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
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
Listing decisions are rightly a matter for the judiciary. We know that listing practices can vary between courts, creating what many victims see as a postcode lottery, so I am pleased that the Lady Chief Justice, with the support of this Government, will publish a new national listing framework to clarify the listing process, set consistent principles and help deliver swifter justice for victims.
Pam Cox
How will the new listing framework help to fast-track prosecutions for rape and serious sexual offences? What other measures is the Secretary of State introducing or supporting to that end, so that we can honour our manifesto commitments to bring perpetrators to swift justice?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will have heard that we are also piloting new digital and AI-enabled tools to support listing, helping the judiciary to make better use of data. I hope she will have seen that the reforms we are introducing under the Courts and Tribunals Bill include introducing independent legal advisers and expanding the principles of Operation Soteria into the courtroom, making sure that victims have the protection and support they deserve throughout the justice system. The Bill also introduces crucial reforms to ensure that rape victims are no longer unfairly undermined by evidence at court that relies on myths and misconceptions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his positive answer. When I think of the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I am always keen that we share improvements, whether that is from Northern Ireland for here or from England for Northern Ireland. Could the things that the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) has asked for be put to the Policing and Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, so that we can improve our system in the same way as the Secretary of State intends here?
Mr Lammy
These issues are devolved to Northern Ireland, but we are in touch and communicate best practice, as the hon. Member would expect.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Our violence against women and girls strategy, which the Government published before Christmas, sets out exactly how we will achieve our mission to halve the number of these terrible crimes. The Ministry of Justice is investing more than half a billion pounds in victim support services over the next three years, alongside rolling out free independent legal advisers for all adult victims of rape.
Charlie Maynard
I welcome the new legal adviser service as a first step towards levelling the horribly unequal access to legal services available to victims as compared with suspects. However, only £3 million has been provided a year for the next two years to fund that service. Given the record highs of more than 12,500 sexual offence cases awaiting trial in the Crown courts, including Oxfordshire’s Crown court that serves my Witney constituency, does the Minister believe that funding to be anywhere near enough?
Alex Davies-Jones
The funding of £6 million over two years will enable us to introduce independent legal advisers for all adult rape victims, and that is alongside the support package we are introducing in our courts system. We are expanding on Operation Soteria to ensure that rape victims get the support they need. The investment in support services is only one part of a much bigger package to ensure that victims are put back at the heart of the justice system.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I know that Members from all parts of the House support the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls. The metric on which that is based, the crime survey for England, deals with those aged 16 and over, but girls under 16 are also substantially at risk. How will they be included in the recording and monitoring process to ensure that their needs are also addressed?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the scrutiny from my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee. We have been resolutely clear that the violence against women and girls strategy covers everyone, including children, those under the age of 16 and men and boys. We will be ensuring that the data captures a broad spectrum so that we are able to account for things. I recently met stakeholders who are concerned about the rise in domestic crimes committed against children and pre-teens, including in relationships they are getting into, and how we can best support them. I am working with colleagues across Government on that to ensure that we capture these things correctly, so that young people are not excluded from the data.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Violence against women and girls comes in many forms. I have discovered that, incredibly, while current legislation provides some protection for women and girls against revenge porn, it offers no such protection where images are clothed but accompanied by offensive material. Will the Minister take a long, hard look at that to see how the law can be strengthened so that those protections are afforded?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that question. Just last week I was in the United States discussing the fact that the UK is a world leader in tackling non-consensual online intimate image abuse, and the proliferation of such abuse on social media platforms. We have been tackling it when individuals are clothed but there is offensive material on top of those images—for example, semen imagery. That is a vile, degrading crime that affects many people, and we are determined to tackle this degrading form of abuse wherever it occurs, including when individuals are clothed. If they are being degraded, and if it is non-consensual, this Government will come for those responsible.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
Given the recent high-profile case involving the hotel chain Travelodge, which I know the Minister has been involved in, does she agree that tackling violence against women and girls must include clearer legal duties for companies to co-operate fully with the safeguarding expectations of customers?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane), for all their work in shining a light on this horrific issue. I was proud to meet the chief executive of Travelodge yesterday to discuss it in detail, and the Government are looking into what more we can do. We are convening a roundtable with the relevant Ministers in the Departments for Business and Trade and for Culture, Media and Sport to discuss the tourism aspect, and what better regulation and support we can provide to keep people safe wherever they are—in hotels, in the street or online. We will ensure that women and girls are kept safe.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Right now there are potentially thousands of rapists, paedophiles and perverts, who are responsible for some of the worst offences against women and girls, who this Government are going to let out of prison earlier. That is a disgrace, and at the very least the Government should be transparent about it. When I asked them to tell us what their estimates and modelling were on the number of people who were due to be let out, at first they denied they had any of that information; then they admitted that they did, but refused to publish it. Does the Minister not think that they should be transparent about the consequences of their own policies?
