigorous Government Digital Service standards. They are secure, user-centred, interoperable and continually improving. National Health Service England has significantly expanded its in-house engineering and data capability, and it is reducing its reliance on outsourced systems and strengthening operational resilience. These measures ensure that health and care data is available in all clinical settings to improve outcomes for patients, while delivering value for money to the taxpayer.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reassuring Answer. The NHS has had a disastrous history of outsourcing its IT technology, which has wasted millions of pounds. A requirement of outsourcing is that there must be sufficient in-house expertise to properly assess the need for outside assistance and the quality of whatever assistance is on offer. In the absence of such expertise, outsourcing can be perilous. Moreover, given the requisite in-house expertise, outsourcing may become unnecessary. At a time when a host of novel IT solutions are becoming available, the IT staff of NHS England are seeing their numbers radically reduced. At the same time, the NHS is becoming increasingly dependent on the services of large American IT corporations. Can we be assured—genuinely assured—that history will not be repeating itself?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right to point out the history. The NHS previously relied very heavily on large, outsourced IT systems that, in some cases, led to inflexibility, high long-term costs and limited NHS control over core platforms and data. I was glad to arrange for my noble friend to meet the chief data and analytics officer at NHS England last Wednesday. I hope that, like me, he was reassured that NHS England has very much shifted its model towards building and operating critical digital services in-house, in line with the standards that I referred to in my initial Answer.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, cyber security is an essential element in any system, but nowhere more so than when people’s health records are being maintained. Many security breaches are attributed, at least in part, to human error. What investment are His Majesty’s Government making to train front-line staff in the new systems and provide continuous professional development to achieve the 10-year digital healthcare plan?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The straightforward answer is that we are doing exactly that. It is important to say that our front-line digitisation—our move from analogue to digital—is not something for the sake of it; we are doing it because it is improving efficiency and outcomes. For example, a 94% coverage of electronic patient records is expected by the end of this month, and the digitally mature trusts show a 13% lower cost per admission. That is a prize worth having, but we can do it only through the systems and training that the noble Baroness seeks.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I support what the noble Viscount said. The history of software in the National Health Service is nothing less than a disaster. Coupled with that is a very unfortunate situation where some of the companies that have been responsible for these messes in the NHS are still on the Government’s procurement lists and are still getting contracts from the Government. Surely more attention should be paid to that, and we should curb that as soon as possible.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
If the noble Lord has particular companies in mind, he is most welcome to raise them with me. It is important that we look at what NHS teams have done: they have designed, built and maintained national platforms. The NHS app is an example; I am sure that many noble Lords will be familiar with it. That is going to be our digital front door to the NHS. In addition, there is the NHS login and core national infrastructure. All these mean full NHS ownership, governance and control. Supported by £2.5 billion of investment in 2025-26, we are, as the noble Lord seeks, expanding NHS in-house digital capability to reduce the reliance on large suppliers.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, last week’s catastrophic attack on Stryker by Iranian-linked actors paralysed supply of some critical surgical equipment across the NHS. Does the Minister agree that our total reliance on vulnerable third-party global medtech platforms is a serious security risk? How will the Government ensure in-house expertise and procurement software so that the NHS can bypass compromised commercial networks during such crises?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Cyber attacks across our whole government are extremely concerning, and that is why we have built resilience. On health and social care specifically, I can assure the noble Lord that, in 2025-26, we invested £75 million across health and social care; that built on the £375 million invested since 2017. When I had responsibility for the blood transfusion service, my own experience was that, where there was a cyber attack, we had the systems in place.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, there is always a very difficult balance between keeping something in-house or outsourcing it, and we should not forget the national programme for IT in the NHS in the early 2000s, which ended up costing between £10 billion and £20 billion. My question is on the company Palantir. The Minister will be aware that there are a range of views on Palantir. Some say that it is the best software available and that no one can match it; others say that they are worried that it will lock the NHS in long-term and scrape data for other uses. What specific measures have NHS England and the department put in place so that, in the event that the Palantir contract is not renewed, the healthcare system will be able to move seamlessly to another supplier?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That seamless movement is an important point generally, but the federated data platform does not centralise or sell patient data. Data remains firmly under NHS control, and access is strictly governed. It is fully auditable and used only for approved patient benefit and NHS benefit. Palantir operates strictly under the instruction of NHS England and it does not, as I said, own or control NHS data. That access is tightly governed. In response to the earlier question, I note that the federated data platform to which the noble Lord refers is cyber resilient and subject to rigorous contractual, legal and information governance controls.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my question also relates to the federated data platform. I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that more than 50,000 patients have written to their local trust boards asking not to have their data placed on it. The Greater Manchester ICB, serving 2.8 million patients, has said that this does not present value for money and is a big public trust issue. Palantir is of course owned by Peter Thiel and Alex Karp, who are closely associated with the Trump regime and have very right-wing and anti-democratic views. Does the Minister acknowledge that this association with Palantir is damaging our NHS?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I would first look at delivery: the federated data platform has enabled nearly 100,000 extra operations, removed over 600,000 patients from waiting lists and reduced unnecessary bed days by 15%, as well as driving a 10% improvement in cancer diagnosis—so people are being diagnosed sooner because the system is working more efficiently, and that is important. This is a three-year contract given in 2023. I refer the noble Baroness to the comments I made to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about the rigorous contract due diligence for all commercial agreements, including with Palantir.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, it is historically true that the NHS wasted a lot of money, but this was partly because the development of digital services was in-house. Currently, things are looking much better, and the classic example is the development of the NHS app. However, I will ask the Minister about the health research data service that will be established. Patients should have confidence in data that is used and collected for research, partly because of the recent report on UK Biobank, where the researchers published the codes they were using to access data for research. It has to be made absolutely certain that the public have the confidence in the data that is used.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Absolutely—public confidence is really important, and the debate around this today perhaps emphasises the need to communicate the realities of what is going on. But giving the NHS greater control and long-term value for money, as well as protecting privacy and improving public trust while improving outcomes, is the way forward. But the noble Lord is quite right, and we will ensure that we seek to build that confidence still further.
Humanist Weddings
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress and timetable towards legal humanist weddings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government announced on 2 October last year that they intend to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows. Our reforms will reflect a commitment to making marriage law fairer, simpler and more modern, while protecting the solemnity and dignity of marriage. We want to create a level playing field for all groups, and this will include allowing humanist weddings to be legally recognised for the first time. We will consult on the details early this year.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I apologise to the House for my repeated appearances on this matter. Can my noble friend the Minister provide further clarity on the timeframe and next steps? It is already early 2026 and the consultation does not appear to be here yet. It is 13 years and counting since the Government acquired the right to legally recognise humanist marriages by order, and it is nearly six years since the High Court found the lack of legal recognition of humanist marriages to be discriminatory. Given the years of delay faced by humanist couples, can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that it will be our Labour Government who finally legally recognise humanist marriages, as has been done in Scotland and Northern Ireland in the interim while they have been looking at this matter? Perhaps she could meet with me to discuss in more detail the path to legal recognition.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My noble friend should not apologise for raising this matter again; I think the entire House will want to thank her for her continued commitment to driving this forward. I had a feeling that, if my noble friend did not ask what “early” meant, somebody else would. I thought about replying “at pace” but then thought that that would make me deeply unpopular, so I am going for “as soon as possible”.
On a more serious point, my noble friend asked a number of questions which it is possible several other noble Lords may also wish to raise. The Government are not planning on using the order-making power. We do not want to create other inequalities with other groups; we want to make sure that there is a level playing field for all groups.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, in Scotland in 2024, there were more humanist weddings than there were weddings of all religious faiths combined—evidence not only of the substantial demand for humanist marriage but of the accelerating decline of traditional religions. Nine months ago, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, assured the House that the Government were “working at pace”; later, he said that they were “making haste” on the issue. The Minister is obviously aware of this, and I do not apologise for requoting what she has just said. I wonder whether she can help us understand exactly what and when “working at pace” will deliver.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
This was one of the reasons why I thought I should probably not use the expression “at pace” a second time. The Government are going to run two consultations on three closely related issues, all to do with how families are formed and what happens when they break down. There will be a consultation on weddings reform and a consultation on cohabitation reform, which is a manifesto commitment. There is also going to be a consultation on financial remedies on divorce or dissolution of civil partnerships, including nuptial agreements. The Government are committed to doing this as early as possible.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend is against making an order. Is she aware that the lead civil servant on the Equality Act and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act thinks that the evidence for removing the discrimination against humanists by making an order, even if there is an interim measure pending a final order, is overwhelming? She further adds that it would not introduce any new inconsistency in the rules—that is to say, laying the order would not discriminate against any other group. So is it not such a bad idea after all?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure that I can do better than to quote from the Law Commission report, which looked specifically at this issue. It said that it would be anomalous and unfair to privilege these non-religious belief organisations over religious groups, which are subject to greater legal regulation. In particular, it would be very difficult to justify why the fewest restrictions should be applied to the newest categories. It is for that reason that the Government are not going to use the order-making power to single out humanists.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, a few years ago, despite major constitutional issues, a Labour MP in the other place, and I in this place, were able to steer same-sex marriage legislation through in relation to Northern Ireland in a very short time. When there is agreement on all sides, as there is here, why cannot we get the legislation through as quickly as we did a few years ago?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The answer to that is that there is not agreement on all sides as to what this should look like. I mentioned earlier the Law Commission’s report; its conclusions were greeted with some reservation by the humanists and the Church of England, while being widely welcomed by other groups. We absolutely need to make sure that we get this right and that we do not, in solving one set of inequalities, create some more.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, the deficiencies and complexities of our marriage law were addressed by the Law Commission as long ago as 2022, followed by a government response three years later. The common objective is simple enough: to provide legally binding and reasonably dignified marriage ceremonies. Can the Minister agree that when these long-awaited and necessary reforms arrive, they should benefit not just humanists but other groups that are equally disadvantaged by the current law? If that does not happen soon, there will be increasing and possibly justified pressure for less satisfactory, piecemeal measures. At the same time, can the Minister indicate whether there will be a role for properly regulated independent celebrants?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a number of good points. One of the issues here is the question of the independent celebrant, because not everybody thinks it is a good idea to license independent celebrants—for example, humanists think it is not a good idea to license independent celebrants. That is why this has to be looked at and why we have to consult widely. However, we have given the commitment that we will legalise humanist marriages—it is just a question of making sure that we do it in a way that does not create further inequalities.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, what advice do the Government have for humanist couples who are waiting to be wed and have heard that there is going to be a fourth consultation, as well as the introduction of complex and potentially controversial marriage law ahead of this much-needed change? What assurance can they offer to couples that humanists will soon have the choice of getting married in line with their beliefs, the same as their religious counterparts?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The assurance is that we have made the commitment and it is going to happen.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s intention to make it easier for couples to marry in legally binding ceremonies that reflect their religious, or non-religious, beliefs. However, I am concerned by the potential direction of travel of some aspects of these reforms, particularly the possible authorisation of this new category of commercial celebrants, which the Minister has referred to. I understand that, as has already been acknowledged, Humanists UK shares this concern. Can the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that safeguards are in place to protect against the commercialisation of weddings?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
One of the things the Government are consulting on is how to ensure that all marriages, no matter by whom they are conducted, are dignified, solemn and worthy of the name. In that, they are reflecting the fact that the Government believe that marriage is more than just a ceremony between two individuals; it says something about the way society sees itself, about relations between society and families, and about the way families are formed. That is one of the reasons why we are consulting.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
Are there are any protections for those who may be at risk of forced or predatory marriage?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
Tackling forced marriage is part of our mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. In 2024, the forced marriage unit worked with the General Register Office to introduce bespoke workshops for registrars to help them to recognise these things. When it is suspected that a person is not entering a marriage of their own free will or lacks mental capacity, the proceedings will be stopped until the registrar is satisfied that the individual has the capacity to make an informed decision. It is also a criminal offence to cause a person who lacks mental capacity to enter into a marriage.
UK Domestic Visitor Levy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of introducing a visitor levy on the cost of domestic travel and holidays within the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the precise design and scope of the visitor levy power is still under development. Our consultation closed on 18 February and the Government will publish our official response in due course. Mayors will need to decide whether to implement a levy and, if so, consult on specific proposals. This will inform their decisions regarding whether and how a levy will be applied and how any revenue is invested. Evidence from international schemes suggests that modest rates have a minimal impact on visitor numbers. Improved destinations and visitor experiences may also offset price sensitivity over time.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer, but the facts in this country are probably a little different from those she has given. According to the World Economic Forum’s travel and tourism development index, the United Kingdom currently ranks 113th for price competitiveness. A soon to be published Oxford Economics study suggests that, even under the most benign visitor levy scenario, which is a £2 per room per night charge, the effect in 2030 would be millions fewer nights in paid accommodation, nearly £0.5 billion less in total tourism spending and thousands of fewer jobs. Given those figures, why are the Government contemplating a holiday tax at all?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I certainly agree with the noble Lord that the Government want to see the tourism economy in Britain reach its full potential. The decision on whether to introduce a levy will be for mayors, and they will need to consult ahead of making those decisions. As a mayoral power, the ability to create a visitor levy will ensure that those with the best understanding of their region can tailor investment towards growing the local economy, whether that be in tourism or other areas, bearing in mind its needs, including those of the accommodation sector. This puts the power back in the hands of mayors to develop their own tourism economy in the way that they see fit, and it may lead to new visitor attractions and better quality of accommodation.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, where there are no mayors, it will be up to local authorities whether to implement this levy? Will she undertake that, whether this levy is implemented locally or nationally, there is a consistent system of collection right across the country? Will she make sure that it is not as cluttered and badly designed as the Scottish system is now?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The power will be devolved to mayoral strategic authorities, because they cover the functional economic areas and mayors have strategic roles in driving growth. The power is principally linked to the growth remit that we have given our mayors and to the powers of mayors, and any revenue is expected to be invested in growth, an agenda for which mayors are responsible and accountable. They can use their mandate for change and take the difficult decisions necessary to drive it. That could include, for example, subject to consultation, giving a portion of revenue to local authorities to deliver the services that support growth, including in tourism and the visitor economy. It is important that mayors have those powers. It is for mayors to design the system that works for their local area.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this levy, which should be used to help support what visitors come to see—namely, arts and cultural attractions. Do the Government recognise that reintroducing tax-free shopping would significantly boost the number of visitors and hotel revenue, as well as being a boon to the economy more widely, including creating thousands of jobs?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I always appreciate the noble Earl’s championing of culture and leisure, including the impact that that has on tourism, and I am grateful to him for the work that he does in that area. I am afraid the consideration that he asked about is very much the responsibility of His Majesty’s Treasury and not my department. However, we are proposing that revenues from the visitor levy will support local economic growth, including the visitor economy, and that can take the form of capital investment and the provision of growth-related services. Mayors can then take decisions informed by their consultation on how the revenue raise should be invested in their region.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Labour Benches.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that one of the key achievements of the last Labour Government was free entry into museums, which had a huge effect on boosting tourism? Can she assure me that this Labour Government will continue to do all they can to boost tourism in that way and keep free entry to museums and other cultural visitor attractions in this country?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend that that was a great step forward. I should declare an interest, as I benefit from that free entry when I am on my granny duty in the recesses. She makes an important point about access to leisure and culture, which we should always aim to make as widely available as possible, because it opens the eyes of not just young people but all of us to the richness of our history and culture.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, with regard to the introduction of a levy, which I personally do not support, will the Minister look at the situation in relation to current tourists who are taken ill? Those who have emergencies are well looked after by the NHS, but, at least in my own research, half of our NHS hospitals are not charging tourists who are not in an emergency when they should be.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure that my noble friend Lady Merron, who is sitting next to me, will be happy to respond to that question. It is important that people who find themselves in a medical emergency get treated promptly and that that is dealt with as quickly as possible. It is reassuring for tourists who come to this country to know that they will receive support if they are taken ill while they are on holiday here. On the issue of charging, I will defer to my noble friend.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, there are some major tourist areas in England that are not part of a devolution deal and have no plans at present for a mayor. Why should they be disadvantaged in their areas and growth, based on not having a particular elected person in that area?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have much sympathy with the noble Lord’s point. We have consulted on whether and how to extend the power to local leaders with similar geographic footprints and powers relating to transport skills and strategic planning, such as the leaders of the foundation strategic authorities. We will look at the responses to that and I will be able to inform the House in due course.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, can the Minister clarify that the scheme that she is talking about would be applicable to England and not to Wales? That must be the case for two reasons: first, there is a facility in Wales for having these sorts of charges; and, secondly, elected mayors to take this forward do not exist.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My understanding is that this system is for English mayors.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s priority today appears to be to reduce the cost of living. If that is the case, why do they feel that introducing new taxes to make holidays in the United Kingdom more expensive for British people is a good idea?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We would not have such a problem with the cost of living if the previous Government had not driven up cost of living pressures, as evidenced by the action we had to take in this Budget to take an average £150 off household energy bills from April and to freeze rail fares and prescription fees for a year. We understand that potential visitors may have concerns about the effects of a new levy. That is why local leaders will run a formal local consultation before making use of the new power.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Will the money raised from visitor levies stay with the local area?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There is a very simple answer to that question, and it is yes.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, I ask a question by way of clarification. Will I have to pay this levy when I go up to watch my beloved Manchester United every week?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Shamash, may want to think about a team closer to home—there are some very good ones near to where he lives. However, football allegiance apart, it depends on the accommodation that people are staying in. This applies only to commercially let short-term accommodation—only that will be in scope of the visitor levy. This includes holiday lets, hotels and guest houses, subject to local decisions on the scheme. The noble Lord always has the option to support a team closer to home.
Antisemitism on University Campuses
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cryer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the prevalence of anti-Semitism on university campuses.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, there is no place for antisemitism on university campuses, and it is essential that Jewish students feel safe along with everyone else, regardless of race or religion. That is why we have strengthened the Office for Students’ monitoring and universities’ Prevent duties, and updated guidance on managing external speakers and events. We are working with students to codesign a campus cohesion charter setting clearer expectations around conduct and shared values.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for the Answer, but this PNQ arises from Time for Change, a report produced by the Union of Jewish Students. It is crammed with disturbing figures, including the fact that one in four students has witnessed antisemitic behaviour. However, the report’s central finding is that antisemitism is being normalised on campus after campus, very often at the behest of wayward academics. Can my noble friend say what further action the Government will take to ensure that universities confront the normalisation of antisemitism and protect Jewish students?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. If anyone was listening to the “Today” programme, they would have heard first-hand the experience of many Jewish students. It was pretty outrageous. It is not only about verbal abuse; there are stories of people being kicked out of their accommodation, and so on and so forth. I reassure my noble friend the Government are investing £7 million to tackle antisemitism in education programmes, train university staff and support Jewish students. Last week, we announced plans to simplify the higher education complaint system, strengthen whistleblowing routes and increase oversight of Prevent compliance with the new OfS guidance from 2027. Additional non-statutory guidance on external speakers will be issued in the spring and the department is working with the Union of Jewish Students on new good practice training for universities. My noble friend Lady Smith will host a round table on 24 March to address these issues.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, many noble Lords had the opportunity in the last few weeks to hear directly from students. This report confirms all the things that they said. Does the Minister regard it as significant that the report found that both the college authorities and the police were slow and reluctant to take this on? What concrete action will the Government take to remind authorities and the police that it is their job and duty to make Jewish students feel safe?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I made that clear in my initial response. There is absolutely no place for antisemitic abuse or incitement to violence. I heard the debate on the radio this morning and I read the foreword to the report by the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein. There is a legitimate debate to be had; personally, I find some of it quite insensitive and not acceptable, but people have a legitimate right to express views about Zionism and the State of Israel. They also have a right to express concerns about the Government of Israel and some of their policies and plans. However, we are absolutely clear that they do not have a right to any abuse that attacks the individual or to incitement to physical violence. We are protecting the rights that we have fought so hard for, including the right to be educated in our universities.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has accepted that every individual, regardless of when or how they pray, has a right to be educated and feel safe while that is going on. Can he go a little further and tell us what process the Government will introduce to ensure that those groups feel safe while they are being educated?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hope I have indicated the range of actions we are taking in my responses so far. Of course the Government condemn all racial and religious hatred in the strongest possible terms, and we strongly encourage universities to take steps to foster the cohesion on campuses that I mentioned earlier. However, we make no apology for acting decisively to tackle the unprecedented rise in antisemitic abuse in universities, particularly since October 2023.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I hope the Minister will not make the mistake—I ask him not to—of linking what is happening to Gaza and the events in the Middle East. What is happening is that antisemitism is being used as an excuse. It has always been there—I was talking about this 15 or 20 years ago—and it reveals a certain rot in the culture of our universities. Will the Minister agree that there is a gap in the Lords’ scrutiny? We do not have a Select Committee on education. We should, because that will be a way of bringing the lax vice-chancellors here to answer for their lack of action. I hope the Minister agrees.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
A Select Committee is not a matter for the Government, of course. The noble Baroness may also be putting me in a different position because I am a member of the Liaison Committee, so I would not want to take a position that may inhibit my ability to make a view on that committee. I totally accept what she says: as we debated on the Holocaust Memorial Bill, antisemitism has been around for a long time and events globally are often an excuse to exploit it. I accept that completely.
However, that does not mitigate the fact that people have genuine concerns about what is going on in the Middle East and the actions of the Israeli Government. They have a right to express those concerns and differences, but the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is absolutely right about what they do not have a right to be. I have seen antisemitic abuse being addressed in tube stations; I have seen it when I go home. It is based on what people perceive others to look like and it is terrible. We need to address it very strongly.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chair of the advisory board of the Union of Jewish Students, and I wrote the other foreword in the shocking Time for Change report, which is out today. Polling for the report of 2,000 students in this country found that one in five—20%—said that they
“would be reluctant to, or would never, houseshare with a Jewish student”.
There are terrifying case studies in the report, including the experience of Jewish students in Birmingham who were followed home, and whose pursuers lingered outside for several nights and told passersby to
“remember this address as Jews live here”.
I have listened very closely to my noble friend the Minister. We have had a number of debates in this place, but the situation is unfortunately getting worse, not better. In the wake of today’s report, what urgent action can be taken to reverse these horrific findings?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I reassure my noble friend that I read her foreword too; I did not just focus on that of the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein. She is absolutely right to draw attention to this, and I urge people to use BBC Sounds to listen to the debate and discussions on the radio. The Government are not at all complacent; I have already indicated the specific actions we will take, which included my noble friend Lady Smith hosting a round table to bring together Ministers from the Home Office and MHCLG with Jewish community stakeholders, including Jewish students. We are trying to bring people together to ensure that specific action is taken.
I also reassure my noble friend Lady Berger that condition of registration E6, introduced by the Office for Students on 1 August last year, requires English universities to publish and implement comprehensive policies to prevent, investigate and tackle incidents of harassment against students. It is vital this work continues, but my noble friend is right that we have to draw attention to the rise of antisemitism.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, this has been a significant issue in Manchester for all my time as Bishop and I am glad we are having this chance to consider it. What assessment is being made of the extent to which external actors—we have heard about university lecturers, but maybe even foreign Governments—are fuelling this? To what extent can the multifaith chaplaincy teams that many of our universities have be part of the means of addressing it?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate raises a really important point. After the outrageous events in Manchester, my right honourable friend Bridget Phillipson wrote to all universities, drawing attention to their responsibility to address this issue. Our universities have a world-class reputation, which makes them a prime target for foreign states and hostile actors that seek to erode their reputation by shaping or censoring what universities can offer, as we are seeing at this moment. We are tackling that threat by investing £3 million to bolster existing support and access to expert advice on national security risk management, including a new academic interference reporting route and new guidance.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, we are in a dark place. The Union of Jewish Students has been around for over 100 years to look after the welfare of the Jewish students on campus, but the fact is that Louis Danker, the chair of UJS, had to write this report, Time for Change, when he should be looking after the welfare—and the fun—of Jewish students on campus. In this report, 82% of students regard calls to “globalise the intifada” as antisemitic—I am unsure what the other 18% are thinking. Jewish students and the Jewish community hear that phrase as a call for violence against the Jewish community. Does the Minister accept that allowing such rhetoric on campus and on our streets undermines the safety of Jews throughout this country? Like others have asked, what practical steps can HMG take to rid us of this despicable intimidation?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that people’s political views about the Middle East are often used in a very abusive way that I personally find very offensive, but this does not actually stop individuals saying that they do not agree with Zionism, or with the State of Israel, et cetera. It is not illegal to express those opinions. What is very much illegal is to incite the hatred that we have seen evidenced in this report. That is where we need to take clear action.
I am sorry to keep quoting the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein—I am trying to prompt him to get up—but he pointed out in one of his articles that his own father, or grandfather, was very much an anti-Zionist and that Zionism was not a tradition in the family. But the experience of Jewish communities throughout the world after the Second World War and the horrendous Holocaust has meant that the State of Israel represents something else: it represents that security and that place they can go to when facing the horrendous antisemitism that we are seeing on the rise. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Polak, but we have to be very clear about free speech and balancing it with addressing the horrible things that antisemitism can give rise to.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
We will hear from the Lib Dems. Thank you.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I had not intended to speak, but when I listen to the Minister linking over and again the problems in the Middle East with antisemitism, I am disappointed. They are two separate things. There is an incredible rise in antisemitism where Jews cannot go around in the street wearing a head covering or a Star of David—a Magen David. That is the problem. The Minister talks about confusion because of events in the Middle East, but it is not the same thing. Zionism can mean different things to different people. The Zionism I believe in is that there should be a homeland for the Jews. After the events of October 2023, there has to be a homeland for the Jews. That is my Zionism. It has nothing to do with treatment of Palestinians, because Palestinians have rights as well. The Minister constantly muddles up the two in his reply. Antisemitism in this country needs to be handled and I want to know what the Government are going to do about it.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Can I be very clear? I hope noble Lords were listening to what I said. I was not conflating the two. There has to be a clear separation. Let us not confuse the two. I have been a strong supporter of the State of Israel for many years and I was an active supporter of Poale Zion, so my views are clear. We are more effective in addressing antisemitism by calling it out for what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said it was. It has been around for 2,000 years and has nothing to do with the situation in the Middle East, but people are inciting hatred by using the Middle East. That is what I was trying to convey. I hope the noble Lord will understand that my position is very clear.
Conduct Committee
Lord Kakkar
That the Report from the Select Committee The conduct of Lord Chadlington (10th Report, HL Paper 272) be agreed to.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, this report is the outcome of the third detailed investigation into Lord Chadlington’s interactions with Ministers and advisers in the Department of Health and Social Care during the Covid-19 pandemic. Given that Lord Chadlington retired from the House following publication of the Conduct Committee’s report, there is no Motion to suspend him on the Order Paper and I shall not take up the House’s time by setting out the facts of the case. However, Lord Chadlington has sent communications to noble Lords following his retirement in which he accused the Conduct Committee of procedural unfairness and of ignoring points raised in an opinion prepared on the instructions of his solicitors by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I want to assure the House that, far from ignoring these points of process, the committee considered them with great care, but we did not agree with them for reasons that are set out in detail in our report. Our decision to dismiss Lord Chadlington’s appeal was based on the facts and the evidence. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, under Standing Order 68, no debate is allowed on this Motion. I must therefore now put the Question that this Motion be agreed to.
Pension Schemes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:33 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 276 / Noes: 165 - Amendment 4 agreed.
17:13 - Division on Amendment 9 - Ayes: 201 / Noes: 177 - Amendment 9 agreed.
17:43 - Division on Amendment 12 - Ayes: 198 / Noes: 171 - Amendment 12 agreed.
Lord Fuller
“(ca) the Government Actuary’s Department;(cb) the Pensions Regulator;”
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open Report on the Pension Schemes Bill. As we start, we should be clear that the Bill’s success will be measured on the extent to which it makes it easier for people to take personal responsibility and save for their future, and make their savings secure, while permitting appropriate risk-taking and capital to grow the economy.
I should declare some interests. I have been a trustee of the Norfolk pension scheme for well over 20 years and a member of the Local Government Pension Scheme advisory board since its inception—in fact, I will retire from that on Monday. During that period, I have served on the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme and been chair and vice-chair of the Local Government Pension Committee, which is the body representing the employers in the scheme.
Today is about the Local Government Pension Scheme. The LGPS is different from most of the other public schemes because members have put money aside for their retirement—and that is important. My Amendments 1, 2 and 5—to which the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has added her name—relate to the overarching structural organisation of the 87 schemes that feed into a number of pools.
Let us dispose of Amendment 1 first. In my personal experience, I have found that just limiting the list of consultees to the FCA would be insufficient. I think there has probably been a misunderstanding in the department about the fact that the Government Actuary’s Department and the Pensions Regulator really do get involved there. While I would not press the amendment to a vote, I think it is pretty straightforward. If we do not have the Pensions Regulator and GAD—which look after 50 or so other things, apart from investment—the Bill would be holey.
I have my reservations about government interference in the structure of pools. It damages the purity of the relationship and accountability of the trustees to act in the members’ best interests. Rachel Reeves will be a footnote in history by the time the cows come home with the consequences of some of the provisions in Clause 1. The approach of mandating pools has already damaged the scheme. For no good reason, the exemplar access scheme was told to disband; it had £40 billion-worth of assets under management, but that was not good enough. It had access to the best FCA global professionals in the City of London. Now it is being forced to join a provincial pool, which—for goodness’ sake—does not even have an FCA qualification.
Elsewhere in the Bill, there are restrictions that prevent a scheme from belonging to more than one pool. For reasons I will now explain, this incomprehensible restriction will mean that the Government thwart their own ambitions to bring the LGPS assets to bear to invest in other wise and appropriate investible infrastructure opportunities outside their home patch.
My amendment would allow any good opportunity that has been signed off, so to speak, by one LGPS fund to be available to all the others, whether the fund was in that pool or not. The LGPS is the closest we have to a national wealth fund. Two years ago, its total assets under management were valued at more than £390 billion—and it is much more than that now. These things change but, by some measures, it is the world’s fourth- or fifth-largest scheme. Some 6.68 million Britons belong to that scheme. It may be a large scheme, but the members are not fat cats: the typical member is a 47 year-old person earning £18,000 a year and who may, after a period of very long service, attain a pension of £5,000 a year. In the next group, I will refer to this number, but investment returns for 2024 on the LGPS were 8.9%, with a broad asset allocation of equities, bonds, property, and so forth. The investment and management costs grew by much less than inflation—2.9%.
The scheme that I am a member of in Norfolk has a cost per member of less than £20; it is half the cost of anywhere else. When I came to that scheme in 2007, there were £1.8 billion of assets. That is now nearly £6 billion. When I leave the trusteeship in May, I will look back with satisfaction. It is a British success story. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, trumpeted this in Committee. With all this interference and fettering of the ability of the trustees to put the members’ best interests first, what is the problem that the Government are trying to solve here?
I make no apology for rehearsing this as I open Report. The success story that is the LGPS should play an important part in investing in and renewing our nation. I am not against scale. I know there are some schemes at £500 million that need to bulk up, although I am bound to say that one of the smaller schemes in the Orkneys has the best performance of all the schemes in the whole scheme. There is something to be learned there.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 4 in this group. This concerns mandation, which we will debate more extensively later this week in connection with defined contribution schemes. Amendment 4 seeks to ensure that mandation cannot apply to the LGPS. This amendment should be easy for the Government to accept. This mandation amendment, unlike the ones we shall debate on Thursday, reflects what the Government have said is their policy.
Clause 1 gives the Government very extensive powers to tell local government pension funds what they may or may not do in relation to asset pool companies and scheme managers. Clause 2 says that any Clause 1 regulations must—not may—
“make provision about the management of the funds and other assets”.
As is usual with regulation-making powers, they are unconstrained. While Clause 2 lists some of the things that could be included in the regulations, it contains no restrictions on the use of the power.
I have tabled Amendment 4 seeking to ensure that the power cannot be used to tell local government schemes to invest in particular assets, asset classes or locations of investment. I firmly believe that fiduciary duties are paramount and should never be interfered with by the Government, whether in relation to public sector schemes such as the LGPS or private sector ones, which we will debate on Thursday. The noble Lord, Lord Katz, said in Grand Committee on 12 January:
“To be absolutely clear … we are not mandating asset pools to invest in certain ways in the LGPS. The power to direct pools is a backstop power. It does not allow government to mandate investment in specific assets or asset classes”.—[Official Report, 12/1/26; col. GC 244.]
The issue is not whether the power is a backstop power or whether the Government intend to use it but whether the Bill could be used—by this Government or some future Government—to mandate investments in the LGPS.
Clause 2 is clear that regulations under Clause 1
“must make provision about the management of the funds and other assets for which the scheme managers are responsible”.
Subsection (2) goes on to require an investment strategy, and subsections (3) and (4) allow the Secretary of State to specify what is in that strategy, including strategic asset allocation. On any ordinary interpretation, this adds up to very considerable power over LGPS investments.
In the other place, the Government removed from the original Bill a more explicit power of direction that would have allowed the Secretary of State to direct LGPS investment activities. It was pretty shocking, and the Government sensibly removed it before the Bill arrived in your Lordships’ House. That removal, however, does not mean that the Bill we now have before us could not be used to mandate investments using the powers that remain in Clauses 1 and 2. I hope the Government will agree that certainty is required in this area. My amendment would put matters beyond doubt. If the Government do not accept Amendment 4, I am currently minded to test the opinion of House when it is reached.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2 and 5, which address the same underlying issue—whether pooling and expertise in the Local Government Pension Scheme is intended to support good investment decisions or to constrain them. I will speak in support of Amendment 4, to which I have added my name.
No one disputes that there can be value in scale, but scale does not require exclusivity. Nothing in the case for pooling requires funds to confine to a single pool, unable to access specialist expertise developed elsewhere. The LGPS is a federation of, I think, 89 funds with different demographics, liabilities and investment strategies. It is entirely foreseeable—indeed, it is already happening—that one pool will develop a particular strength in, say, infrastructure, and another in renewables or local investment opportunities, or, as has already been outlined, it may be that the investment opportunity is large and accessible only by more than one joining together. Why should a fund be prevented from accessing that expertise or that scale simply because it sits in a different pool? Looking at it from the non-scale end, I have personally spoken to fund managers who wanted to invest local to support infrastructure at local scale but who do not want all that exposure in their own area, for reasons of diversification. They have had their fingers burned with shopping centres. The current drafting would make that unnecessarily difficult.
In Committee, the Government were clear that they want to avoid forced or value-destructive transfers of assets between pools. Allowing funds to participate in more than one pool and allowing cross-pool investment is one of the simplest ways to avoid exactly that. If a fund can access a specialist vehicle without having to replicate it internally or move assets unnecessarily then that is a win for the scheme members. The purpose of pooling was to broaden access to expertise, not to narrow it; to create economies of scale, not to create silos; and to support better long-term investment decisions, not to restrict the routes through which those decisions could be implemented.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has reminded us of many of these issues, as he did in Committee. The LGPS is a British success story, delivering strong returns, low costs and high efficiency for 6.7 million members. His warning was and is that the Bill risks fettering the independence of schemes to make the best long-term decisions for their members. These amendments go directly to that point, and it would be beneficial if the Government could recognise this—I really cannot see what they would take away.
I therefore suggest that the Government seriously consider adopting these amendments. They are modest but important. They would not weaken pooling but strengthen it, they would not undermine scale but enhance it, and they would not challenge the Government’s policy direction. They would simply ensure that the LGPS could operate as a coherent system, rather than a set of sealed compartments. I hope that the Minister will see them as constructive corrections to support fiduciary duty, improve efficiency and help deliver the very outcomes that the Government say they want.
I turn to Amendment 4. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has already explained in detail why it is a good amendment, and we on these Benches support it. It would be a safeguard to make sure that the same kind of mandation that the Bill contains for default pension funds did not creep across through regulations into the LGPS. That may not be the intention now, but, as elsewhere in the Bill, there are no safeguards against the future intentions of we-do-not-know-who in a change of circumstances. It is a bad thing in legislation to continually have these open abilities to make regulations, billed as doing one thing but completely open sometimes to do almost the opposite. The precedent has been set elsewhere in the Bill by the drafting and, no matter how it ends up, we need to be certain that it cannot creep into local government. I therefore support Amendment 4, and we will support the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, if she is minded to divide the House.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 2, 4 and 5, so I will speak to those. I support the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, in his Amendment 1. The addition of the Pensions Regulator, alongside the FCA, is very important. I must declare my interest as a non-executive director of a pensions administration company and as a board adviser to a pensions DC master trust.
Amendments 2 and 5 are really important in the context of the Local Government Pension Scheme. The LGPS is an unusual type of defined benefit scheme; it is not like any of the others which are funded, because it is underwritten by the Government. It does not pay a levy to the Pension Protection Fund and the Government completely underwrite all liabilities, so of course the trustees are able, perhaps, to feel that they can take more risks than a defined benefit scheme, which is supported only by an employer which may fail and the members end up in the PPF. Having said that, unless the Government wish to change the Local Government Pension Scheme into another unfunded public sector scheme and just take all the assets in—which they could do—surely it is important to ensure that the trustees can make investment decisions that they believe are best, rather than the Government suggesting they know better and telling them what to do.
Amendments 2 and 5 both address restrictions on the ways in which the Local Government Pension Scheme can invest, whereby it has to choose to belong to one asset pool and that is it—it could not participate in another pool, even if it felt that that other pool had attractive attributes. I understand the Government’s intent—they would like pension schemes to support both local and national projects, as would I—but it should not be that you can support only the local projects that happen to be part of the asset pool that you must belong to. That is bound to turn these into discrete pools, rather than diversified pools where the trustees have a much freer choice.
The Government may be muddling the idea of scale with the idea of diversification. Both are important and both can deliver better outcomes for members, but trustees have to be able to choose which managers they believe can do the best for them. Quite frankly, usually it is the case that any one pool cannot be the best at everything. There will always be the need, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said, for specialist expertise to be offered to pension schemes.
Amendment 4 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and she excellently explained what she intends it to do. The idea is that the Government should not dictate specific assets that pension schemes can invest in.
Although I have no problem with the Government incentivising particular types of investment, whether by offering better returns or different tax reliefs for investing in the ways the Government might wish—they might encourage a local pension fund to invest in its local area—the idea of mandating it with no option but to follow seems a step too far. I hope the Minister will understand that there is support for the ideas the Government wish to achieve, and which lie behind the stipulations in the Bill. It is just that the powers extend so far that we have no idea what might come next on mandation.