Alex Davies-Jones
I will take no lectures from the hon. Member about transparency when it comes to early release schemes. It was this Government who had to pick up the mess left by the last Government when we came to office, because our prisons were full. Instead of dealing with the issue, they ran away and called a general election. It was this Government who introduced risk assessments to prevent violent perpetrators of crimes against women and girls from being released early in our early release scheme, whereas the Conservatives’ early release scheme included no such protections. I will take no lectures from the hon. Member about how we protect women and girls.
Dr Mullan
I wish that the Minister got as angry about the fact that her Government are releasing thousands of rapists, paedophiles and perverts from prison early. If the Government will not tell us about the reality of the consequences, surely they should at least tell the victims. One of the worst aspects of this policy is the fact that many of those victims will have been given an estimated date for when the perpetrators would be released. That date will now be brought forward, and the perpetrators will get out of prison earlier than the victims were led to believe. Does the Minister think that, at the very least, the Government should write to the victims in advance to let them know that they are letting the perpetrators of those horrendous crimes out of prison earlier?
Alex Davies-Jones
I will tell you what makes me angry, Mr Speaker: it is the fact that the last Government presided over an increase in the number of crimes of violence against women and girls of 37% in just five years. That was not a Government who tackled violence against women and girls. That was not a Government who took it seriously. As for communication and notification, it is this Government who are introducing the victim contact scheme in our Victims and Courts Bill to ensure that victims are notified, which the last Government refused to do. It is this Government who are writing to victims to ensure that they are given information. I will take no lectures about how the last Government tackled these crimes; it is this Government who are getting on with the job.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
This Government are focused on removing foreign national offenders so that they are no longer a burden on the taxpayer. Strengthening prisoner transfer arrangements is a priority, and we are actively engaging with a number of countries to do that, so that more offenders can be removed and serve their sentences in their home countries.
Tessa Munt
I am not sure that that really answers my question. Let me set out the details of what I am asking about.
One of my constituents was murdered by a foreign national, which robbed her mother of her daughter and her mother’s grandsons of their much-loved mother. Her mother is very distressed to discover that the murderer is being repatriated a short while into his sentence, which was over 14 years, at which juncture she will lose what remaining input the family has into his parole arrangements, which was promised to her when the man was sentenced. What can the Minister say to reassure my constituents that, as victims, they will not see him released early in the country where he was born? What voice will victims have in situations like that in future?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member raises an important point. This Government are committed to ensuring that, where possible, foreign national offenders serve their sentence outside this country. To do so, we have to engage in bilateral negotiations with countries to achieve proper and rigorous prisoner transfer arrangements. That is why I have had discussions with colleagues in Ghana, Nigeria, Albania and Poland in the last few weeks; indeed, last month we signed a new arrangement with Italy. We are working at pace to ensure that those agreements are as rigorous as possible. On the individual case that she mentions, I am very happy to meet her, and indeed her constituents, to discuss the details.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I want to look at the flip side of this issue—specifically, what happens to those detained overseas who return to the UK? The Government are preparing to resume deportations of Syrian foreign national offenders, while the Syrian Democratic Forces have called on countries to repatriate their own citizens. In recent months, several ISIS-linked individuals have been returned to this country from the al-Roj camp. Will the Minister confirm whether these ISIS-linked individuals will return to custody in the UK, given their direct links to a proscribed terrorist organisation, or are those individuals now free in the UK, having faced no consequences for their terrorist affiliations?
Jake Richards
When foreign national offenders are deported from this country and are able to return, they should be detained and dealt with appropriately by law enforcement agencies. I would expect that to happen in every single case.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
The Courts and Tribunals Bill puts victims at its heart and aims to deliver faster, fairer justice for all victims. In addition, we are increasing transparency and support for victims in the criminal justice system, funding victim support to the tune of over half a billion pounds, consulting on a new victims code, and enhancing special measures.
Liz Jarvis
My constituent was appalled that character references were read out during the sentencing of a man found guilty of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child. The Minister will be aware that Queensland, in Australia, introduced reforms last year to restrict the use of character references in the sentencing of sex offenders. Does the Minister agree that all victims should be at the heart of sentencing, and will she review the admissibility and weight of character references in sexual offence cases?
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Lady for raising an important point. The starting point is that judges decide what evidence is admissible and what weight to give to that, but we are interested in how evidence is being used in criminal trials. The Courts and Tribunals Bill will make changes—for example, to defendants’ bad character evidence. This will clarify that if a defendant has a previous domestic abuse conviction, the judge can say that this shows that they have a propensity to commit further domestic abuse offences, but I am happy to work with the hon. Lady on what further changes might be beneficial.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that this important matter falls under the remit of the Home Secretary, with whom I am in full agreement that the right to peaceful protest is a vital part of our democracy. However, peaceful protest does not extend to unlawful behaviour. Should a protest contravene the law, the police have the powers to respond, and such behaviour will be met with appropriate consequences.
Steve Witherden
Proposals to restrict the right to protest based on “cumulative disruption” are causing great concern. It is absurd that a march by an anti-racist group one week could be blocked because an anti-abortion march occurred the week before, and that this power could be extended across large parts of a city. Such a significant change demands proper scrutiny. This House must have adequate time to debate and vote on this issue. Can my hon. Friend the Minister guarantee that?
Jake Richards
As my hon. Friend knows, this is a matter for the Home Secretary. If my hon. Friend seeks parliamentary time for a debate, he should come to business questions on Thursday morning.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Clearly, the Home Secretary has the power to ban marches but no power to deal with static protests. This weekend we had the annual al-Quds hate demonstration, at which individuals regularly chanted antisemitic slogans, but the police could take no action. Will the Minister have discussions with the Home Secretary on what can be done to police and ban static demonstrations that will clearly lead to a contravention of the law? The big problem in London is that police are being sucked into the centre of the city and taken away from the boroughs where they should be doing their policing work.
Jake Richards
The hon. Member raises an important point, as I know he has repeatedly in the past, and I will raise the issue with the Home Office. I put on record that the incidents of antisemitism we saw over the weekend were wholly disgraceful, and this Government will do everything we can to stamp them out.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Government’s relentless clampdown on the right to protest has been disgraceful. However, the High Court’s ruling that the proscription of Palestine Action was unlawful is a victory for the National Council for Civil Liberties, which is now challenging policies that suppress and criminalise peaceful protesters. Does the Minister agree with me that our so-called justice system is being weaponised to intimidate and shut down legitimate protests, and that this Government’s assault on our fundamental right to protest has failed?
Jake Richards
No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend on that point. The Home Secretary has been very clear that that judgment will be appealed in the courts. We have been absolutely clear as a Government that the right to peaceful protest is a vital part of our democracy, but those rights are balanced, and it is crucial that, where peaceful protest contravenes the law, the law stands firm.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
People should have the right to protest, but that needs to be coupled with responsibilities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned, it is outrageous that fringe groups feel emboldened to protest in support of terrorist ideology, contrary to basic British values. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that these people are under no illusion about how they will end up being prosecuted if they openly support fundamentalist Islamist ideology, and that if they have no right to be here, they will be deported?
Jake Richards
As I have said, this is a matter for the Home Secretary. She has made it abundantly clear that, although there is a right to protest in this country—an important right that should be protected—where incidents such as those the hon. Gentleman has identified occur, those individuals should face the full force of the law.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
The Conservatives left our criminal justice system on the brink of collapse, and we are taking action to clean up the mess they left behind. Our detailed impact assessment, published alongside the Courts and Tribunals Bill, shows that our package of measures will save about 27,000 sitting days per year, a saving of almost 20%. Only through reform, together with record investment and action to modernise our courts, can we finally turn the tide on the backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims.