We are not talking about incentivising. We are talking about forcing schemes to invest in ways that Ministers see fit, rather than supporting the economy in general in ways that the trustees and their managers decide would deliver the best outcomes for the scheme.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, first, I have to declare an interest because after 28 years as a councillor in the London Borough of Barnet, I am in receipt of a modest local government pension. I sometimes forget to declare that and I do so now. We have been lucky to have incisive speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, my colleague and noble friend Lady Bowles and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. After them, I almost want to ask, “Is there anything else one should say?”, but as a politician, I will do so.
This has been a useful debate on the future governance of the Local Government Pension Scheme, and there is a common theme running through it: the need to protect fiduciary responsibility while ensuring that governance is modern, credible and transparent. The amendments in this group range from consultation requirements to the possibility of participation in more than one asset pool, and to the important question of whether Ministers should be able to steer investments towards particular assets and places. I hope that Amendment 4 will be moved at the end of this debate; I would certainly want to support that amendment, if the noble Baroness decides to move it.
We on these Benches recognise that pooling can bring efficiencies and expertise, and we generally welcome the provisions on the Local Government Pension Scheme in the Bill, but bigger is not always better simply because it is bigger. Flexibility matters: if one pool has genuine expertise in a special asset class, there is an argument for allowing schemes to benefit from that knowledge, rather than being locked into a single route for all purposes. Equally, if powers are to be used over asset pools, proper consultees matter. It is hard to object to hearing from bodies such as the Government Actuary’s Department and the Pensions Regulator before directions are given. These are basic disciplines of good administration; I only hope that the Local Government Pension Scheme uses those provisions.
Our wider concern remains the same one raised repeatedly in Committee: that the Bill is too ready to create broad powers first and to explain the practical boundaries later. On the Local Government Pension Scheme, that is particularly sensitive because we are dealing with very large sums, long-term liabilities and members who expect prudence—that was probably why they went into local government in the beginning—not improvisation. So our test is straightforward: does the provision strengthen scheme governance, preserve proper fiduciary decision-making and protect members from political or poorly evidenced intervention? Where it does, it deserves support; where it does not, Ministers still have work to do.
The amendments in this group are pretty modest. As we go through the Bill, we will come to other amendments that would go further. The Minister and her colleagues should think again about whether these amendments improve the Bill. They are not against the Bill or the Government; they are prudent. They would provide fiduciary powers and the power to use them. I invite Ministers to take a step back and consider giving their support to these early amendments and asking their colleagues in the other House to do so. These are reasonable amendments. As I say, later in this debate there will be other amendments that go further. I would like to hear that Ministers feel there is some credibility in the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 4.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I want to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Fuller for commencing our discussions on this important Bill, which is now on Report. We on these Benches look forward to an effective and constructive Report and hope that we can work with noble Lords across the House to make the improvements to the Bill that, in our view and that of many in the pension sector, are desperately needed.
Towards the end of my remarks, I will speak to the important Amendment 4, in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes, but first I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 1, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, and Amendments 2 and 5, in the names of my noble friend Lord Fuller and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. Taken together, these amendments would make constructive improvements to the Bill.
Amendment 1 would ensure that both the Government Actuary’s Department and the Pensions Regulator are formally consulted before directions are given in relation to asset pool companies. This seems an eminently sensible and proportionate safeguard. The provisions in the Bill give the Government significant powers to direct changes relating to LGPS pooling arrangements—changes that, in practice, may reshape the investment structures of some of the largest pension funds in the country.
Decisions of that magnitude should not be taken without the benefit of the best available expertise. Requiring consultation with the Government Actuary’s Department and the Pensions Regulator would ensure precisely that: actuarial and regulatory oversight would be brought to bear before such directions are issued. This would help to ensure that decisions that could materially affect the funding, governance and investment strategy of the LGPS are taken with expert input. That seems an entirely reasonable expectation when we are dealing with funds that collectively safeguard the retirement incomes—we must not forget this—of millions of public servants.
Amendment 2 addresses another important point. As the Bill stands, regulations may prohibit a scheme manager from participating in more than one asset pool company at the same time. This amendment would remove that provision. Doing so would give scheme managers greater independence in determining how best to structure their investments. If, as was mentioned earlier, one asset pool develops particular expertise in, say, infrastructure, private markets or another specialist asset class—akin to a centre of excellence, perhaps—there may well be circumstances in which it is entirely sensible for multiple schemes to participate in that pool for that purpose.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Altmann, put it very eloquently. Preventing scheme managers accessing such expertise simply because they already participate in another pool risks imposing unnecessary rigidity on the system and is unnecessarily prescriptive and inflexible. By removing that restriction, this amendment would allow scheme managers greater freedom to act in the interests of their members—which, as the Government sometimes forget, must remain the central principle guiding all decisions in the management of pension assets.
Amendment 5 follows a similar logic. It would remove wording that restricts how asset pool companies can undertake investment management activities, thereby allowing investment opportunities created within one pool or by one scheme manager to be accessed more widely across the LGPS. In practical terms, this would facilitate cross-pool collaboration within the scheme. Rather than forcing each pool to operate in isolation, it would allow expertise and opportunities to be shared, broadening the menu of options open to scheme managers when determining how to allocate assets and pursue long-term returns. At a time when the Government are encouraging greater scale and collaboration within pension investment, it seems entirely sensible that the legislative framework should not inadvertently constrain that collaboration if that is the choice of the scheme manager, to the ultimate benefit of members of that scheme.
More broadly, these amendments recognise an important principle. As structural changes are made to the way that LGPS operates that could significantly reshape the pensions landscape as a “coherent system”—as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, well put it—it is essential that those responsible for managing pension funds retain the flexibility to exercise their judgment in the interests of their members. Pooling can bring benefits, but it should not come at the expense of professional discretion or fiduciary responsibility. These amendments strike a reasonable balance: they would strengthen oversight where central powers were exercised, while preserving the ability of scheme managers to make decisions that best served the members whose pensions they are entrusted to protect.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for our discussion on this first group. I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for reminding me too that I should declare my membership, as a former Camden councillor, of its members’ pension scheme—although I defer to him in terms of seniority in years of service: I did a paltry one term, as opposed to his gazillion, I think it was, in the neighbouring council in Barnet.
I share the interest raised in this discussion in fostering greater collaboration and sharing of expertise across the LGPS and ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards in the Bill. On Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, it is right that we ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place on the use of direction powers. To reiterate, these are included in the Bill as backstops to ensure that the Government can fulfil their role as stewards of the scheme, but let me be clear that the direction powers in the Bill are not designed to allow the Government to direct investment into specific assets or asset classes, and the Government are satisfied that they cannot be used in this way.
The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to consult the asset pool company, its participating partner authorities, the FCA and any other body that the Secretary of State considers appropriate, prior to the exercise of the direction powers. I do not believe that the Pensions Regulator is an appropriate body for this list. Asset pool companies will be regulated by the FCA and do not fall under the remit of the Pensions Regulator.
In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, took issue with the closure of the access pool. To be clear, access went through the same process as all the pools. Outsourcing all its investing was not value for money. The pools that access funds are going to are all FCA regulated. I hope this provides reassurance not just for the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, but for your Lordships’ House.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will work closely with the Government Actuary’s Department to provide actuarial advice to the department on the LGPS. It can be expected that the department would seek advice from it prior to issuing a direction wherever it was relevant to do so. Furthermore, the Secretary of State has a duty to consult anyone whom they consider appropriate under Clause 1(5)(d), which could include the Government Actuary’s Department. This may not always be appropriate, however, depending on the type of direction being issued. Overly burdensome and formal consultation requirements can slow decision-making. It would therefore seem potentially onerous to have the Government Actuary as a compulsory consultee under these direction powers.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, also talked about the impact of local government reorganisation on pooling in the LGPS. Many administering authorities are forming new pool partnerships to deliver the standards of pooling which we have set. I know that authorities have taken the impact of local government reorganisation into account when deciding which pool to join. The Government stand ready to support authorities with any concerns that they may have about the impact of local government reorganisation on the administration of the LGPS in their area. For the avoidance of doubt, and to address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, there is nothing in the legislation that says that the Government underwrite the liabilities of the LGPS. These are locally managed schemes, which includes responsibility for liabilities.
Amendment 2 seeks to encourage collaboration and competition across the LGPS by permitting administering authorities to participate in more than one asset pool company. This Government strongly believe that pools should work together wherever this can improve outcomes for members, employers and taxpayers. Asset pools becoming centres of excellence in specialist asset classes would reduce duplication and enable investments at scale, both within pools and across the whole scheme. Joint ventures are already operating in the scheme—such as LPPI and Northern LGPS’s collaboration through the GLIL Infrastructure fund, which invests in assets ranging from upgraded rail rolling stock to green energy and water projects. These show how collective investment can unlock the scheme’s potential to invest in the UK.
To encourage further collaboration of this kind, Clause 4 removes procurement barriers so that pools can invest in one another’s vehicles without limitation. Nothing in this legislation prevents administering authorities benefiting from specialist expertise in other asset pools. It certainly does not impose an arbitrary north/south boundary or other such divisions, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, intimated. However, under the reformed system, this will appropriately be done via their own asset pool, because decisions to contract with, or invest alongside, another pool are a matter for the regulated pool company, not for individual authorities.
The Bill establishes a clear division of responsibilities. Administering authorities will set the investment strategy, while asset pools will implement that strategy. This places investment decisions with professional managers, enabling the scheme to achieve scale and deepen capability. This amendment would undermine those benefits by returning investment decisions to individual authorities, rather than the expertise developed at the pools. I therefore believe that the amendment is neither necessary nor an appropriate measure to enable collaboration across the scheme.
I should like to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on the points that she raised. First, pooling is not about limited choice. Pools will select managers on behalf of their funds under the fund’s direction. Secondly, the investment strategy will set funding objectives and an asset allocation. Thirdly, responsibility for setting the investment strategy will remain with funds. Nothing in the Bill allows the Government to tell funds what to invest in, nor will pools make that decision. It will be made by the LGPS funds for pools to deliver.
I turn to Amendment 5, also from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I understand that the intention behind this amendment is to allow investment in opportunities created by other administering authorities and asset pools. As I have said, this is already possible under the legislation as drafted. What the amendment would actually do is to allow administering authorities to count as local any investment to the benefit of people living or working anywhere in England and Wales. This definition is relevant only when administering authorities are setting their approach to, and targets for, local investment in their investment strategy, and when reporting on the extent and impact of local investment.
Of course, the Government are all for UK investment. Indeed, as we have heard, the LGPS is the country’s largest UK pensions investor already. However, the purpose of requiring a specifically local, not national, investment objective in the investment strategy is to encourage investment into all regions of the UK, and directly into the communities in which scheme members have worked. Administering authorities can set any target they want for local investment, and asset pools are free to invest assets over and above this target in the UK or worldwide, as best fits the investment strategy. There is therefore nothing stopping administering authorities from benefiting from investments anywhere in the country, regardless of their geographic location.
I turn to Amendment 4 from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Clause 2, specifically the provision in subsections (3)(b) and (4), allows the Government to make regulations specifying matters that administering authorities must or may cover in their investment strategy. It is not designed to permit government to dictate what that strategy says. The power that we removed from the Bill in the other place was equivalent to the powers that the Secretary of State has over funds, which the Government’s initial judgment was that it was appropriate to have over pools under the new system. We have heard feedback from stakeholders and feel that it is not necessary for the Secretary of State to have those powers.
This provision will be used to require that LGPS investment strategies include: an approach and target range for local investment; high-level funding objectives and an approach to responsible investment; and a strategic asset allocation completed to a standard template, to be included in guidance. In each case, it remains for LGPS administering authorities to determine what those objectives, approaches, asset allocations and target ranges will be. Some may be concerned about how a future Government might use this provision. I reassure them that the Government do not consider the clause to permit regulations compelling authorities to adopt any particular position in their investment strategy. I hope that the noble Baroness will therefore be reassured that the Bill does not enable what her amendment seeks to guard against.
The purpose of the government amendments to Clause 4, Amendments 6 to 8, is to ensure that changes made under the clause do not have any wider application than intended. Clause 4 amends the Procurement Act 2023 to create a new exemption for investment and fund management contracts between Local Government Pension Scheme managers and their LGPS asset pool companies. This is required because the existing exemption in the Procurement Act contains a turnover test that would cap the potential for LGPS asset pools to collaborate through joint ventures. Clause 4 addresses this by ensuring that LGPS pools are not subject to this turnover test where a pool is acting in the interests of Local Government Pension Scheme managers. However, it is appropriate that the effect of the clause does not go any wider than intended. The amendments therefore put it beyond doubt that these changes apply only when Local Government Pension Scheme managers are acting in their capacity as Local Government Pension Scheme managers, and not in any other scheme management capacity they might have.
I hope my response demonstrates that the Government have considered carefully the points raised through Amendments 1, 2, 4 and 5. To pick up on the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, we understand the intentions behind the amendments—we just do not think that they are necessary. We understand the motivation behind them, and I hope that my explanation makes that clear. We are also responding to the wider point, which we discussed at some length in Committee. The nature of the Bill, called by some skeletal, is that this is how pensions and other financial management legislation is passed. A lot has to be done through regulation, because that is how one responds to changing marketplaces and sector demands. We make no apologies for that. However, the Government welcome collaboration across the scheme and, as I have explained, the provision in the Bill and our proposed regulations already allow for it. Amendments 2 and 5 would undermine the pooling and local investment reforms without promoting further collaboration.
This Government also recognise the desire to ensure that there are appropriate safeguards on the use of direction powers. I hope I have reassured your Lordships’ House that the consultation requirements in place are already sufficient and that it is not necessary to introduce additional references to the Government Actuary and the Pensions Regulator. Finally, I hope that I have reassured your Lordships’ House that the provisions in the Bill do not allow the Government to introduce mandation via regulation. I therefore ask the Lord, Lord Fuller, to withdraw Amendment 1.
Lord Gove (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, he said that Amendment 4 is unnecessary because the Bill does not do what the promoters of Amendment 4 argue that it does. He did not say that it would be malign, that it would frustrate the efforts of the Government, that it was wrong in any way; he merely said that the Bill already achieved what the promoters of the amendment want and therefore it would be superfluous. What damage would therefore be done if Amendment 4 were accepted? In what way would it damage the Government, damage pension fund trustees or damage pension fund members? It is not good enough to say simply that the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, are wrong, and for us to take it on trust. That is not what we should do.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I say simply that if we took that approach to all legislation, we would end up with Bills hundreds or thousands of pages long, because we might pile on more amendments simply because they are well-intentioned. It is important that we are clear about the legislation that we are drafting, so that people in the pensions sector, lawyers, et cetera, can properly interpret what we intend—by any legislation, not just this Bill. When we say that something is superfluous, we do not add it in: I think that is a perfectly decent criterion by which to legislate. The noble Lord, Lord Gove, shakes his head. I say to him gently that both this and the previous Government have had a lot of criticism for large Bills and there is always an onus on us to have slimmer legislation. We will not get slimmer legislation by accepting willy-nilly amendments that we think are superfluous.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that that answer is completely inadequate.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. The LGPS is special. It is the closest thing, as a number of noble Lords have said, to having a sovereign wealth fund in our islands, and I am unconvinced by the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Katz. He has misunderstood what local investments are. I do not accept for a moment his reassurances around the creation of specialist pools. As my noble friend Lord Younger said from the Front Bench, this increases unnecessary rigidity, damages coherence and misunderstands the distinction between funding and financing.
I suppose noble Lords can be grateful for at least one thing: as the noble Lord, Lord Katz, was at the Dispatch Box, it saved the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, repeating the old trope that the large Ontario and Canadian pension funds are the sorts of things against which the LGPS should be marked. Today, the Financial Times reported that the Ontario funds have fallen away by 5.3% over the last year, while the LGPS has grown by 9%. This is what happens. I am conscious that I am winding. I will not press Amendments 1, 2 and 5 to a vote, but I will support my noble friend Lady Noakes in the Lobby if she chooses to divide the House.
Baroness Noakes
“(4A) The provision made by virtue of subsection (1) may not include any provision about investment in specific assets or asset classes or about the location of investments.”
Member's explanatory statement
This is a drafting amendment to clarify that only contracts made by a local government pension scheme manager acting in its capacity as such can be exempt contracts under clause 4.
Member's explanatory statement
This is a drafting amendment to clarify that the “80% condition” refers only to investment management activities carried out for local government pension scheme managers acting in their capacity as such.
Member's explanatory statement
This is a drafting amendment to clarify that in the definition of “investment management activities” the reference is to funds or other assets for which a local government pension scheme manager is responsible.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
“Benchmarking of Local Government Pension Scheme liabilities(1) For each actuarial valuation relating to a scheme for local government workers which has pension funds, an administering authority must obtain and publish—(a) the primary valuation used for funding purposes, and(b) one or more benchmark valuations of scheme liabilities based on—(i) prevailing bulk annuity pricing, and(ii) a gilt-based discount rate.(2) The valuations published under subsection (1) must be published at the same time as the funding strategy statement, and alongside the employer contribution rates arising from the funding valuation.(3) Where the funding valuation is materially more prudent than the benchmark valuations, the administering authority must publish a statement explaining—(a) the risks being guarded against,(b) why those risks justify a higher degree of prudence than that reflected in insurer pricing, and(c) the impact on employer contribution rates.(4) The funding strategy statement must include appendices explaining the valuation assumptions, benchmarks, and their effect on contribution rates in a form that is reasonably accessible to a person who is not a qualified actuary.(5) The statement must be communicated to the relevant local authority and made publicly available.(6) The documents published under this section must be made available in a manner that enables meaningful consultation by scheme employers and scheme members.(7) In this section—“administering authority” has the same meaning as in Regulation 2 of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/2356);“funding strategy statement” has the same meaning as in Regulation 58 of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/2356).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires Local Government Pension Scheme valuations to be benchmarked against insurer pricing and gilt-based discount rates, with explanations where significantly greater prudence is applied. It also requires those benchmarks, the funding strategy statement, and employer contribution rates to be published together, with accessible explanatory material to support meaningful consultation.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I move Amendment 9 standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie and myself. During the passage of this Bill, we on these Benches have had a great many discussions not only in this Chamber but with industry experts, scheme managers, employers and others who will be directly affected by the provisions before us. Those conversations have been extremely valuable and have revealed something that many of us have found increasingly concerning. We have been made aware that, in a number of cases across the Local Government Pension Scheme, employers are being asked to contribute very substantial sums into pension funds; these levels of contribution appear to go well beyond what would be required for those funds to be fully funded, even on a very prudent basis.
Of course, prudence is essential in pension funding, and no one in this House would dispute that. Pension promises stretch decades into the future, and it is right that those responsible for safeguarding them take a cautious and responsible approach when assessing liabilities and setting contribution rates. What we are seeing in some cases, however, appears to move beyond prudence into excessive prudence. When contribution requirements are set significantly above what would be necessary even under extremely cautious valuation assumptions, the consequences are that employers, local authorities, academies, housing associations and others are required to divert even greater sums of money into pension funds.
The money does not come from nowhere; it comes from taxpayers and from public budgets, which might otherwise be used to fund and support local services, improve communities, invest in schools, support vulnerable people and deliver the many things we all want councils and public bodies to be able to do. If those employers are being asked to contribute significantly more than is necessary to secure the pensions of their members, we have to ask whether the balance between prudence and proportionality has shifted too far. That is precisely the issue this amendment seeks to address.
Amendment 9 would introduce an important requirement for transparency, requiring Local Government Pension Scheme valuations to be benchmarked against two widely recognised measures: insurer pricing—specifically, bulk annuity pricing—and evaluation based on gilt discount rates. Those benchmarks would then be published alongside the scheme’s official funding valuation.
Crucially, where the scheme’s official valuation is materially more prudent than those benchmarks, the administrating authority would be required to publish a clear statement explaining three things: first, what risk the scheme was seeking to guard against; secondly, why those risks justified the high level of prudence being applied; and, thirdly, what the impact of that additional prudence would be on employer contribution rates. In other words, the amendment would introduce transparency around the actuarial assumptions being used; it would allow employers, scheme members and the wider public to see how prudence affects contribution cost; and it would give those who are paying into the scheme the ability to understand—and where appropriate, question—the basis on which those cost are being set.
This intention should not be controversial. Indeed, one might reasonably argue that it should be a basic feature of the system. Where decisions are being taken which require significant contributions from public bodies, there should be transparency about how those decisions are reached, there should be honesty about the assumptions being applied and those affected should have the information necessary to exercise agency and scrutiny.
What this amendment seeks to achieve is not to undermine prudence—quite the opposite. Prudence remains vital in pension funding. But prudence must be accompanied by accountability, and when additional prudence is applied, particularly where it carries significant cost implications, it should be clearly explained and justified. The fact that our amendment would require those benchmarks, the funding strategy statement and employer contribution rates to be published together, is another key point. It would allow stakeholders to see the full chain from market comparison to actuarial judgment to the costs ultimately borne by employers.
This amendment therefore strikes a sensible balance. It would preserve the independence of actuaries and the integrity of the valuation process, while ensuring that the consequences of those decisions are visible and understood. For employers, it would provide clarity; for scheme members, it would provide reassurance; and for taxpayers, it would ensure that the significant sums being directed into pension funds are subject to appropriate transparency. For those reasons, this amendment represents a constructive and proportionate improvement to the Bill. It asks only that, where high levels of prudence are applied, they are accompanied by explanation and openness. That seems to me an entirely reasonable expectation, and I will test the opinion of the House when it is called.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 9 in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench and place on record that there are some very good behaviours among the Local Government Pension Scheme administering authorities that already follow the path laid out in the amendment, which would then be placed on a statutory basis.
I would not want people to think that none of that best practice happens, or that the numbers are just plucked out of the air—that is not the way it is at all. The purpose is that all schemes reach expectations and assess their liabilities in aggregate, not just for each of the councils—most people without this House would think the LGPS is a scheme for councils—but all the other admitted bodies as well. As I said in the previous group, when I first joined the Norfolk scheme about 20 years ago, there were about 70 admitted bodies; there are now 500, so it is extraordinarily complicated. Nationally, on a whole-of-LGPS basis, there are 6,160 scheduled bodies, 3,639 admitted bodies, 478 designated bodies—I do not know what they are, but I think they might be with the Environment Agency—and 15,049 employers with active members.
The key thing, in support of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, is that when we look at all these contribution rates, it is not just taking the scheme in aggregate; we have to drill down to all the particular liabilities for each employer in the scheme. I am now drifting into the complication we often hear so much about, which is used to obfuscate the scheme. What I really like about this amendment is that it stops people who know about the Local Government Pension Scheme from hiding behind that complexity and obfuscation. It will require members to publish in plain language how the numbers are arrived at and what this amendment seeks to achieve.
Again, to repeat some of my history, when I first joined the Norfolk scheme, which is a good example, it was 79% funded. We shovelled in cash like it was going out of fashion. Now, 20 years later, it is 130% funded. In the last three years it has gone up 25%. These big swings militate against stability and sustainability. Over the years there has been a pessimism bias, which has meant that council tax, councils and admitted bodies have put much more money into the scheme. Partly, there was groupthink from the regulators, which forced us down this path.
However, I want to provide reassurance. When you look at the assumptions that I have been involved in, over five triennial revaluations now, there is a fan of opportunities and scenarios that the actuaries run on the membership of the scheme, sponsoring employers, even the life expectancy of members calibrated by postcode. There are about a thousand different scenarios in the scheme that I have seen. Of course, one of those scenarios is a wipeout. We should not confuse a scenario with a likelihood. With the benefit of hindsight, I think what has happened is that the extreme cases have been taken and split down the middle, whereas if there was more clustering around the middle then we would not have had to put in so much. That is why the amendment looks in a much more focused way at the funding strategy statement. That way, we can take the true costs into account.
On seeing the noble Lord, Lord Davies, again, who is an actuary, I am reminded of an old actuaries’ joke I told in Grand Committee. I am going to repeat it, because it was a small audience then: “We’re all living longer and it’s getting worse”. Some of the assumptions have possibly overcooked life expectancy and undercooked the effects of Covid, and so forth. There is a balance to be struck between overoptimism on one hand and excessive prudence on the other. It is a complicated scheme, but the amendment works out a method by which we can communicate that texture in language that the man in the street can understand, so that taxpayers can be reassured that they are not being overtaxed and members can be reassured that, over the life of the tail liabilities of the whole scheme, they will be paid in full at the right moment. As I said on the previous group, the LGPS is the closest thing we have to a sovereign wealth fund and it is important that we do not take an excessive pessimism bias, as the story of the last 20 years has shown.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I do not mean to be unkind to the tablers of this amendment, but it is nonsense, in my view. As the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, explained, I can confirm that I am a fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. To be honest, this amendment would mean more work for actuaries, on the face of it. Who will do these independent assessments? It is presumably people who know what the technical nature of a pension scheme is—to that extent, maybe I am not against the amendment. It suggests that it should be benchmarked against two things that are irrelevant. The Local Government Pension Scheme is not insured. It is not invested totally in gilt-edged securities. You could calculate those figures, but what do they tell you? Absolutely nothing.
The fundamental problem with this proposal is that it is the administering authority that decides on the contribution rate, not the actuary. It is not the actuary who decides how much prudence should be in the figures. The actuary provides advice and the administering authority decides. If, for whatever reason, the administering authorities feel that they do not have enough control over the situation then that is a matter for them to sort out. It does not require legislation to say that administering authorities should do their job—it is already their job, and they should get on and do it.
Finally, even if an appropriate level of prudence was applied when deciding the contribution rate, that money—which, for the sake of prudence, is paid into the fund—is not lost and has not disappeared. It is still available and will be available for the purposes of the scheme; it will be taken into account the next time there is a valuation. Valuations roll on one after the other. If perchance, because of incorrect advice, a bit too much money is put in initially then it will be there at the next valuation and will be taken into account. Presumably the administering authority, as long as it is doing its job, will adjust the contribution rate appropriately. What we have in the amendment is additional unnecessary bureaucracy and, as far as I can see, the only people who will gain will be the professional advisers.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, this group asks for greater transparency around Local Government Pension Scheme valuations by requiring benchmarking against insurer pricing and gilt-based discount rates, with clearer explanations where more prudent assumptions are used. There is value in greater openness and comparability, but there is also a risk in appearing to imply that one benchmark can neatly settle what is, in practice, a complex actuarial judgment.
I was taken by the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. He really killed off the amendment by saying that it would give more work for actuaries. The tendency is for the actuary then to say, “On the one hand this and on the other hand that”. Very often, the advice is not even that definite anyway, which is why actuaries are there to confuse the issue altogether.
We should be honest about two things at once. First, employers and scheme participants need clearer information. If valuation choices materially affect contribution rates, local authority budgets and, ultimately, local services then those choices should be explained in language that non-specialists can understand. Secondly, the Local Government Pension Scheme is not simply an insurer in another form; it is a long-term, open, public sector scheme with characteristics that very much differ from closed private arrangements. Although comparison can illuminate, it must not mislead, as is the danger. A benchmark should be a tool for understanding, not a back-door instruction about how every valuation ought to be done.
That is why we on these Benches are cautious. We are sympathetic to calls for clearer publication, accessible material and meaningful consultation. Sadly, we are less persuaded by any suggestion that the right answer can be derived by mechanically comparing one prudence basis with another. The real issue is whether assumptions are evidence-based, proportionate and properly explained. If the Government believe that the present system already secures that then they should show it—I hope the Minister will do that when he responds. If not, there is merit in considering reforms that improve transparency without oversimplifying a technical process.
On that basis, we on these Benches do not oppose the spirit of scrutiny here, but we are not convinced that the amendment, as drafted, is the full answer. Therefore, we are not against what the amendment says, but we would not support it if it were moved to a vote.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, for the amendment, moved very ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. It seeks to improve the transparency of the assumptions and level of prudence applied in LGPS actuarial variations, including through the introduction of additional benchmarks.
The 2025 triennial valuation will conclude on 1 April, and at present we do not have a complete picture of its outcomes across the 87 different funds and more than 20,000 employers in the scheme. The amendment seeks to prescribe remedies before any diagnosis has been made or, indeed, any maladies have been fully understood.
Many of the matters raised will be covered by the Government Actuary’s Department report under Section 13 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013. The report will assess whether employer contributions have been set at levels appropriate to ensure solvency and long-term cost efficiency, whether funds’ valuations comply with the regulations and the degree of consistency between them. Recommendations will then be taken forward by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the scheme advisory board.
Officials are already engaging with the Government Actuary’s Department, which is targeting a publication date of spring 2027 for its report and recommendations. Your Lordships’ House will be pleased to hear that this is earlier than previous valuations, which I hope demonstrates the seriousness with which we are taking the issues raised by noble Lords in Committee. The Government Actuary’s Department will engage widely with funds, actuaries and advisers to develop a comprehensive understanding of the 2025 valuation.
It is appropriate for different funds and their advisers to use different discount rates, reflecting variations in risk appetite, employer profile and investment mix. It is helpful to understand how these approaches compare across the sector. The Section 13 review uses benchmarks to place local valuations on a comparable footing and may, in the first instance, provide useful insight into funds’ decision-making. There is a delicate balance to be struck. Members’ benefits are guaranteed in statute, but funds must ensure that they hold sufficient resources to pay those benefits over the long term through investment income and contributions.
My noble friend Lord Davies is right in his assertion that actuaries advise and funds decide. I salute, in making these contributions, his forbearance in not arguing for the interests of the national union of actuaries, of which I am sure is a founder member—at least he ought to be, if it does not exist.
We heard a fair amount on prudence, as we did in Committee, from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, using his experience. In a locally managed scheme, it is for funds to work with their actuarial advisers and employers to set a contribution rate that supports the long-term viability of employers and the fund. The Section 13 report prepared by the GAD will consider questions of prudence—that is, how the discount rate is set and how stability is applied to contribution rates. Were the Government to set correct valuation assumptions, they would risk undermining the principle that funds and expert actuarial advisers are responsible for ensuring the long-term sustainability.
A push for greater intervention at the valuation risks moving from a locally managed scheme to a centrally managed scheme. We heard much about that in the discussion on the previous group of amendments. The implications are real and far reaching, decreasing rather than increasing the role for locally elected representatives.
On transparency, the amendment would require additional detail on assumptions and benchmarks in the funding strategy statements and these to be communicated in a more user-friendly way. I believe we are broadly aligned on the value of valuation reports and supporting material, such as funding strategy statements, being easier to understand for the lay reader. There is already transparency in the process. Administering authorities should consult all employers in the fund on their funding strategy statement. This statement should outline how surpluses and deficits will be managed, outline the approach to contribution stability and summarise the main actuarial assumptions used at the valuation.
To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, the funding strategy statement is consulted on, and the SAB guidance already says that the purpose of the FSS is to establish a “clear and transparent” strategy that explains how liabilities will be met and
“how the fund balances the interests of different employers”.
We must not jump to conclusions about how the valuation has played out for every fund and employer. There are already examples of good practice, including meaningful employer consultation and capable pension committees with the confidence to interrogate their actuary’s advice to fully understand the proposed contribution rates.
In his evidence to the Committee on the Bill in the other place, Roger Phillips, chair of the LGPS advisory board, said about the treatment of surplus that
“we live in a very volatile situation, and circumstances can change. You have to be careful, because if you reduce contribution rates considerably, that is a great benefit at this moment in time, but if you then turn around and start to increase them again, that can be very difficult for all employers to deal with, including local government”.—[Official Report, Commons, Pension Schemes Bill Committee, 2/9/25; col. 41.]
Until the valuation has concluded, we cannot reach a definitive view on how the interpretation of regulations and guidance and the quality of employer consultation have shaped the results that will apply from 1 April. As part of their review, the Government will ask the Government Actuary’s Department to focus on methods for managing risk and reflecting the long-term funding objectives of the scheme including discount rates, application of stability mechanisms and buffers and the effectiveness of employer engagement. I have committed to additional work with the GAD on how discount rates and the application of stability mechanisms affect contribution rates and whether employer engagement processes are operating effectively.
Following the publication of the Section 13 report, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will undertake a review of the regulations and guidance governing the triennial valuation ahead of the 2028 valuation. I appreciate that your Lordships’ House may wish for more immediate action, but we must ensure that we are in possession of the valuation results before we determine the right course of action. I therefore ask the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, or the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I did not say it for that to happen—just to clarify matters.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and thank the Minister for his response. It has become clear in our discussion that the issue this amendment raises is not simply a technical question about actuarial methodology or valuation frameworks; it is about the very real pressure being felt by employers across the Local Government Pension Scheme and the consequences of those pressures for local services and for the taxpayers who ultimately fund them. We remain concerned that this is not yet something that appears to be firmly on the Government’s radar, yet the evidence we have heard from employers, advisers and those operating within the system suggests that it is an issue that requires attention.
This is not something that we have plucked out of the air, made up or brought to the Chamber today based on a whim. It is from interviews and meetings that we have had with experts in the system who say that this needs looking at. We were told about one local government pension scheme that is 189% provided for. While we have to be careful, balance things and rely on the experts, that is just a bit out of kilter. Across the country, councils and other employers are facing extremely difficult financial circumstances. Many are asking for emergency support simply to maintain the services on which their communities depend. In that context, it cannot be right that questions about whether pension contributions are being set at excessively prudent levels are simply left to drift until the next review cycle arrives.
For those reasons, we believe this amendment addresses an issue that is real, immediate and important. It introduces transparency where transparency is needed, and it does so in a way that is constructive and proportionate. I therefore seek to test the opinion of the House.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
“Interim reviews of employer contributions rates in the Local Government Pension Scheme(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made under section 3 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 (scheme regulations) amend the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/2356) as follows. (2) After regulation 58(4) (funding strategy statement), insert—“(5) The funding strategy statement must comply with regulation 64A(2) and be published in a form accessible to non-specialist readers.”(3) Regulation 64A (revision of rates and adjustments certificate: scheme employer contributions) is amended as set out in subsection (4).(4) For paragraphs (1) and (2), substitute—“(1) The administering authority may obtain a revised rates and adjustments certificate where the funding strategy statement sets out the administering authority’s policy on revising contributions between valuations and one or more of the following conditions is met—(a) there has been a significant change in the liabilities arising or likely to arise since the last valuation;(b) there has been a significant change in the employer’s ability to meet its obligations to the Scheme, consistent with that employer’s obligations to deliver value for money and services for local taxpayers;(c) the employer requests a review and agrees to meet the reasonable costs of that review.(2) The funding strategy statement must include a clear and accessible policy on revising contributions between valuations, including—(a) the process and evidential requirements for employers to request a review,(b) indicative timescales for the administering authority to determine such a request,(c) the criteria the administering authority and fund actuary will apply (including risk appetite and prudence levels), and(d) the approach to apportioning reasonable costs of any review.(3) Where an employer makes a request under paragraph (1)(c), the administering authority must—(a) acknowledge the request within 10 working days,(b) determine the request within 12 weeks (or such longer period as is agreed with the employer), and(c) provide written reasons for its decision.(4) For any review under this regulation, the fund actuary must prepare an Actuarial Methods Statement which—(a) explains, step by step, the models and methodologies used to project liabilities, assets and funding needs,(b) sets out all material assumptions, including discount rates, inflation, salary growth, mortality, longevity improvements and any smoothing or damping mechanisms,(c) specified the level of prudence applied and how that prudence has been determined, and(d) provides sensitivity and scenario analysis showing potential outcomes under varying market conditions and employer covenant assessments.(5) The administering authority must publish the Actuarial Methods Statement alongside the decision under paragraph (3)(c), subject only to the redaction of information which is commercially sensitive or relates to individuals.(6) The Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance on—(a) how councils and other employers may make requests under paragraph (1)(c), (b) the matters administering authorities should take into account when considering such requests, including the balance between Scheme solvency and local taxpayers’ interests in the continued delivery of core services, and(c) the minimum standards for actuarial transparency under paragraph (5).(7) Administering authorities must have regard to guidance issued under paragraph (6)(a).(8) The Secretary of State must publish the guidance within six months of the day on which the Pension Schemes Act 2026 is passed.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause aims to strengthens regulation 64A of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013 to make interim reviews of employer contribution rates more accessible and transparent.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will address Amendment 12, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. This amendment addresses an issue that sits at the very centre of the concerns we have raised throughout the passage of the Bill: how contribution rates in the Local Government Pension Scheme are set, reviewed and scrutinised. This debate will take us further than the previous debate on a related issue.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have returned repeatedly to a central concern about the Local Government Pension Scheme: whether the system as it currently operates is truly striking the right balance between prudence and responsibility to members. We touched on that during the last debate. Prudence is essential; no one disputes that. Pension promises stretch across decades and it is entirely right that those responsible for safeguarding them adopt a careful and responsible approach—I feel sure that when or if he chooses to speak, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will have something to say on this matter—because prudence must also be proportionate, transparent and sustainable.
A pension system must not only protect members’ benefits; it must also operate in a way that is affordable for those who are required to fund it. That balance is fundamental to the long-term health of the scheme and a key consideration for many admitted bodies considering if they should remain a member of it. The noble Lord, Lord Katz, alluded to this in a previous debate, but at present employer contribution rates are set through the actuarial valuation cycle which takes place, as he may have said, every three years—note: every three years. That process is well established and plays an important role in maintaining the long-term stability of the scheme. But it also means that once those rates are set, employers can find themselves locked into them for a considerable time, even if the financial circumstances of the scheme or of the employer itself change significantly during that interval. We believe that rigidity is increasingly difficult to justify.
We know that financial conditions can change quickly. Employer finances can change, liabilities can change and market conditions can shift. We know that from recent experience, yet, under the current framework, the mechanisms for reviewing contribution rates between valuation cycles are limited and, in practice, often opaque. Amendment 12 seeks to address that problem by creating a clearer and more transparent framework for reviewing employer contribution rates earlier when circumstances change.
Under this amendment, administering authorities would be able to carry out an interim review of contribution rates where there has been a significant change in scheme liabilities or in an employer’s financial position, or where an employer formally requests a review and agrees to cover the reasonable costs of undertaking it. We believe this is a very reasonable and sensible change. It makes the process more accessible to employers who believe that the contribution rates they are being asked to pay no longer reflect reality. It recognises that financial circumstances do not move neatly in three-year cycles—and nor do they—and allows the system to respond when material changes occur.