Jerome Mayhew
The Justice Secretary has just told us that the reason he is cutting jury trials is to get the backlog down. If that is the case, why is there not a sunset clause, so that once the backlog is reduced, those jury trials can resume?
Mr Lammy
If the hon. Gentleman had listened during the Second Reading debate, he would have heard me say that demand in the system is up. Police arrests are 10% up. For all those reasons, alongside the backlog that we inherited from the Conservative Government, it is important that we put in place reform that is sustainable for the long term, and that is why there is not a sunset clause.
Rebecca Smith
About 6,200 cases are awaiting justice in the south-west. Sexual offences cases take about 320 days, but local victims and defendants deserve justice. The excellent example of Liverpool Crown court highlights how it is possible to tackle the case backlog and secure justice without impacting defendants’ right to a jury trial. Given that tackling the backlog using efficiency, not removing the right to a jury trial, has the backing of the public and the Opposition—and, indeed, Labour MPs—when will the Secretary of State back down from his entirely un-British decision to minimise the use of jury trials?
Mr Lammy
It was not un-British when the Callaghan Government made reforms at the end of the 1970s, and it was not un-British when Margaret Thatcher made changes in 1989. It is precisely because we are lifting the system, which was on its knees under the last Government, that it is absolutely the opposite of un-British to support victims, especially women, who find themselves in the criminal justice system.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The Government’s case for curtailing trial by jury is based on an impact assessment that rests on assumptions, rather than hard evidence. Is it not the truth that the Government are asking Parliament to give up and weaken a fundamental safeguard on the basis of hearsay alone?
Mr Lammy
Sir Brian Leveson spent months delivering part 1 and part 2 of his reforms. We are building on that. I have set out that this is a 20% saving. If the hon. Gentleman was Health Secretary—I am not sure he ever will be, but if he were—and he was told that a 20% saving could get the waiting list down, he would take it in an instant; so am I.
Lincoln Jopp
I think what the Health Secretary is actually doing at the moment is paying people to fudge the waiting lists. I want to be very clear, because there are slightly mixed messages from the Justice Secretary: are there any circumstances in which he would consider the reintroduction of jury trials for those cases that are going to have them removed?
Mr Lammy
I know the hon. Gentleman has studied this closely, but there are two problems we have to fix. Demand is going up—I said that the police are arresting more. But he will know that because of the use of smartphones, social media, DNA evidence and forensics—for all those reasons—trials are taking longer. That is what we are seeking to fix in the Courts and Tribunals Bill and that is why we have to put the system on a sustainable footing for the next generation. That is what the Bill will deliver.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
Since coming into this role, I have heard from more victims than I ever thought I would in a lifetime. They tell me their stories, and I believe them and listen. What I do not ask them to do is report, because nobody wants to put anybody in a system that is so unsustainable, and re-traumatise them. Does the Secretary of State agree that the changes being presented and driven through by our Government will mean that a victim is more able to report, more likely to feel like they can get an outcome in a reasonable amount of time and less likely to feel that they are the ones on trial?
Mr Lammy
I am hugely grateful for my hon. Friend’s continual advocacy in the Chamber on behalf of victims. She is absolutely right. If we do nothing, we head to a backlog of 200,000, and many, many victims sitting behind that backlog. If we do as Opposition Members suggest, we head to a backlog of 133,000. That is why we have to do these reforms and why I am very pleased to put forward a Bill that also does more, in particular for victims of sexual crime and rape.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Under the previous Conservative Government, criminal justice funding was cut by 23%, we lost 42% of our magistrates, half of our magistrates courts were closed and the number of sitting days in our Crown courts went down. That is the record of the Conservative Government. The only thing that went up was the number of victims waiting for justice. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the crocodile tears from the Conservative party today just show why the public should never put trust in arsonists to put out the fire?
Mr Lammy
One hundred per cent. That is why the shadow Justice Secretary, when he stands up, should apologise. He was sat in the Home Office while that was happening.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Opposition Benches were disorderly yesterday; I do not want the Government Benches to be disorderly today. Have the courtesy to hear the question, please. I am inundated with constituents complaining about the behaviour of MPs in this Chamber. I expect Ministers to set the best example, not the worst.
Nick Timothy
The Prime Minister, we learned this weekend, once said that trials without juries mean evidence is not properly tested and can lead to wrongful convictions. Was he wrong?
Mr Lammy
Is that the best the hon. Gentleman can do? Of course the Prime Minister was not wrong—that is why jury trials will remain the cornerstone of our system. What a waste of a question!
Nick Timothy
I think the public will be disappointed by this behaviour. The Justice Secretary cannot get his story straight. Like the Prime Minister, he once said:
“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea”.
Now he says they are a good idea, with his justification for this change changing by the minute. Last week, 10 Labour MPs voted against the courts Bill and 90 abstained. They are looking for a compromise—not in the House of Lords, but while the Bill is in this House. The Justice Secretary just refused to agree a sunset clause in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), so, for the sake of the 100 Labour MPs who do not trust him or his intentions, I will ask again: will he consider a sunset clause, or will he tell his own MPs no?
Mr Lammy
I have to say, the hon. Gentleman has not apologised for the state that the Conservatives left the criminal justice system in, closing 40% of court buildings in England—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I will say this to both sides: there has been quite enough chipping in. The public do not like it, and I am not going to tolerate it.
Mr Lammy
There was also a reduction in funding of 23%. The hon. Gentleman knows that 90% of criminal justice cases are dealt with by the magistrates courts and 10% go to the Crown court, with 7% of those people pleading guilty—that leaves 3%. Our Bill is to deal with a small proportion of cases in a new division so that we can do that swiftly. I have previously explained the reasons—demand in the system and length of trial—why it is my judgment that these have to be sustained changes, as were made by the Thatcher Government at the end of the ’80s and the Labour Government at the end of the ’70s. That is what I proposed. The Bill will now go to Committee and then on to Report, and will be debated and discussed in the usual way.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
This Government are dedicated to increasing transparency in our courts. We are expanding free Crown court sentencing transcripts to all victims who request them and rolling out recording to all magistrates courts, so that all criminal cases heard in open court will now be recorded. We are also working with our judiciary to see where we can go even further on transparency.
Andrew Cooper
The Courts and Tribunals Bill seeks to increase the transparency of court proceedings in several important respects, but conducting empirical research into how real juries make decisions will remain illegal in England and Wales. Researchers have had to rely on mock juries in their research, which has shown a link between the attitudes of jurors and verdict decisions, in particular in rape trials. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we must break down barriers to jury research so that we can develop appropriate reforms to address this problem?
Sarah Sackman
Of course, there are good reasons for the protection of jury deliberations, which ensures that they can happen in private. The Government in Scotland have recently legislated for a tightly controlled exception to support research into jury deliberations, and my officials are working with the Scotland Office to see what lessons we can learn from that vital work.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
In February, the Government ordered Courtsdesk to delete the largest archive of court records in the country—an essential tool for transparency in the justice system. The Government changed their minds about that, which was incredibly welcome, but we do not yet have a clear sense of what they intend to do with that archive or how they intend to move forward. Could the Minister assure us today that Courtsdesk will not be compelled to delete its archive in the future and confirm whether it will be allowed to continue operating its services?
Sarah Sackman
I will start by reminding the House why we suspended the operations of Courtsdesk. It was because of its handling of sensitive data in breach of the agreement it had with Government. Of course, we recognise the importance of transparency and the service provided by Courtsdesk, which I recently met. The hon. Lady will know, as I have updated the House, that we intend to bring forward new licensing arrangements to make court listings and registers available to more people—for journalists in particular—and we will bring forward plans as to how Courtsdesk and others can bid for those new licences.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The victims code sets out exactly the rights that victims can expect to receive. We have now launched a consultation on a new victims code to ensure that it is fit for purpose for 2026 and that we get the foundations right for victims. We are also raising awareness of the victims code through an “Understand Your Rights” campaign, as we want everyone to be aware of their rights.