However, the amendment goes further than simply enabling reviews. It also strengthens transparency around the actuarial assumptions that underpin those decisions. That level of transparency is essential, as was again debated in the previous group. Contribution rates have few real consequences for employers participating in the scheme, whether local authorities, academies, housing associations or many others. Those organisations must plan budgets, allocate resources and deliver services on the basis of the costs they are required to meet. They should therefore be able to understand the assumptions and methodologies that determine those costs, so this amendment helps to ensure that contribution rates can respond to changing financial circumstances. It would ensure that employers are not locked into potentially outdated rates for three years at a time and that the actuarial assumptions underlying those decisions are transparent and, very importantly, open to scrutiny.
Ultimately, this is about responsibility. We all expect public bodies to act responsibly when they handle public money, and pension funds are no exception. As we have heard, they manage very substantial sums of money, and the decisions taken within those systems have consequences for not only scheme members but employers and taxpayers. With responsibility must come transparency and accountability, and where contribution requirements change or are reviewed, the assumptions behind those decisions should be visible and understandable.
However, crucially, this amendment would not undermine the role of actuaries; nor would it weaken the prudence that underpins pension funding. It would ensure that the system remains responsive and more flexible, transparent and accountable to those who are required to fund it. For those reasons, this amendment represents a constructive and necessary improvement to the framework governing the Local Government Pension Scheme, and I urge the Government to adopt it. I will, of course, listen very carefully to the upcoming debate, short or long, but I give notice that I am minded to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support this amendment. This is an important time to talk about the contribution rates to the Local Government Pension Scheme. When funding has changed so substantially in a very short period of time, having an interim review clearly makes sense, for not only the local authority but the council tax payer.
As we heard in a previous debate, we are seeing councils with significant surpluses continuing to spend council tax income on pension contributions to schemes that do not need them because they are in significant surplus. Further, fixing contribution rates in a three-year cycle underestimates the timeframe that has gone into the setting of those rates, because the valuations on which those rates are based were done more than three years before the third year of the cycle. It takes about a year for the scheme valuation to be done and the contribution rates to be set, so they could easily be four years behind. A lot can happen, and has happened, in that timeframe.
I hope the Government will accept that this principle of allowing councils to be more flexible with the revenue that they receive from council taxes could benefit local authorities and the country. We know that councils have been forced to increase council tax due to their inability to meet their basic spending commitments. If the amount that councils spend on pension contributions could instead be spent on social care, or other local authority needs, they would require less money from local residents—which would improve the local economy, as tax rates would not be so high—and central government. The pressure on public spending could therefore be ameliorated.
I know that there is a principle of trying to achieve what is referred to as stability in contribution rates, so that they do not change too much from one year to the next. However, when there are significant changed circumstances, forcing schemes to fiddle the assumptions on which the scheme funding is based so that local authorities can somehow justify maintaining contributions to a fund that, in the private sector, would not need the money and would normally be having a contribution holiday, strikes me as not serving the best interests of either the local or the national economy. A review of how pension contribution rates are set at local authority level is probably long overdue, given the big changes that we have seen, and could help the Government with some of the funding strains that they have been feeling, and their desire to improve growth.
If a local authority is spending, say, 20% or more of its council tax revenue on putting money into a pension scheme that does not need it, and if that pension scheme is underwritten by the Government anyway, so its members’ benefits are not at risk, you have a very different scenario from that a private sector employer’s trustees might be facing: if the contributions stop and the employer gets into trouble, there is nothing much that can be done to ameliorate the position for members. That risk does not really exist in a local authority pension scheme. As I say, there is no contribution to the Pension Protection Fund and no underwriting; this is guaranteed by taxpayers.
Therefore, if you are raising taxpayer revenue from council tax, why not simply use it where it is needed, rather than putting it where it is not needed for now? You can always come back later and impose contributions when or if the funding position changes, but the scheme is not going to run out of money in any short-term period; that is not how pension schemes work. I therefore hope that the Government will appreciate the logic of this amendment, which was so ably moved by my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, for his amendment, and I share the interest in ensuring that interim valuations are accessible and transparent for all employers in this scheme.
Amendment 12 proposes changes to Regulation 64A of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013, which concerns valuations carried out outside of the triennial valuation cycle. In Committee, I committed that the Government will consult on changes to Regulation 64A this year, and we will consider the matters raised as part of that consultation.
I reiterate the point I made in Committee: any changes to regulations need to be properly considered to avoid unforeseen consequences. The views of employers, funds and other sector groups are vital to this process, and amending legislation now would prevent them contributing to the policy design and therefore ensuring our ability to get the best possible outcome. There is clearly value in having a mechanism that allows employers to review contribution rates, especially where employer covenants or liabilities change significantly, but this must remain consistent with the triennial valuation and be workable for all participants across the sector.
Amendment 12 aims for additional transparency, in a similar vein to the other amendments we have discussed this afternoon. The noble Viscount should note that the policy on interim valuation contribution reviews is set out in the funding strategy statement, on which employers are consulted.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, spoke in detail about the time lag of valuations and the impact of events in the financial cycle. As everyone will be aware from geopolitical events, markets can vary from one day to another. Simply requesting a valuation on the basis of a change in the day’s markets would be excessive, and indeed many funding strategy statements state this. The current regulations provide for interim valuations on the basis of changes in liabilities or covenant. The risk of liabilities not being met is that the burden goes up not for the Government but for the council tax payer, as a council that may not be in a good financial position, as the noble Baroness says, needs to increase council tax to cover liabilities. The Government do not underwrite the scheme. Your Lordships’ House should remember that 50% of LGPS employer contributions are not from local authorities, so we are not talking about a situation where it is exclusively local authorities that would cope with the change.
I said in Committee—and I could have said this in response to the previous group as well—that it is marvellous to see the Benches opposite show concern now about the funding of local authorities. We are concerned about it, and we were concerned about it for the previous 14 years when the Benches opposite were in government and had a differing view of imposing austerity on local government. I will say no more, and I apologise to your Lordships’ House—I could not help myself, having been very good on the previous group.
I hope my response demonstrates that the Government have considered the points raised through this amendment carefully. I therefore ask the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, to withdraw Amendment 12.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister and to my noble friend Lady Altmann for her supportive remarks. This amendment raises a simple but important question: how do we ensure that the Local Government Pension Scheme remains responsive, transparent and accountable when the financial circumstances surrounding it change? It sounds to me very reasonable.
I have taken note of the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Altmann, from her long experience. It was interesting that she pointed out that the timeframe of three years could easily be four years for the delays that necessarily have to be there, and she made further powerful points. By accepting this amendment, the Government could have a greater chance of achieving their growth targets with a domino effect—they might like to take that point on board.
Across the country, as my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott said in the previous debate, many local authorities and other participating employers are operating under immense financial pressure. We know that councils are already struggling to balance their books, and some are being forced to seek emergency support simply to maintain basic services. In that context, the ability to review contribution rates where circumstances have materially changed is surely a matter of responsible governance.
The amendment is simple. It would establish a clearer framework through which contribution rates could be reviewed when there is a good reason to do so. For those reasons, I believe this amendment represents a sensible, reasonable and proportionate improvement to the current framework. It would reinforce the principles of transparency, accountability and responsible stewardship of public funds. I therefore stick to what I said at the beginning: when my amendment is called, I will wish to test the opinion of the House.
Finally, I do not think that the Minister is correct. He said the policy should “remain consistent”, which shows a great lack of understanding of what many in the industry are actually saying and a great inflexibility from this Government. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Altmann
“(6A) Prior to making modifications to scheme rules in line with this section, trustees must commission and consider relevant formal actuarial advice regarding the impact of surplus distribution on scheme funding and future member or employer benefits and must consider alternative approaches for dealing with a surplus that include—(a) running the scheme on without new contributions,(b) transferring to a superfund, and(c) buying annuities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require trustees to ensure they have had formal advice about surplus distribution before changing scheme rules, and the impact of alternative ways to deal with scheme funding.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Amendment 13 is in my name. I shall also speak to Amendment 15, which is very similar. I also support the aims of Amendments 14 and 16 to 19, which seek to make sure that members’ interests are taken into account when trustees distribute, or consider distributing, a surplus to employers.
Amendment 13 seeks to build on the important discussions we had in Committee. I thank the Minister for her thoughtful responses to those discussions. I appreciate the Government’s commitment to ensuring that defined benefit pension schemes can contribute to economic growth through the prudent and efficient use of their substantial surpluses. With around £1.2 trillion in private sector defined benefit assets—and that is on prudent measures—the potential for positive impact is huge, given the estimated £240 billion surplus from those 4,500 schemes.
Trustees who have stewardship over these assets on behalf of around 9 million scheme members are now being encouraged to make strategic decisions which could reshape some schemes for the future and deliver broader benefits, potentially both to members and to the economy. The Bill is correct in encouraging that to happen. Of course, trustees have significant responsibilities when they assess a scheme’s surplus and whether to it pay out or to preserve it. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, has so often reminded us, a surplus is merely a reserve—a buffer against future bad markets, perhaps. In some schemes, the extent of that surplus is so significant, with the employer having put in so much money during the past few years, because of the impact that quantitative easing had for so long on pension schemes’ liabilities, that it is perhaps appropriate for trustees to consider whether employers should be able to get some of that money back, especially if they could invest some of it into their business and help grow the strength of the employer behind the scheme.
As trustees have these greater responsibilities, my amendment seeks to ensure that the relevant comparisons are being made before any surplus is distributed, so that the trustees have considered the available options. The current Technical Actuarial Standard 300 would properly inform them. This would include not just paying out a surplus but running the scheme on for the benefit of the members. It could also include possibly finding a new employer sponsor who could manage the scheme with a greater strength behind it and take advantage of the surplus to some degree both to enhance member benefits and to return some money to the employer.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, may well tell us that these technical actuarial standards and the reports, such as TAS 300, are already in place, so why do we need the amendment? I am informed by significant areas in the pension industry that advise many DB schemes that, although there is a requirement for these reports, trustees do not always take note of them. They are not even always presented to the trustees. This is under the aegis of the Financial Reporting Council, which does not have sufficient resource to enforce the standards that it would, perhaps, otherwise wish to do.
This amendment makes it clear to trustees that they must consider the broader actuarial advice—not just asking whether they should pay out the surplus and how much they should pay out but considering the other options that would be available. Many trustees will consider paying out a surplus alongside a scheme buyout, for example. This actuarial report would help to inform the trustees of the potential benefits and improvements to members that could be achieved by not buying out and by running the scheme on, for example.
At the moment, for each £1 billion of buyout funding that exists in a scheme, if they buy out, approximately £150 million to £250 million then goes to the insurance company in profit because it takes in the money but then rerisks it but invests in higher return assets—so it makes that profit. It is entirely feasible to imagine that a scheme that carries on could itself get that extra profit by running the investment policy in a kind of low-risk way, just as an insurance company would do, but that money could then go to the members or be shared between the members and the sponsor.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 14, 16, 17 and 18, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Palmer. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, and I thank her for her support, which I am happy to reciprocate. As it is the first time that I have spoken on Report, I reiterate my interest as a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund. I do not think that this Bill affects that fund, but for clarity I declare it. I also thank the Minister for the engagement that she has had with me and other colleagues—but particularly with me—on this subject. I came away feeling that I had had tea and sympathy, although possibly not with the greatest expectation for the future. But I thank her for engaging with me.
We debated this matter at some considerable length in Committee, and I shall not go over it. The key issue in this set of amendments is about permitting, when there is a surplus, that surplus to be fairly used, in part to give some inflationary uplift, if that would be the appropriate thing, to members of a scheme. There is nothing in any of the amendments that mandates that course of action; these are designed to permit it and also perhaps to draw attention to some of the historic injustices, as they might be called.
I cannot hear the word “surplus” in relation to pension funds without immediately putting quotation marks around it, as I said in Committee. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his suggestion that we really ought to talk about “assets” rather than a “surplus”, which is a best guess by some intelligent professionals. The starting point is a known—the actual market value of the fund on a given day—to which are added a series of known unknowns, in the form of what the guesstimated inflation rate might be, what the likely actuarial longevity of the members might be, and a variety of other things, to arrive at a best guesstimate of what the value of the assets might be at a time in future and what the liabilities might be. If you take one from the other, you come up with a surplus or a deficit. Like many who have spoken, I am extremely cautious about the notion of surplus, and I know from the funds that I have been involved in that, if you are at the top of the cycle, as I suspect we are getting close to now, a larger surplus is much needed to cushion you against the volatility of the shocks to come, whereas if you are at the bottom of the cycle, you are probably very near parallel and possibly slightly in deficit—and you have to have regard to that.
There is a general principle, which I shall speak to more on my next amendment later on tonight, that there is a contract between the employer and the employee that is, in the case of a direct benefit pension, that they are remunerated and, as part of their remuneration, there is a future remuneration, which is the pension. In the case of those schemes that have in their rules full indexation and there is a large surplus, the principle is that that surplus should, by whichever means are chosen, be returned to the employer. The schemes that I am concerned about are schemes which are in surplus and which, in their documentation, made clear that it was the intention at the time to uprate for inflation—but, for whatever reason, usually prudence, the designers of the scheme did not mandate that but allowed a degree of flexibility so that the employer or the scheme could choose not to uprate in whatever circumstances. In that circumstance, when a surplus arises and when indexation arises that had been indicated, if not absolutely promised, part of that surplus belongs to the pensioners, and it is only fair and just that they should have it. This set of amendments is designed to make that possible.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I have worked in the pension sphere for far longer than I care to remember, and so-called surpluses have been a big issue throughout. They have come and gone. Sometimes they have been negative surpluses—deficits—but they are still central to the health or otherwise of a pension scheme. They have been totally embedded in my working life, so I hope the House will forgive me if I choose to make a longer contribution on this issue.
I support all the amendments in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, suggested that I might not like her amendments, and maybe they are a bit unnecessary in principle, but in practice, the idea that trustees should consider all these issues when they make a decision about releasing surplus to the employer is a good one, so I support Amendments 13 and 15. I also support the amendments in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I particularly welcome his Amendment 17, which effectively points out that the existing legislation on the release of surpluses says explicitly that the trustees should do so only when it is in the interests of members. This legislation removes that guarantee.
We debated this issue in Committee and we have heard the Government’s argument, which, essentially, is, “We can leave it to the trustees to look after it”. My experience is that that is not a safe basis to rely upon. Some trustees are fine and they do a great job; others do not consider their role to be to help the members. They see their role as very restricted, so not having something in the Bill about members is a massive disadvantage.
In introducing this legislation, Ministers said extensively that members are going to benefit from the release of surpluses. Any bystander not deeply engaged in the issue, listening to what Ministers have said, would come to the conclusion that members are going to benefit. Indeed, I quoted about half a dozen ways in which different Ministers have given that impression, but for the purposes of this debate, I shall just quote the Minister for Pensions, my honourable friend Torsten Bell. He argued consistently and rightly that the release of assets is not just for employers but for members as well. The Government’s road map for pensions, to which he put his name, states under the heading, “Surplus Flexibilities”:
“We will allow well-funded … pension schemes to safely release some of the £160 billion surplus funds to be reinvested across the UK economy and to improve outcomes for members”.
The Government’s case is that this change in the legislation is required to benefit members, yet there is nothing at all in the Bill about benefit for members. This has been highlighted in the amendment from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. It is a big gap in the Bill, and it needs to be rectified.
My Amendment 19 goes together with Amendment 16 from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. His amendment adds the word “consulted”, saying that members should not only be notified of the trustees’ intention to release surplus to the employer, they should be consulted about that decision. Consultation is obviously a good thing. The structure for trustees to consult scheme members is not, to my mind, strong enough to provide a helpful way forward. The better way forward is the one suggested in my amendment. There is already provision in legislation for employers to consult members about changes in occupational pension schemes. There is a list of changes to or actions in relation to pension schemes, whereby the employer—if they are involved—has to consult with the independent recognised trade unions. I am very much a trade unionist here. The point of trade unions is to provide a viable means of consultation, and it applies here.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to some of the amendments in this group. At the outset, I thank all noble Lords who have tabled amendments and contributed to the constructive discussions we have been able to have on these issues. While I will focus my remarks on some of the amendments, we understand the direction of travel intended across this group.
Taken together, these amendments largely seek to ensure that the process of releasing surplus funds from defined benefit schemes is carried out on the basis of sound professional advice, in close communication with scheme members and with their interests properly safeguarded. The group also includes a technical amendment from the Government, which tightens up the drafting of the Bill and which we are content to support.
Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, would introduce a formal decision-making safeguard before schemes even create the legal power to pay surpluses to employers. In practical terms, it would ensure that trustees have received and considered formal actuarial advice before making such a change to the rules of the scheme. That matters because altering the rules of a scheme to enable surplus extraction has potential implications for the long-term funding position of the scheme and for the security of members’ benefits.
Amendment 13 therefore performs two important functions. First, it seeks to ensure that trustees properly understand the impact that surplus distribution could have on scheme funding before rule changes are made. Secondly, it requires them to consider alternative approaches to dealing with surplus that may benefit members instead, such as running the scheme on, transferring to a superfund or securing benefits through annuities. In other words, it ensures that sound professional advice is formally incorporated into the process before it can be completed.
That process is then complemented by Amendment 15, which addresses the next stage of the decision. While Amendment 13 concerns the creation of the power, Amendment 15 would ensure that advice is taken when trustees decide whether to exercise that power and pay surpluses to the employer. Under this amendment, trustees would be required to obtain actuarial advice and to consider the risks and benefits of alternative approaches before distributing surplus. They would therefore need to evaluate options such as reducing or pausing contributions, running the scheme on, transferring to a superfund or buying out liabilities. Ensuring that these risks and alternatives are considered in sufficient depth is critical. It helps to make sure that trustees’ fiduciary duties remain at the centre of the process and that decisions about surplus are taken in a careful, balanced and professionally informed way.
Amendment 17 would retain the existing requirement that trustees must be satisfied that the exercise of the power to pay surplus is in the interest of scheme members. As noble Lords will know, that protection currently exists in the Pensions Act 1995, but the Bill as drafted would remove it. Retaining that test would represent a major governance safeguard. It ensures that trustees continue to place members’ interests at the heart of their decision-making when considering whether surplus should be returned to the employer. That seems to us both sensible and entirely legitimate. The Government should give serious consideration to adopting this change because members’ interests should always remain central to the operation of pension schemes.
The reforms proposed in the Bill potentially open a pathway for surplus to be released from defined benefit schemes. If that pathway is to command confidence, it must be underpinned by strong governance, professional advice and meaningful member engagement. The amendments in this group help to reinforce these principles. We welcome the opportunity we have had to debate and discuss these important issues.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, my noble friend Lord Davies and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for introducing their amendments. During our various deliberations, many noble Lords have highlighted the fact that the level to which a DB scheme is funded is subject to volatility and to changes in the underpinning assumptions used to ensure that schemes remain able to meet the promised pensions. This is something we take seriously as we all want to ensure that the policy aim here can be achieved: for surplus funds to be used to benefit members and employers, but with the right protections so that every member’s pension can be paid.