Munira Wilson
The Minister will recall that last month I raised with her the case of Roksana Lecka, who was convicted of child cruelty at a nursery in Twickenham. Her victims’ parents were given only six days’ notice that she was being deported just a few months into her eight-year sentence, so although the victims code currently says that “all reasonable steps” should be taken to inform victims of an offender’s immigration status and likelihood of deportation, it does not say when. Does the Minister agree that an updated victims code should say that information about an offender’s immigration and likely deportation status should be shared as early as possible in the process?
Alex Davies-Jones
I want all victims to have as much information as possible in a timely and appropriate fashion. That is exactly the type of information that we need to include in a new victims code. This is why we are consulting. I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady and her constituents to hear about their experiences and how we can best shape this new code. All victims are entitled to information about their offender. We are expanding the victim contact scheme to include that and to ensure that victims know their rights. As I have said, I would be happy to work with the hon. Lady and any other hon. Member to ensure that victims know their rights and that they are up to date.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The family courts urgently need reforming so that victims, especially those of domestic violence, are not experiencing a system that is being used by perpetrators to continue to control and abuse. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner reported that 73% of hearings in the family courts involved evidence of domestic abuse, but it is frequently not recognised in determinations. In the Courts and Tribunals Bill, the Government have included a clause to remove the presumption of parental responsibility, so will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to increase the scope of the Bill by including the family courts as a whole within it, and restore some faith for victims in our family court system?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that question. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson will know of my commitment to ensuring that the family court is safe for all involved, including children and domestic abuse victims. That is why we are repealing in the Courts and Tribunals Bill the presumption of parental involvement in contact in these cases. Just today, the Justice Secretary has announced a national roll-out of our child-focused model, formerly known as pathfinder, over the next three years. We are doing all we can to ensure that our family courts are safe and effective for all involved.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
It is the prosecution and the defence who decide what evidence to put forward in a criminal trial, including deciding whether to put forward evidence from automated enforcement technology. Once that evidence has been put forward, the magistrates and the judge have a duty to ensure that only admissible evidence is presented to a jury.
Peter Lamb
The Government are to be commended for the largest ever investment in police technology, including facial recognition to catch serious offenders, and a drone squad to crack down on waste crime. However, the rules around admissibility of some high-tech evidence, such as the six-month crime rule, are holding back enforcement, which could enable us to stamp out low-level crime and antisocial behaviour. Can the Minister commit to reviewing these rules to ensure that the latest technology can be used to protect our communities?
Sarah Sackman
We will keep the rules relating to the admissibility of evidence under review. When considering whether evidence is admissible, the magistrates and judge will consider its relevance, competence, materiality and probative value.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister will have heard, as I did, the very moving speech of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) last week. She really moved the House with her testimony of the terrible experience that she had had as a rape victim, and her experience of delays. She will also have heard her say that, according to the Government, abolishing jury trials will save perhaps only a week. So my positive question to the Government is this: why do we not proceed on the basis of the Labour manifesto? It has its merits and it promised specialist rape trials. Why do we not set up courtrooms in every single courthouse with specialist lawyers and really deal with the backlog now?
Mr Speaker
I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Member’s supplementary is relevant to the main question. [Interruption.] No, I think it is not.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
We are putting victims first with a record £550 million investment in victim support services over the next three years. Our measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill aim to deliver faster, fairer justice to improve victim confidence across the whole system. We are also consulting, as I have previously said, on a new victims code, so that victims know exactly what they can expect from the justice system.
Jas Athwal
I welcome the Government’s recent efforts to improve victims’ experiences in the courtroom, including the expansion of the Operation Soteria principles and the introduction of a national independent legal adviser service to provide dedicated legal support throughout the criminal justice process. However, many victims still lack confidence in the prosecution system, and some withdraw from proceedings after experiencing further trauma during the process. What further steps are the Government taking to ensure that victims are treated with dignity and respect so that they feel supported to see their cases through to conclusion and that justice is fully delivered?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. I hope that I can also respond to the comments made by the Father of the House in the previous question; I, too, want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her brave testimony in the debate last week. It is exactly those experiences that this Government are improving by introducing Operation Soteria in our courtrooms, expanding the use of specialist measures, introducing independent legal advisers and consulting on a new victims code. When we came into office we said that we would reform the criminal justice system to put victims back at the heart of it, and that is exactly what this Government are doing.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Can I wish you a happy St Patrick’s day, Mr Speaker? St Patrick is sometimes somewhat disparagingly referred to as a “west Brit”, which is very unfortunate given where he was born.
Will the Minister have discussions with the Department of Justice and the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that victims are not experiencing delays and prevarications in the court system, which lead to justice being denied as well as delayed?
Alex Davies-Jones
May I take the opportunity to wish the hon. Member a happy St Patrick’s day today? I recently had the pleasure of visiting the island of Ireland and met the Irish Justice Minister, but we have regular conversations with our Northern Ireland counterparts as well to discuss how we can improve the system for victims as a whole. Violence against women and girls has no borders and does not discriminate in the targeting of victims. That is why we need to do all we can to keep victims safe, wherever they are.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
This Labour Government are committed to halving knife violence. We have introduced reforms to ensure that every child caught with a knife receives a mandatory plan to prevent reoffending. There is still much more to do, and we will set out a cross-Government plan to reform the youth justice system over the coming weeks.
Adam Thompson
In December 2024, 18-year-old Noah Smedley from Ilkeston in my constituency was killed when he was stabbed by a 17-year-old armed with a Rambo knife. For a young man to lose his life this way, murdered by another teenager, was absolutely devastating to our community. There was a very deep public outcry of grief in this tight-knit town with a strong local identity. Noah’s death hit the town profoundly. Could the Minister outline the work that the Government are doing to protect young people, especially teenage boys, from the horrors of knife crime?
Jake Richards
Each case is an absolutely tragedy, and Noah’s is no different. On behalf of the Government, I send our commiserations and thoughts to his family and, indeed, the whole community, which suffers when these events occur.
In the past 18 months of this Labour Government, we have seen an 8% reduction in knife crime, which is a start. Very recently, we invested a further £15 million in the turnaround programme—a specialist programme aimed at early intervention, working particularly with young people and teenagers. We have set out a three-year funding settlement for youth justice services, offering for the first time in a generation that stability and certainty. We have taken tens of thousands of dangerous knives off the streets, and have invested in violence reduction units, young futures hubs and young futures panels. There is a lot more to do, but this Labour Government are getting on with the job of tackling knife crime.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
The Government have agreed a landmark £2.78 billion settlement for courts and tribunals over this next period. That includes £2.5 billion in resource funding—the highest level ever provided to His Majesty’s Courts Service—and £287 million in capital investment. Sitting days in the Crown court will also be uncapped for the next year, enabling courts to sit to maximum capacity.
Anna Dixon
For victims of child sexual exploitation, rape and serious sexual offences, the option of having pre-recorded evidence has been a really positive step forward. However, when I visited Leeds Crown court recently, I heard that too often the equipment does not work, leading to significant delays and even postponement of hearings, which is obviously terrible for victims. Will the Secretary of State outline how that investment will help victims get the justice that they deserve and ensure that the technology is available in every courtroom?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right that too often there are problems in the use of that technology for defendants in court, and sometimes there are problems between the prison and the court as well. That is why capital funding is increasing by 46%, enabling essential maintenance, estate improvements and digital modernisation. I am grateful to her for continuing to champion the issue.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Last year, Carlisle Crown court saw a reduction of 71 sitting days. Add to that the fact that Westmorland, our neck of the woods, lost our magistrates court in Kendal 10 years ago. Does that not remind us that backlogs are not because Britain has juries, but because we lack capacity in our judicial system? Will the Secretary of State restore those sitting days to Carlisle, and extend the number of sitting days in Lancaster, too? Will he also look at restoring magistrates courts to places like Westmorland?