As I have outlined previously, the DB funding code and the underpinning legislation require trustees to aim to maintain a strong funding position. Our changes preserve trustee discretion over surplus release. Crucially, trustees must receive actuarial certification that the scheme meets a prudent funding threshold, and members must be notified before surplus is released. Let us not forget that these changes are simply levelling the playing field, as some schemes can already release surplus.
Amendments 16 and 19 would both require a consultation to take place before surplus is released. I understand the wish of noble Lords for the voice of members to be heard when decisions are being taken about releasing surplus. We agree with that observation; that is precisely why the decision to release surplus remains in the hands of trustees, who are there to represent their members. Trustees will consider a range of scheme-specific circumstances, including the employer covenant and wider endgame planning, when discharging their duty to members. It is, however, entirely for trustees to decide whether they may seek broader views before taking a decision to release surplus. It is their decision, not that of the employer.
In our view, a legislative requirement to consult is not proportionate. The existing framework gives trustees scope to seek broader views as required, and the fact remains that, ultimately, trustees must act in the best interests of scheme beneficiaries when taking a decision to release surplus. Furthermore, under our changes, trustees will continue to be subject to a requirement to notify members in advance of any surplus release, maintaining this key protection for scheme members. I can assure my noble friend Lord Davies that we will be monitoring closely how schemes intend to use, and are using, these powers.
Amendment 17 seeks to retain the statutory requirement that trustees be satisfied that it is in the interests of members before agreeing to surplus release. We discussed this in some detail in Committee. Trustees already have a clear overarching duty to act in the interests of scheme beneficiaries. We have had clear feedback from industry-wide stakeholders, including trustees, who have welcomed the repeal of this statutory requirement. Existing legislation is perceived by trustees as a barrier to considering the release of surplus because they are not sure how this additional test is reconciled with their existing overarching duties. This could clearly lead to indecision on whether to release surplus, which may ultimately lead to members losing out. We are making this change to put it beyond doubt for trustees that they are not subject to any additional tests beyond their existing, clear duties of acting in the interests of scheme beneficiaries.
Amendments 14 and 18 cover the consideration of discretionary awards upon the release of surplus. I understand the concerns raised by scheme members whose pensions have not kept pace with inflation. But the Government do not think that these amendments would be helpful to trustees or members. These amendments address only a single element of the matters that trustees must consider when determining whether to release a surplus. In practice, trustees’ overarching duty to act in the interests of all beneficiaries requires them to weigh a broad range of criteria before deciding whether a surplus should be released and, if so, how members might appropriately benefit. This may include the award of discretionary increases but, by narrowing the scope of these considerations, the amendments would risk constraining trustees in the proper discharge of their responsibilities.
The noble Viscount highlighted some matters that we may return to when we discuss his Amendment 22. I will touch on them now—what happens in circumstances where there appears to be a decent surplus and trustees may be minded but employers are reluctant—but, if it is okay with the noble Viscount, I will come back to that in the debate on his Amendment 22 as it is probably more closely focused on that.
The Government therefore believe that it is important that trustees remain in the driving seat. They are best placed to understand the individual circumstance of their scheme, its characteristics and history, and to decide how members may benefit from the release of surplus. By extending the power to return surplus to more trustees, we are levelling that playing field, with strong safeguards in place to protect member benefits. Trustees will be in a better position to negotiate member improvements in return for agreeing to release surplus.
There is clearly an appetite out there for trustees to enable members to benefit from this. Recent industry research shows that over 40% of employers intend to share DB surplus with members. We are confident that there is an appetite. We need to be careful not to create so many new restrictions that the policy aim of allowing more trustees to share surplus is not achieved, because that would prevent surplus delivering real value not just to employers but to members and the wider economy.
I turn to Amendments 13 and 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. Amendment 15 would require regulations to include a condition that trustees receive and consider actuarial advice on scheme funding. Amendment 13 would create a legislative requirement for trustees to commission actuarial advice on future benefits and alternative approaches to surplus release before modifying a scheme to allow for payment of surplus to the employer. I am not going to revisit our discussion on TAS 300, which is a particularly delightful memory from Committee, but I understand the concerns raised by the noble Baroness about trustees having appropriate advice to be able to make an informed decision about their endgame choices and whether to release surplus. Trustees will be required to take into account the scheme’s long-term funding objective when making decisions on surplus. This will include the factors that are listed in these amendments. Under the funding code, trustees are already required to set out their funding and investment strategy, describing how they intend to meet members’ benefits over the long term—in other words, their long-term objective. They will already be seeking appropriate advice before determining the long-term objective for their scheme. That objective is reviewed in line with each triennial valuation at a minimum.
Putting in place additional legislative steps that require trustees to commission and receive actuarial advice before releasing surplus could result in additional unnecessary bureaucracy. Hardwiring specific legislative considerations that trustees must take into account will remove their flexibility to gather the most appropriate advice for individual schemes. The Pensions Regulator—TPR—has set out guidance for schemes considering their long-term objective and options, including buyout, superfunds and run-on, which sets out clear expectations of trustees. In particular, the guidance says that trustees
“should regularly review the best way to deliver members’ promised benefits”.
It is not the responsibility of the FRC; it is for TPR to set out the requirements on trustees and monitor them.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her thoughtful and considered response. I also thank all noble Lords who have supported my amendment, including the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I had hoped that the noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench might be willing to support me if I were to press this to a vote, but it sounds as if that is not the case. I hope that the Government will be successful in ensuring that when pension scheme surpluses are paid out, members are considered carefully. I know that the Minister considered this would be unnecessary bureaucracy. I have to say that it is a requirement, but one that is not always adhered to, and the mechanisms for overseeing it do not seem to have been working.
More particularly, what I had hoped this amendment could help achieve was not only helping the trustees meet member benefits but, in many circumstances, potentially improving member benefits beyond what is currently payable. Yes, they need appropriate advice but, given the state of pension schemes, there is a significant opportunity to improve the amount of money paid to members alongside the decisions to pay out surpluses. Therefore, if the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, decides to move Amendment 14 and test the opinion of the House, I certainly would be minded to support him. However, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 13.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, before we go any further, I am afraid we will need to adjourn during pleasure for a few minutes. There has been an incident which means we do not have full access to the areas of the House that are needed to get to the voting Lobbies. I suggest we adjourn during pleasure and keep an eye on the annunciator. It should be a few minutes, but I do not want to specify a time because we do not know quite how long it will take to clear up. Apologies for this inconvenience, but I think it is for the best.
Social Cohesion Action Plan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s Statement. When it comes to social cohesion, the penny has clearly started to drop in government departments that something must be done.
As has been highlighted by the leader of the Opposition in the other place, there are groups in the United Kingdom whose loyalties do not always align with our national interest. We should call it out as what it is—separatism: groups of people living apart from our country’s way of life, our behaviours, norms, customs, expectations and standards. That is what matters. We should be a multiracial country, not a multicultural one. This policy paper does not go far enough, in our opinion, as to admit that truth, which is why we have serious questions about whether the measures proposed will be enough to solve the problems we face.
We are all familiar with the rise of extremism. This paper sets out a new social cohesion measure framework, which will try to monitor levels of social cohesion. However, increased monitoring of the problems needs to be followed through with enforcement to make an actual difference. In addition, the paper promises an annual state of extremism report to set out the nature of extremism in the United Kingdom, with a new state threats designation power. These extremists need to be faced head on. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will name specific organisations?
Last week, I spoke to a group of Jewish university students. Their testimonies of life on campus were harrowing. The Government say that the Office for Students will strengthen its monitoring of universities’ efforts to prevent individuals becoming involved in terrorism. The Government have also said they will codesign a cohesion charter for conduct on campuses, which universities will be encouraged to incorporate into their own codes of conduct. Is “encouraged” enough? Again, will increased monitoring and an optional charter be enough to help those students I spoke to? Which groups will be involved in codesigning this cohesion charter?
The paper seeks to link schools with children of different backgrounds. I would be interested to hear what sort of “social and educational opportunities” are envisaged as part of this initiative. To stop children growing up in communities which are fenced off from wider society, we on these Benches advocate replacing the promotion of multiculturalism in our schools with a curriculum that teaches a national story—one which helps children belong to something bigger than themselves and gives them confidence as to why our culture matters. I understand that my noble friend Lady Spielman will be working with the shadow education team on this issue. I really look forward to seeing their proposals.
I now turn to what has perhaps received the most attention in this policy statement, namely, the new anti-Muslim hostility definition. The previous Conservative Government adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, using language based on existing hate crime laws. Others have asked what this non-statutory definition will do to tackle these specific crimes. The accompanying note also insists that the definition allows things to be said which are “in the public interest”. I ask the Minister once again: who decides what the public interest is and how? What criteria are they going to use?
This definition is complex and we deserve to have all the facts, so can the Minister commit to publishing the working group’s report in full? Moreover, the Government met with so-called relevant stakeholders following the working group’s report. Can the Minister please clarify who those stakeholders are?
Protecting What Matters recognises the importance of having a shared language. This is hardly ground-breaking. Indeed, we should not be campaigning in foreign languages, as was seen recently in Gorton and Denton. It undermines integration. Will the Government support the guidance issued to councils in 2013 by the then Secretary of State, which advised against routine translation into foreign languages? Will the social cohesion measurement framework also measure English language proficiency? These are basics which any social cohesion plan should grasp.
Earlier in my speech, I referenced the leader of my party. She also said this:
“Anyone can throw a match and walk away, but the point of this is not to divide or provoke. It is the opposite”.
Our queries to the Minister today reflect genuine concerns about what the policies mean in practice. We need a plan that is honest about the issues we face and which, crucially, has the teeth to solve them. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s action plan for social cohesion, and I pay tribute to the working group for all the work that has been put into this over the past few years.
I am proud that I grew up in a multicultural, multiracial society. I was born in this country, but my parents were not. When I started school at the age of five, I could not speak English, but I learned it very quickly, like most children do, so I am bilingual, like most children who come from backgrounds such as mine, and it is a good thing. Much has been said recently about how multiculturalism has failed. Maybe it is because I grew up in inner London, but I do not think it is a failure at all. I think it is a huge success and something that this country should be proud of. London is the most multicultural, multifaith city in the world, certainly the most successful and the most visited. I am not going to take criticism of that, because I have lived it, and I totally respect people from all faiths and backgrounds who I grew up alongside and went to school with.
I turn to some of the most contentious issues, as someone who grew up in a Muslim household as well. Home Office statistics show that Muslims have been the most targeted religious faith group in terms of numbers and overall share in nearly every single year since records began in 2017-18. Hate crimes against British Muslims now account for the highest share, at 45%, with a 19% rise in anti-Muslim offences and a sharp spike since August 2024 following the tragic Southport murders. During the riots that ensued in July and August 2024, hundreds of rioters attacked the Southport mosque within 24 hours, hurling bricks and bottles, smashing windows, and setting a police van on fire. More than 50 police officers were injured. Violence spread across nearly 30 towns and cities in England and Northern Ireland. Mosques were vandalised, Muslim-owned businesses attacked, and hotels housing asylum seekers set ablaze. The Southport attack had no connection to Islam or Muslims, but on social media word spread that it did.
Mosque attacks have soared and become more widespread. Between July and October 2025, the Government’s own appointed monitoring body, the British Muslim Trust, recorded 27 verified attacks targeting 25 mosques across the UK in a report titled A Summer of Division. Attacks included arson at the Peacehaven mosque in East Sussex, described by the Muslim Council of Britain as coming after
“a disturbing pattern of violence and intimidation”.
The BMT found that perpetrators were now acting
“with growing confidence and a visible sense of impunity”.
It takes me back to when I was young, when the BNP marched openly in the streets of London. But then we had legislation that changed all that. I find myself thinking that we are going back to those days of division and a lack of social cohesion, and that people now are being proudly racist and aggressive towards sections of community. I include antisemitism in this. I have Jewish cousins so I know what that can be like. I just feel we are going backwards instead of forwards. That is why I welcome this action plan wholeheartedly.
The BMT also found that perpetrators were directly linked to the surge of far-right campaigns, including Tommy Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom rally. In recent weeks, we have seen much disinformation disseminated by the media on various online platforms. Although it is clear that a working definition of anti-Muslim hostility is legally non-binding, exactly like the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism, in the past few weeks since the report was leaked and then published, we have seen outright misinformation spread widely and deliberately put out by these far-right groups, publications and broadcasters.
If we turn to the significant contribution made by Muslim communities in the NHS, for example, an estimated 46,200 British Muslim staff work in the NHS, including 15% of NHS doctors, which is quite remarkable when the Muslim population in the entire UK is only 6%. They are in the front line and face greater anti-Muslim intolerance and hatred. We have Muslim staff working here in Parliament who we rely on to look after us. They are also aware of growing anti-Muslim hate and language. It pains me to say this, but offensive comments have been repeated by a few individuals in your Lordships’ House over a number of years. Our staff deserve more respect. It is important for public bodies, councils, universities and employers to understand what anti-Muslim hatred looks like so that they can identify it, record it, and act on it—nothing more. There have been outlandish assertions from, among others, the vice-chair of Reform who stated as a fact that this will stop any debate about Islam. It will not, so debate away.
Many of us from a Muslim background strongly believe that the protection of British citizens from hatred and violence is not conditional on the approval of those who have made a habit of treating one community as uniquely suspect. Those who claim this is an Islamophobia law or a blasphemy law are deliberately spreading disinformation. There is no difference in substance from the antisemitism definition already in place. There is therefore no principled basis for opposing this one. Does the Minister agree that we need to repeat clearly and loudly that we are not legislating on belief or restricting criticism of ideas, we are protecting people? How will the Government ensure that these important guidelines will be disseminated to combat this disinformation? How will they ensure that British Muslim communities will be protected, just like all communities, especially the most vulnerable?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the thoughtful comments from the noble Baronesses.
Last week, the Secretary of State responsible for housing, communities and local government announced this publication, Protecting What Matters, which sets out the first steps towards a more confident, cohesive and resilient United Kingdom, focusing on three key pillars.
First, we will build confident communities. Cohesion relies on confidence in the social contract, yet when people look out from their doorstep, too often they see a future that they did not ask for. Put simply, there is a direct link between the degradation of the public realm and the division that we see happening in our communities. The Pride in Place programme will commit more than £5 billion across almost 300 constituencies to be spent through neighbourhood boards. This alone is not enough: we must meet our responsibility to protect young people. That is why this section includes tougher regulation of home schooling.
Secondly, we will build cohesive communities through a social cohesion measurement framework. This means consistent clearer metrics to identify risks early and to act quickly. We will set clearer integration expectations, based on British values, for existing communities and new arrivals, focused on a shared language, participation and respect for British values. We will develop a cross-government integration strategy and conduct a review of English language provision to identify best practice. Strengthening cohesion also means managing the pace of change. We will deliver an immigration system that is fair and transparent, and works better for communities.
We will boldly confront hatred in all its forms, head on. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, said, Muslim communities are facing growing hostility, discrimination and abuse. Anti-Muslim hate crimes are at record levels, and they now make up almost half of all religious hate crimes. We have a duty to act. However, we cannot tackle something if we cannot describe what it is. That is why we have announced that we are adopting a non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility. This makes clear what is unacceptable prejudice, discrimination and hatred directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims. By describing these distinct forms of hostility, the definition will increase understanding across wider society; give victims confidence that what they face will be recognised and taken seriously; and help organisations to take action, as the noble Baroness said.
By setting clearer boundaries around what is and is not anti-Muslim hostility, the definition helps create space for more open and honest discussion of sensitive but wholly legitimate issues. Critically, the definition safeguards our fundamental right to freedom of speech. It is about the unacceptable behaviour towards people, not the protection of belief systems. It will not impede the raising of concerns in the public interest. I take this opportunity to thank Dominic Grieve KC and the members of the independent working group who have provided advice to Ministers on this. I thank two Members of our House who have done a lot of work on it, the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, and my noble friend Lord Khan, who took on this work when he was in MHCLG. We will now work with various groups across society to consider how this definition can work most effectively in different sectors.
We remain absolutely committed to stamping out antisemitism. We have seen horrific antisemitic terrorist attacks both here in the UK and abroad in recent months. Since coming to power, this Government have taken decisive steps. We have invested record funding for security at synagogues and schools, and millions of pounds to tackle antisemitism in schools and universities. We have changed the law to address pernicious protests by places of worship. In this plan, we are going even further by tackling antisemitic extremism and addressing antisemitism in schools and colleges, the healthcare system and the workplace. Work is under way across government as we continue to root out antisemitic hatred from every part of British life.
Finally, our third pillar is building resilient communities. That means confronting extremism in all its forms. We will deliver where the previous Government failed, including by embedding the extremism definition, producing an annual state of extremism report with lists of the groups that meet the definition—to answer a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—and transforming our disruption capabilities. We will introduce a state threats designation power to disrupt hostile state and proxy organisations; strengthen the Charity Commission’s ability to tackle extremist abuse; expand the reach of the visa taskforce; and promote safe, respectful campuses and workplaces.
Our universities should be beacons of free speech, but in recent years that has been undermined, as we heard in the debate in your Lordships’ House earlier today. We are now introducing new measures to tackle the rise in extremism on our college and university campuses since the 7 October attacks. That means strengthening the monitoring of extremism on campuses, and providing oversight of compliance with the Prevent duty and our ability to take robust enforcement action where needed. We will also hear concerns about hatred and discrimination in workplaces and build on protections in our landmark Employment Rights Act. By global standards, Britain is cohesive, and that underpins our economic strength, democratic resilience and national security.
I will try to pick up a couple of the questions from the noble Baronesses in the minute I have left. On the public interest test that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me about, it is probably better if I send a full reply in writing. Broadly speaking, the definition does not create a new test. “Public interest” should be understood in its ordinary and commonly used meaning in UK law and policy: matters that serve society’s wider interests. There is no single person or authority who decides that, and the application of the definition depends on the context. The definition provides a framework, and decisions will be made by the relevant body in that context using their existing judgment and powers.
I have picked up the questions on schools and universities. There will be a curriculum on civic education for all levels. That is really important.
On stakeholders, we consulted with a very long list of stakeholders during this work. I can provide a list, if Peers would like to see that.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, for her comments. I am very proud of the multiculturalism in this country. I was at an iftar ceremony on Friday evening, and it was great to see members of the Jewish, Hindu and Christian communities, and others of no faith, there celebrating together. That is part of our culture. The Southport mosque incidents were absolutely terrible, but it was good to see the community come out and do the clean-up afterwards.
Finally, the noble Baroness mentioned attacks, both online and in person, on NHS staff. I commend my colleague Shabina Qayyum, the leader of Peterborough City Council. Since she became leader recently, she has suffered some of the most horrendous abuse. Shabina is not only leader of the council but an NHS doctor, and she gets abuse in both sides of her life. It is unacceptable and we have to do everything we can to stop it. I hope Members will support this action plan, and I commend it to the House.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House that the next 20 minutes are reserved for questions from Back-Benchers only. I know the whole House would appreciate these rules being adhered to, in order to ensure that as many noble Lords as possible get a suitable opportunity to ask questions of the Minister.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister say why, in the report, there is no mention of Sikhs or Buddhists, one mention of Christians and only two mentions of Hindus? We are incredibly worried that we constantly are being ignored, and yet we are also victims of hate crime—and often from other minority communities. It is about time that we started to address this. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, we need to talk about one Britain, where everybody is treated equally. I am really disappointed by the report that was issued by SOAS on the riots in Leicester; it is a very poor reflection of what actually happened.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that everyone deserves to feel safe in our country. We will work with and celebrate our faith and belief communities to improve understanding of different religions, support tolerance and build a more cohesive and resilient country.
We need to continue to support programmes such as Near Neighbours, which brings people together in religiously and ethnically diverse neighbourhoods to collaborate on community initiatives. We also want to grow Inter Faith Week. I have seen a lot of the very good work that is done in interfaith initiatives in my community. It builds an understanding and interaction between people of different faiths. We also need to promote the role of the Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education by supporting improved analysis of its annual reports to understand the role that it can help to play in communities, leading to cohesion. We are taking action to deliver the £92 million places of worship renewal fund to champion freedom of religion or belief globally through sustained diplomatic engagement and multilateral partnerships.
I understand the point that the noble Baroness made. The reason for the definition in the report was to tackle the very large percentage of our Muslim community who are suffering from crimes at the moment. I will run a session next week on the whole report, and I hope that people come along to that. The whole programme is directed to making sure that we have more cohesive communities overall.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the CEO of the Muslim Women’s Network UK. I was also a member of the working group on the definition. There was an orchestrated campaign to derail the work. Thankfully, it did not, and I thank the Government for adopting the definition.
Are the Government going to compile a list of all the misleading arguments that are being spread out there—the campaign is continuing—so that the public are aware of the counterarguments? The consequence of the misinformation—the disinformation, more accurately—is abuse of Muslim women. They are being targeted. We got a call today with a report of a Muslim woman on the Tube who was told to take off her headscarf. Why are the Government not addressing the safety of Muslim women? I would appreciate it if the Minister did not give the standard answers that I have received before from the Government—£40 million to mosques, millions to the British Muslim Trust and Pride in Place. What specific action is there for Muslim women? It almost feels as if the safety of Muslim women does not matter.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I start by reassuring the noble Baroness that the safety of Muslim women matters a great deal indeed. I could quote the figures of the sums. We are working with the British Muslim Trust to help tackle anti-Muslim hostility. We all have to concentrate on making sure that this actually happens in reality. Through our work across communities on cohesion, combined with the education programme—that will probably be slower—we need make sure that people understand different religions. I hope that will start to tackle the hostility. Having a definition in place is important in helping organisations right across the board—in the case of the Tube line, for example, it might be Transport for London—to understand what this means.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I spent 25 years of my life trying to build community cohesion in a north London borough. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, I realised how important that is. That period, which is a generation ago, felt difficult at the time, but it is actually much more difficult now because of the tide of misinformation, disinformation, and the deliberate attempts to breed extremism and create division. That is what this paper is all about and why it is so important.
I will ask two specific questions. There are references in this paper to doing more in schools about citizenship and critical thinking. It is crucial that we equip children and young people to challenge the misinformation and disinformation that they receive and to question its sources. I would like some more information as to what is being done about that. The second point is that there is a vague statement about using all the powers to deal with misinformation and disinformation online. I am sure that the Government will try to do that, but could they tell us what is being done to make sure that authoritative material is put out and clearly labelled so that people can have trust in the information they receive?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his many years of work to create cohesive communities. I will just briefly outline some of the measures that are in schools and universities. As he says, it is very important that we make sure that those who are trying to radicalise the minds of our children and young people face the education that stops that happening and that will encourage our young people to engage in the kind of critical thinking that makes them able to ask the questions themselves.
First, we are co-designing a cohesion charter with students to bring together a set of agreed principles that guide students’ conduct and engagement on issues that underpin or undermine campus cohesion.
Secondly, the Office for Students will further strengthen its monitoring of universities’ efforts to prevent individuals becoming involved in or supporting terrorism. Universities should be alert not only to violent extremism but non-violent extremism, including the certain divisive and intolerant narratives that can reasonably be linked to terrorism.
We want to strengthen the Department for Education’s oversight of compliance issues and take appropriate enforcement action. There will be enforcement powers for the Department for Education, and it is important that people have those powers.
We are working with the Office for Students to bring together clear and concise information on higher education complaints into a single online portal, so that staff and students have quick and easy access to organisations best placed to support them. We are also enhancing the higher education sector-wide capability to meet Prevent duty obligations, while, of course, upholding freedom of speech. It is very important that we do that as well. So, there are a number of steps in the action plan.
On my noble friend’s point about online platforms, we need to increase transparency about how those online platforms operate and comply with the Act. Platforms will be required to publish regular reports, summarised by Ofcom for public understanding, to give the public a clearer picture of platform compliance.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, there is much to welcome in the plan, including the agreement to produce an integration plan. It would obviously be very helpful if the Minister could tell us when that is expected to be produced. But it also includes a commitment to refresh the Life in the UK Test. Only last week, in the other place, the Minister for Immigration was unable to answer one of the test questions, namely, “What is the height of the London Eye?” More importantly, he was unable to justify the inclusion of that question in the test. Further, we discovered that there are questions such as, “What is the largest denomination in the United Kingdom?”, to which, apparently, the “correct” answer is £50, whereas, in truth, in Scotland, it is £100. So, the answer that is given is incorrect. We understand that that will last until 2027. Are we really going to have to wait all that time until the Government take action on a test that has received ridicule around the world?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not think I know the height of the London Eye either—I will be straight up about that. I will look it up after this.
We recognise that a new approach to integration must consider the broader immigration system and what level of immigration is tenable in maintaining a cohesive society and meeting the needs of existing communities. Integration is of course a two-way process. Society must enable participation, while newcomers are expected to engage, learn English, respect our values and contribute.
I agree with the noble Lord, in that the test must have sensible questions. I do not have a date for when that will be reviewed, but I will find out for him after this evening.
As part of this publication, we will set clear expectations for integration, including English language proficiency and participation in work, and we will develop a cross-government integration strategy. Efforts will focus on removing barriers to participation, supporting underrepresented groups and fostering the shared sense of values across the UK that I know, right across the Chamber, we all want to see.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I take the Minister back to the question that she was asked by my noble friend Lady Scott in the context of the excellent report Time for Change by the Union of Jewish Students. This unfortunately makes it clear that antisemitism is being normalised across campuses. If university leaders fail to take action, how will they be held accountable? I have looked in the plan that has been published and there is nothing there about holding those university leaders accountable, so what specifically are the Government going to do to make sure that antisemitism is not normalised on our university campuses?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is clear that there are some shocking statistics in that report. We must focus on making sure that Jewish students, along with students of all faiths, feel safe in our universities. On the noble Lord’s specific question about sanctions for university leaders, I will have to come back to him. I do not have the information on that in front of me. With all the very concerted work that is set out in the programme in relation to campuses and universities, the Government have a clear intent to make sure that our students can feel safe and be safe on a university campus.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I exhort the Whip, since he started by asking people to be extremely brief in their questions, to give some practical effort to controlling the Chamber in that regard.
I welcome the Government’s overall strategy but want to ask specifically about anti-Muslim hostility. The paper accompanying the definition says that if you are unable to define an issue, you are far less able to tackle it. Can the Government define hostility and give examples of what behaviour would be covered by hostility? The other aspect of the paper, in Chapter 5, says that it will need to evolve over time. What tests will be used for the evolution over time, and what do the Government anticipate doing over time in terms of a public consultation?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As the noble Baroness says, the reason for a definition is that if you cannot clearly define an issue, you cannot properly identify it, measure it or address it. This definition provides the clarity needed to respond consistently and effectively. It helps to distinguish between legitimate debate—which remains fully protected—and unacceptable hostility, prejudice and discrimination directed at individuals, enabling people to name and describe specific forms of hostility that Muslims experience, helping to build understanding in wider society and giving victims confidence that they will be taken seriously.
Government and organisations will then have a consistent framework for training, reporting, data collection and prevention work to improve how incidents are recognised and addressed. That is the longer-term process. This is protecting people, not beliefs, and helping to prevent harmful behaviour while safeguarding open discussion and criticism of ideas.
Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement. I strongly support this action plan. Like my noble friend Lord Harris, I say this in the context of having spent decades on the front line of where cohesion fails. Very few people in this House have had to pick up the bodies at the endpoint of failure, where cohesion has fractured and where enmity has played out on our streets. I have seen that in my career as a soldier and as a firefighter in the most terrible way.
I would like to see non-partisan politics in this space because, regardless of which Government have brought this plan forward, we should all support it. We should all support it with the way we use our language because not doing so—with an increasingly divided politics—ends in a most terrible way. How will we measure early the impact and effectiveness of this plan? If we do not, I am afraid that the first we will know of its ineffectiveness is when the most terrible things play out.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend not just for his very important question but for all his work on this during his career. We are setting out a bold new approach here, not just tackling hate speech but countering extremism by adopting and implementing definitions of extremism. We will publish the annual state of extremism report. That is one way of making sure that we are keeping a focus on the issue. We are strengthening Charity Commission powers to tackle extremist abuse, including the power to shut down charities and suspend trustees—and there are the measures I have already mentioned on tackling extremism on university campuses and in health.
We will work to implement the definition to make sure it has real effect, making sure that public bodies do not confer legitimacy, funding or influence on extremist groups. We will work with the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to ensure robust use of existing legislation on that harmful extremist conduct. As my noble friend said, the consequences of not taking action here are critical and dangerous. We will make sure that all organisations, now that they have this definition, can take action and monitor what is happening.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. It is not particularly helpful to accuse those who have expressed concern that this definition will operate like a Muslim blasphemy law by the backdoor of spreading dangerous disinformation, not least because knowingly spreading dangerous disinformation is a criminal offence under Section 179 of the Online Safety Act. Suggesting that those who raise the alarm about the chilling effect of this definition on free speech should be prosecuted makes the point far more eloquently than we could.
I note that when the Communities Secretary unveiled the definition of anti-Muslim hatred in the other place, he said that he hoped it would be taken up by the police; the Minister just expressed the same view. Is it the Government’s intention that when someone is found to have said or done something that meets the definition of anti-Muslim hostility, it will be recorded by the police? Could it then be disclosed in an enhanced criminal record check if that person applies for a job as, say, a teacher at a school in a Muslim neighbourhood?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I set out very clearly that this is a non-statutory definition. It is there to assist organisations to understand what we mean by anti-Muslim hostility. I remind the noble Lord that there is no blasphemy law in this country and that this Government have no intention of introducing one.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the strategy places significant emphasis on engaging faith leaders as key arbiters of community cohesion. However, does the Minister agree that true social cohesion is built not on the mediation of religious blocs but on the primacy of civic values and a singular secular rule of law? When religious sensitivities collide with fundamental civic rights, such as LGBT equality, will the Government prioritise civic democratic values over the avoidance of religious offence?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The importance of this strategy is that it concentrates on all these angles, including creating confident communities and protecting that confidence. We have to create the conditions for cohesion. Our aim is to bring people together through community-led schooling, youth and sports infrastructure, trusted local venues and major cultural and sporting events with strong community legacies, focusing on restoring pride in place through long-term investment in left-behind areas, support for local media and high streets, improved digital connectivity, neighbourhood policing, tackling anti-social behaviour and reducing reoffending. All these things are positioned as essential to safety, pride and cohesion. I hope that this action plan will take us a long way towards doing that.
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I advise the House that one of our colleagues has been taken ill. I thank the usual channels and all Members for coming together in order to do the Statement an hour early. Our friend and colleague has now been moved to hospital, so the Lobbies are now open. Before we adjourned, we were about to vote on Amendment 14, so if that amendment is divided on, we can vote on it straight away and carry on with our business for the rest of the evening.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
I am sure the whole House will want to echo the comments just made about our colleague who has been taken ill. However, we have had just 20 minutes’ debate on a significant change that the Government are introducing. It will be introduced with no proper debate. We have had 11 questions—that is all we had time for—and there will be no proper discussion of the proposal to introduce a definition of anti-Muslim hostility. The Government really should allocate proper time to debate the introduction of such significant changes.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I thank the noble Lord for those comments. Obviously, I am happy to chat to him outside the Chamber, but we have allocated the proper time of 40 minutes—20 for the Front Benches and 20 for the Back Benches—which is quite normal for these Statements.
We should now move on to the next business, but again, on behalf of the whole House, I thank our colleagues, the doorkeepers and all the other staff who assisted our friend and colleague, as well as the ambulance staff who dealt with our friend so professionally.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, before the Chief Whip sits down, he has been sorely missed in this Chamber today because the conduct of business has been all over the place, including on the Private Notice Question. While the Whip sitting here on the Bench exhorted people to be extremely brief and to ask questions, that was entirely disregarded by the Chamber.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I am sorry to hear that. Maybe it is time for me to make another announcement to the House in the next few days. It is important that the Government are properly scrutinised, and that during Questions we ask questions that are short, sharp and to the point. What we do not want at any time is speeches and stuff. If need be, I will come back to the Chamber fairly shortly to remind colleagues of how the Companion should be operated, and that we all need to work to ensure that the Government are properly scrutinised. If we follow the Companion, we will not go far wrong.
Pension Schemes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:42 - Division on Amendment 14 - Ayes: 48 / Noes: 142 - Amendment 14 disagreed.
Viscount Thurso
“(2AA) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2A), regulations made under that subsection must include provision that takes into account the particular circumstances of occupational pension schemes established before the coming into force of the Pensions Act 1995 which, prior to that Act, possessed or were understood to possess a power to pay surplus to an employer.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow schemes where people are affected by pre-1997 arrangements to offer discretionary indexation where funding allows, with appropriate regulatory oversight.
Baroness Sherlock
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a mistake in a cross-reference to the Pensions Act 1995.
Viscount Thurso
“Report on fiduciary duty and discretionary indexation of pre-1997 benefits(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of day on which this Act is passed, publish a report on whether the fiduciary duties of trustees of occupational pension schemes should be amended to permit discretionary indexation of pre-1997 accrued rights, where scheme funding allows.(2) The report must consider—(a) the impact of current fiduciary obligations on trustees’ ability to award discretionary increases to pre-1997 pension benefits;(b) the potential benefits of permitting such discretionary indexation for affected pensioners;(c) the funding conditions and thresholds under which discretionary indexation could be considered sustainable;(d) the appropriate level of regulatory oversight and guidance required to ensure that discretionary increases are granted in a fair, transparent, and financially responsible manner;(e) international approaches to indexation of legacy pension benefits;(f) the legal and actuarial implications of amending fiduciary duties in this context.(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Pensions Regulator,(b) the Financial Conduct Authority,(c) representatives of pension scheme trustees, members, and sponsoring employers, and(d) such other experts or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report on whether the fiduciary duties of trustees of occupational pension schemes should be amended to permit discretionary indexation of pre-1997 accrued rights, where scheme funding allows.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister indicated earlier, we left much of the meat for this debate around pre-1997 indexation to this group, not anticipating the events that happened outside, which I know we all regret. Knowing who was involved, who was a friend, I very much hope that the outcome is the best it may be.
This amendment, which is similar to one we moved in Committee, basically looks at the situation of those people who, for one reason or another, have not had their pensions uprated for inflation. Basically, it sets out that:
“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of day on which this Act is passed, publish a report”.
When I discussed this with the Minister, I think we agreed that having a review is not necessarily the best way forward, but the problem is finding a way to bring this to the attention of government in a manner that might result in some sort of outcome for those affected. The problem we were discussing around surpluses was very much around how a surplus is made, who can have it, and so on. I would just like to go back to the argument I was making in relation to the fact that defined benefit schemes to me are a contract between the employee and the employer.
I know that in Committee, on a different group much later on, one of the noble Lords present commented that, in his view, a DB scheme is just a giant Ponzi scheme. I thought that comment was a bit uncalled for and indicated that he neither fully understands the evil impact of a Ponzi scheme nor the benefit of a properly constructed DB scheme. In a DB scheme where there are sufficient contributions from the employee and the employer and well-run trustees follow a good investment strategy, the great likelihood is that, at the end of the day, a good solid pension will be paid.
What we are discussing here is really whether trustees who are in a position to do so can in fact share the benefits of a surplus. In some circumstances, that is written into the contract between the employee and the employer, as in the case of the PCPF, which is the one I know—it is absolute and we have to pay it; it is uprated by CPI, and that is in our investment objectives and we invest in order to achieve that. There were a number of schemes where the scheme rules did not actually mandate that to happen, but if you read the literature produced for many of these schemes at the time, it made clear that the anticipation was that that would happen. The amendment seeks to highlight the fact that a great many people could reasonably have expected to receive a pension that broadly kept pace with the cost of living but which today is substantially less than it might have been.
As I woke up this morning, listening to the “Today” programme and the ministerial rounds that were going on, I could not help but note that what was on the grid for today was how much the Government are concerned by the cost of living, so it is apt that this amendment is being discussed today. I completely accept that this amendment may not move the dial hugely and that it may be somewhat imperfect, but I think we owe it to those who are now in some considerable hardship to make at least some effort to try and get them back to where they might have been.
Finally, in looking at all the different economic inputs that go into growth, one of the most important is the ability for the consumer to spend. One of the things I learnt when I was still in business was the power of grey purchasing power, as it was known in marketing terms in those days. The pensioners who were earning their pension in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s and who retired in the 1990s had that strong purchasing power and spent a great deal of money on activities that supported the economy. Therefore, I think there is merit—moral merit, if you like—in looking after these people, and there is also sound economic merit in looking after these people. Having rehearsed all the detailed arguments before, I leave it there. I beg to move.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we again understand the intention behind this amendment from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. We also recognise the strength of feeling that exists on the question of pre-1997 indexation; I listened carefully just now to that strength of feeling behind the noble Viscount’s remarks. It is an issue that has been raised in this House and, separately, we have had discussions ourselves with representatives of a number of the campaigns that have taken a close interest in this matter. We have heard the arguments that they have put forward and understand clearly where this amendment is coming from and why it has been tabled.
However, we feel that there is an important principle at stake here. The noble Viscount said that his amendment was not perfect, but I will continue. The foundation of the occupational pensions system is fiduciary duty. Trustees and scheme managers are entrusted with the stewardship of pension funds on the basis that they must act in the best interests of scheme members and beneficiaries. That is the basic and fundamental point on which the entire system operates. It is also the basis on which people engage with the system in the first place: members can have confidence that those responsible for managing their pension savings are legally bound to act in their interests.
Once we begin to qualify or redefine what those best interests are, however well-intentioned the objective may be, we risk undermining that principle. If Parliament starts directing or reshaping how that duty should be interpreted in particular circumstances, we may end up tying the hands of the very people who are trusted to make those judgments. Trustees could find themselves placed in a position where they are, effectively, required to act in a way that they themselves do not believe is in the best interests of members, based on their professional judgment and their understanding of the scheme’s funding position.
I believe that would represent a concerning precedent. The strength of the current framework lies precisely in the fact that those decisions are taken by trustees exercising their fiduciary responsibilities, not by central direction or legislative qualification of what those responsibilities ought to mean in practice. We will, of course, hear more about the point that I am making on Thursday.
For these reasons, although we recognise the concerns that have given rise to this amendment and the sincerity with which they are held, we are cautious about moving in a direction that could weaken the clarity and independence of fiduciary duty within our pensions system. We regret that we are therefore not in a position to support this provision becoming a feature of the pensions landscape. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Viscount to that extent.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for introducing his Amendment 22. Many members of defined benefit, or DB, schemes have seen inflation erode the value of their pensions, as he said. That is especially true where any uplift on older benefits depends on decisions made at the level of the scheme. I want him to know that I hear those concerns loud and clear. I have heard them expressed by affected pensioners, as many Members will, and I understand the strength of feeling among them.
As the House will know, schemes take different approaches to indexation: some schemes have to provide increases under their rules; some do not require them at all; and a significant number allow discretionary increases, but usually only where both trustees and the sponsoring employer agree. This amendment focuses on the role of trustees in relation to pre-1997 discretionary indexation. The fact is that, in many schemes, such indexation can be awarded only where the sponsoring employer provides consent, which reflects the scheme rules. It means that trustees may be unable to award uplifts where employers are unwilling to agree, even in well-funded schemes.
I recognise why many schemes give employers a central role. Employers ultimately stand behind the scheme and may have legitimate concerns about future affordability and their long-term liabilities. But the result is that when employers are unwilling to support discretionary increases, even when the scheme is in a strong funding position, trustees are, effectively, prevented from acting. I understand that that limitation creates concern, especially in schemes that appear well-funded and may be running surpluses but are not providing discretionary uplifts on older benefits.
However, although I understand the challenge, we cannot accept Amendment 22 because—the noble Viscount identified this himself—it would require a statutory review of trustees’ fiduciary duty in a complex area. Fiduciary duties underpin trustees’ responsibilities to protect all members and ensure the long-term solvency of their scheme. Changes that go beyond trustees freely acting in line with their fiduciary duties on this issue and removing trustee discretion, or removing the employer from any decisions, could have significant consequences for scheme funding, employer sustainability and member security. In any action they take, the Government have to consider all schemes, not only those that are well funded or have historically paid discretionary increases. Mandating a statutory review thus risks creating uncertainty for all trustees and employers, while we are undertaking wider work on surplus and helping schemes make endgame choices.
The key point, as I know the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, recognises, is that the difficulty in the hard cases is not typically that trustees lack the willingness or the legal ability to act. They are often acutely aware of the pressures their members are experiencing. However, I agree it would be helpful to develop a clearer understanding of the factors that prevent some well-funded schemes awarding discretionary increases, particularly where employer consent is not forthcoming. I am aware that the Pensions Regulator has been considering how it might build its evidence base in this area, and any insights from that work would be helpful in informing future thinking.
The Government recognise the importance of this issue. As I indicated in earlier debates, the wider package on surplus, including giving trustees the ability to agree surplus payments to employers, is intended to support more balanced negotiations so that both members and employers can benefit. I hope that has given at least an explanation to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, as to the position that the Government are in but, for all those reasons, although I recognise the concerns he has raised, I hope he can withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and only sorry that I was not persuasive enough to get him to join my side. I am also grateful to the Minister, because the tea and sympathy has actually gone further than I might have expected. What she said in her response is very encouraging. It indicates that the Government are very much in listening mode on this. If we can find a way to encourage some of those schemes, particularly the BP scheme which I mentioned in Committee, to share those surpluses, and if the Government have a mind to perhaps put a bit of a wind behind that then that would be very good. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Altmann
“(14) Value for money regulations must include criteria relating to member service quality, including—(a) accuracy of recorded contributions;(b) reliability of valuation data;(c) efficiency of administration;(d) jargon-light communications in plain English;(e) availability of education or guidance for all members;(f) specific support for vulnerable members.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that value for money assessments consider the quality of member services and communications, as well as data and administrative accuracy.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to various of my amendments in this group. We have moved on now to value for money. Of course, I fully support the Government’s aim of moving from talking about cost as the only arbiter of whether a scheme is good, and low cost being the measure of good, to looking at a much wider area of benefits for members in terms of value for money.
The particular amendments that I tabled, which I also tabled in Committee, focus on language in particular. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for her support for Amendments 24 and 25. These amendments are trying to outline more clearly what criteria a scheme that is good value for money should be able to fulfil, so that it is much clearer what “value for money” means beyond whether it is low cost, and indeed beyond the aims of just saying whether a scheme has been performing well.
Ultimately, when we are discussing the value of a pension scheme with members, one thing that has in the past not typically factored into the thinking of the industry is the idea that the scheme might encourage members to understand pensions and give them a better idea of what the pension fund does and the benefits it can bring to them. So often in the past, there has been a reliance on member inertia, where they do not have to do anything and the pension is done for them.
The aim of the various requirements I suggest in Amendment 24 is to make the accuracy of contributions important. At the moment, schemes are generally riddled with data errors. I know that the Pensions Regulator has been looking at this recently, but part of the assessment of a good scheme should be whether its administration is capable and competent in managing scheme assets and recording the contributions correctly. I therefore suggest assessment criteria that includes reliability of the valuation data and efficiency of administration. Those are other areas that I hope will form part of the value-for-money judgments, and I hope that a requirement that regulations must include them will be included in the Bill.
I have also included what I call
“jargon-light communications in plain English”.
So often when you get a pension statement, or when anyone talks about pensions, it is in jargon that makes no sense to ordinary human beings. It is pension speak, which everyone in the pensions industry automatically understands, but, unfortunately, when the member gets their information about pensions it is usually something that they ignore, throw away or put in a file for later, rather than looking at what it means.
That leads on to my next point, which is the
“availability of education or guidance for all members”.
Members of the scheme would then have a provider that tries to help them understand what is happening to their pension fund.
Along with that, of course, would be specific “support for vulnerable members”. To some extent, vulnerable members are better taken care of, but I argue that, when we are looking at value for money—I stress that the Government are right to suggest that we need to look at value for money—there are important areas that should be in the regulations. I am trying to highlight them here.
The remainder of the amendments look at the language that will be used to assess value for money, apart from Amendment 32,which I will come back to. The other amendments deal with the Government’s assessment of whether a scheme is good value—which in the Bill is called “fully delivering”, though I am not sure that that is the kind of language that an ordinary person would relate to when thinking a scheme is good value. I am suggesting that rather than “fully delivering”, why not use “good value”? By the same token, when a scheme is judged to be “not delivering”, could we not say that it is “poor value”? That is what the ordinary person would immediately relate to when they look at what a value-for-money assessment says.
I appreciate that the Government and the consultations around this have looked at different red, amber and green ratings—RAG ratings—such as light green, dark green and so on, but I am trying to signal that there are ways in which we could talk about pensions that would resonate much better with the ordinary person. I hope that the Government might consider that.
The pensions industry, of course, loves its jargon and is very wedded to it, but I am not sure that it helps encourage people to want to put more money in pensions, for example—an aim which I believe the Government want. It would be more achievable if pension providers spoke to ordinary people in language that they understand—and their members are ordinary people, such as workers and so on.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to offer support from these Benches, particularly for Amendments 24 and 25 and more broadly across all the amendments that the noble Baroness indicated.
In particular, I was taken by Amendment 24 and the idea that value for money regulations should include, among other things, the
“accuracy of recorded contributions … reliability of valuation data”
and the “efficiency of administration”. As any poor civil servant who is currently trying to get hold of a pension administered by Capita is finding out, these things are not a given. Making sure that the small number of quite large firms in the marketplace actually deliver with the necessary competence is a really important part of whether pensioners get value for money. As I say, I broadly welcome and support the amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, it is a long time since I was managing big pension funds in the 1980s. In those days, we were in the happy position of considering it a bit underweight if you had less than half your money in British stocks; now, it is 5%. It is extraordinary for politicians to have done that to the economy—and it is because of us that it has dropped. The way we have framed our regulations and organised how pension funds are assessed has, over time, resulted in that extraordinary diminution. This has left us with a stock market that is cash negative and a City that is immensely weaker than it would be. We will address this later, but the solutions to that problem perhaps lie in this part of the Bill.
If we communicate better with pensioners and say to them, “Do you really trust the country you live in, are part of and benefit from so little that you want only 5% of your pension in it?”, I think we would get a positive response to the idea that perhaps that figure should be higher. Through the mechanisms in this part of the Bill, we could ask pension fund managers to respond to that, and I hope that we would be able then to get away from the bits in the Bill about compulsion and direction that are causing difficulty to my noble friends, whose concerns I share. I think we would get a good response if we informed members of pension funds, as my noble friend said, so that they could take good decisions, and then empowered them to say that they want to back their own, with a good chunk of their money going to improve, invest in and support this country and take it forward. This bit of the Bill would be a good place to do that.
I hope the Minister can confirm that, in the governance aspects of this, it will be expected that pension fund managers should vote their shares. It is extraordinary that we have moved to a position where the owners of companies just do not vote—they do not use that power to decide what their opinion is on what companies have been doing; they merely buy and sell. That is a huge diminution in the mechanism by which companies are held to account. We need people to vote and to take an interest. Having a direction on pension funds that they should participate and be a real part of the corporate governance process would be a useful thing to come out of this Bill.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I have three points. First, I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. To pin the blame just on politicians lets everyone else off scot-free. It is more like Murder on the Orient Express—everyone had a hand. My particular favourite is the accountants, who had a big hand; the way they defined accounting for pension costs was pernicious. Let us not blame just the politicians.
Secondly, one cannot not be in favour of value for money. Obviously, we are all in favour of people getting value for money from their pension schemes. However, I think the Government underestimate the difficulty of providing something useful. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, pointed out, there are more than two or three factors to be taken into account. It is particularly difficult when one starts including prospective factors—how are these to be judged? It is very difficult, and it is not just the factors. The pension holders’ circumstances vary so widely. How can there be a simple, straightforward way of assessing whether someone has had value for money when their needs are so different from those of other people who are saving for their pension?
Thirdly, I apologise for not being present in the Chamber to support the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in the previous group. I realise I am cheating here, but I was elsewhere. I had not realised that one of the groups had disappeared; otherwise, I would have been here and supported his amendment.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for her opening remarks, which set the scene effectively on an important part of the Bill. She has done so at the close of what has been a long first day on Report—longer than we would have thought. She has once again brought clarity to a set of issues that are central to the operation of the reforms before us.
The amendments in this group are, in large part, concerned with ensuring that the value-for-money framework works well—both in how it is constructed in legislation and how it is communicated to and understood by those who will ultimately be operating under it. If this framework is to achieve its objective of improving outcomes for savers, it must be both robust in its design and clear in its application.
Amendment 24, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bowles, is both welcome and important. Throughout our discussions today and, indeed, in Committee, we have spoken a great deal about fiduciary duty: the principle that those responsible for managing pension schemes must act in the best interests of their members. Amendment 24 would help ensure that this vital principle is properly reflected within the value-for-money framework. It would require the regulations underpinning the framework to include explicit criteria relating to the quality of service provided to members. It would include matters such as the accuracy of recorded contributions; the reliability of scheme data; the efficiency of administration; the clarity of communication; the provision of guidance and education for members; and the support available to vulnerable members. Thus it recognises that value for money in pensions is a question not simply of investment performance and cost but of how effectively schemes serve the people whose savings they are entrusted to manage.
Amendment 25 has a complementary effect of strengthening transparency. It would require the value-for-money framework to provide separate assessment and reporting for each asset type in which a scheme invests. Rather than relying on a single aggregated measure of performance, schemes would need to report performance by asset class; for example, equities, bonds or infrastructure. This would allow for a clearer and more granular understanding of how investment strategies are performing, and therefore enhance transparency and accountability.
We also welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, which seek to ensure that the language used within the value-for-money framework is both intelligible and meaningful. The framework can succeed only if it is understood by those who are subject to it and by those whose savings it is designed to protect. Replacing more technical or opaque terminology with clearer expressions, such as “good value” and “poor value”, may seem a small change, but it is a practical one that helps ensure that the framework communicates effectively with members and the wider public.
Amendment 32 addresses another important issue: the practical realities facing pension schemes as they adapt to a rapidly changing regulatory landscape. This amendment would ensure that schemes are given time to improve before facing additional regulatory obligations. We have heard considerable concern throughout our debates about the sequencing of reforms in the Bill. Funds are being asked to do a great deal at once and to respond to a system that is evolving significantly under these provisions. Allowing a longer period before additional reporting requirements are triggered therefore seems both sensible and pragmatic. If schemes are to improve performance, they must first be given the time and space to adjust.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 44 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Younger, which would require the Secretary of State to establish the value-for-money framework within 12 months of the Act being passed. This again speaks to the issue of sequencing: those who operate the system need clarity about the framework within which they are expected to operate. Providing that framework in a timely manner gives funds the greatest possible opportunity to understand its requirements and prepare for implementation. That, in turn, makes compliance more achievable and the reforms themselves more effective.
I thank the Minister for the technical amendments in this group. These drafting corrections help to ensure that the framework is expressed clearly and consistently in legislation, and we welcome that work. Taken together, the amendments before us seek to ensure that the value-for-money framework is clear, transparent and workable. If we are to ask pension schemes to operate within a new regulatory structure, it is only right that we ensure that structure is robust in its design and comprehensible in its operation. These amendments help us to move in that direction.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for her support on the principle of the shift to value for money. Before I move on to the detail of her amendments and others, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I am not going to get in between him and my noble friend Lord Davies in fighting it out on who got us here. Of particular relevance to this debate is that we would probably all agree on the need to move from cost to value—and that is only one of the things that has been going wrong. If we have pension funds competing for business with employers on cost rather than value, we are never going to move to the kind of scale that we want to see, which is a consolidated pensions market with large and better-performing pension schemes, improving the opportunity to invest in a wider range of assets and, I hope, taking us in a direction that would make the noble Lord happy.
I start with Amendment 24. I recognise the consistent commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, to improving outcomes for members, particularly through better service quality and clear communications for vulnerable members. The Government entirely share these aims. Where we differ is that we think that the Bill already provides the necessary powers to deliver them. Let me explain why.
Service quality is a core part of the VFM framework. The Bill ensures that these metrics remain central to assessments, while allowing detailed definitions to be set in regulations so they can evolve with member expectations and industry practice. Clause 12 makes it clear that trustees may be required to disclose data on service quality. However, defining a comparable quality of service is complicated, as I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate. We have consulted with industry on appropriate metrics and how these should be measured to ensure that they represent the nuances involved in determining quality, without inadvertently disadvantaging those arrangements—for example, with a less engaged member demographic.
Defining this through regulations provides us with the scope to develop comparable data in this area in an adaptable, consultative and proportionate way, while still acknowledging the technical nuance required here. For these reasons, while fully supportive of its intent, we cannot accept the amendment as the Bill already provides the powers needed to achieve its aims.
I turn to another matter for the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I fear. Her Amendment 32 would limit the Government’s ability to specify the consequences for intermediate ratings unless received for at least three consecutive years. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said, but the Government cannot support the amendment. Reducing reporting for such schemes risks missing early warning signals that changes are needed to protect savers. We believe that thorough, regular reporting ensures the long-term health and security of pension schemes for all members.
As the noble Baroness said, Clause 16 gives the Secretary of State discretion to set different consequences for different grades of intermediate rating. As proposed in recent consultations, amber-rated arrangements would face consequences, while light-green arrangements would not. A three-year threshold would mean potential problems going unchecked for too long. Instead, we propose giving schemes up to two VFM cycles to make improvements. We believe that is the right approach, and essential to protecting members.
Turning to Amendment 44 from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, while I appreciate the desire for a statutory timetable, we cannot accept this amendment, as a fixed 12-month deadline risks pre-empting the essential consultation and undermining the co-ordinated regulatory process which is already under way. Our published road map aims for the first data disclosures and assessments in 2028, based on 2027 data. Providing clear powers in the Bill, with the technical detail and timelines set out transparently in secondary legislation, remains the most proportionate approach here. A government amendment, to which I will come later, deals further with this. Industry’s responses to the latest VFM consultation will inform draft regulations and guidance.
Moving on to the group of amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on simplifying language in VFM assessments with a view to making them more intuitive for members to understand, this is another area where we completely agree with the aim but disagree with the proposals. Let me explain. “Fully delivering”, as set out in the Bill, is a more objective term, which is aligned with the structure of the framework. The language in the Bill has to allow regulators to make clear, consistent and, crucially, legally robust determinations, and “fully delivering” gives them the scope they need to apply the framework as intended. By contrast, the term “good value” risks weakening regulatory clarity by introducing a term that is broader, more subjective and less tightly aligned with the evidence-based metrics underpinning VFM assessments. Given what will flow from these assessments, clarity is crucial.
The same argument applies to amendments looking to change the terminology of “not delivering” to “poor value”. Crucially, these statutory terms will not be used in public-facing communications. Instead, members and employers will see the simple and intuitive RAGG ratings—red, amber, light green and dark green. Simplicity and accessibility will be appropriately delivered, without sacrificing the robustness required in the legislation. That is why we cannot accept the amendments.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the Government. As drafted, Clause 122, “Commencement”, provides that the value-for-money measures come into force on the day on which the Bill is passed. Our amendments allow the VFM provisions to be commenced via regulations. This provides the Government with greater flexibility to introduce elements of the VFM framework in stages, following detailed design work and informed by consultation. That brings the VFM clauses in line with other parts of the Bill which are commenced by regulations. The FCA and TPR have recently concluded their consultation on the VFM framework, and we are using the valuable insights and feedback from industry to shape final proposals in order to ensure that the regime is fit for purpose across both the trust-based and contract-based sides of the market.
We recognise that introducing the VFM framework is a significant undertaking for industry that requires adjusting to the administrative and data obligations to which it will be subject. I want to be clear that it is and remains the Government’s strong intention that the first VFM data disclosures and assessment reports will be required in 2028. However, this amendment provides us with the option, if necessary, to stagger the introduction of parts of the framework to allow more time for industry and regulators to adjust to its introduction.
In Committee, we debated amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on reporting requirements for intermediate schemes. The consultation paper from the FCA and TPR sets out our proposed approach, which is to require improvement plans for amber-rated but not light-green-rated arrangements, and action plans for red-rated arrangements. Templates will help keep requirements proportionate. Taking the flexibility to smooth the introduction of different elements of the framework, should that emerge as a pragmatic way forward, enables us to continue working closely with industry to fully understand the potential implications of the VFM measures. I hope that this provides the House with reassurance that we recognise the potential burden for industry. This has informed our approach—to reach a balance between ensuring that members receive the value they deserve, and that industry is in a position to comply with these new requirements.
Lastly, I clarify that government Amendments 36, 37, 38, 39 and 26 to Clauses 18 and 12 are of a minor and technical nature and correct consistency mistakes. In light of all that I have said, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments and to support those in my name.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her remarks. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendments, in particular Amendment 24, which I had hoped the Government might be a little more favourable towards than they seem to have been. I understand that the Minister says that the Government have consulted industry and that has fed into the production of the Bill. I hope that the Government will also consult consumer groups and members because it is they who really need to understand the value-for-money framework. It is those groups that I was addressing with my proposals because from the point of view of industry it looks rather different, perhaps, from how it does from that of the ordinary workers who are having their money put into the pension.
I understand that the Government do not wish to accept Amendment 24 but it will, I hope, still help provide a framework for some further discussions as we develop the value-for-money framework. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sherlock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a consistency mistake.