Mr Lammy
As I said, the number is now uncapped, so the hon. Member will be pleased to hear that Carlisle will have the maximum number of sitting days that it can possibly have. He will note that there were substantial magistrates courts closures under the last Government, and a massive reduction in the number of magistrates. He will also have noted the extra funding that we have found, along with our ambition to increase the number of magistrates across the country.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Before answering the question, I extend my condolences to the family and friends of Jeff Blair, a county court bailiff who was killed last week doing his job. It was a shocking incident, and violence against our hard-working staff is completely unacceptable.
Turning to the question, the Government support the work of the Enforcement Conduct Board to raise standards in the enforcement industry and to ensure, in particular, that vulnerable people are treated fairly. We have consulted on establishing an independent regulatory framework to build on the ECB’s excellent work, and we will announce next steps in due course.
Gill Furniss
I welcome the Government’s commitment to legislating for a statutory bailiff regulator. Research by StepChange and others has uncovered shocking cases that show why that is urgently needed, including a bailiff pushing someone through their front door and then laughing when they said that they had mental health issues. Will the Minister tell the House when we can expect that legislation to reach the statute books?
Sarah Sackman
I join my hon. Friend in endorsing the work of StepChange, in particular, in this campaign. The indignity that she describes, which many suffer as a result of the abusive actions of some, and only some, unregulated bailiffs, reinforces why we need legislation in this area. We have consulted on how we will legislate, and as I have said, we will announce our next steps in due course.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I very much associate myself with the Minister’s words on the sad loss. She touched on the important issue of the vital role that court bailiffs play. Many small businesses are struggling to recover money because of a lack of court bailiffs. What actions are the Government looking to take to increase the number of court bailiffs, in order to help small businesses recover the money that they are owed?
Sarah Sackman
As much as we want to protect debtors, we also have to ensure that creditors who are owed money are able to recover those funds, whether they are small businesses or, indeed, the public purse. That is why we plan to uplift fixed fees for enforcement agents, so that we have a sustainable and effective enforcement sector. Ultimately, better regulation helps everyone, creditor or debtor.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
I want to start by expressing my deepest condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Jeff Blair, one of our country’s court bailiffs, who was tragically killed last week. That was a horrendous incident, and violence against hard-working staff is completely unacceptable.
Since the last Justice oral questions, this Government have introduced a landmark Courts and Tribunals Bill to deliver swift and fair justice for victims. I also announced a £2.78 billion fund for our courts in the largest ever funding settlement, as well as uncapped sitting days. The Government have strengthened action on antisocial behaviour through neighbourhood policing, dedicated ASB leads and plans to expand visible, accessible community policing; there will be 13,000 additional neighbourhood personnel by the end of the Parliament.
Melanie Onn
Grimsby town centre is experiencing repeated attacks through antisocial behaviour, particularly by young people, and this is causing a huge amount of concern for shop workers and shoppers in the town. I welcome the Government’s additional funding for police officers, but what is the Department doing to improve the punishments and create an even stronger deterrent to these appalling acts?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend has been a great champion of Grimsby over many years and takes these issues very seriously. In my Department, our early intervention programme, Turnaround, has funded more than 15 million ASB referrals, which is up 14%. I am happy to look closely at what is happening in Grimsby particularly.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I join the Justice Secretary in sending condolences to the family of Jeff Blair. I also pay tribute to the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), for her successful campaign for a child cruelty register, and I look forward to meeting the Hudgell family this afternoon.
The Government have published their Islamophobia definition, rebranded as a definition of anti-Muslim hostility. We are told that the definition is non-statutory, but it is designed to influence official decision making, so will the Justice Secretary make it clear right now that the definition will not be adopted by the police, prosecutors or the judiciary?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that those are independent bodies, but it is not a statutory definition. It seeks to allow us to intervene to bear down on the rising Islamic/Muslim hate that we are seeing across the country, just as we have had to do to deal with antisemitism and racism more generally.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
The Renters Rights Act 2025 represents the biggest expansion of renters’ rights in a generation, but of course, rights are not worth the paper they are written on unless they are enforceable. That is why the role of appeals, including to our property tribunal, is so important. My hon. Friend will know that court fees are a feature right across our system, but we will ensure that fees do not represent a barrier to access to justice.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I associate the Liberal Democrats with the Secretary of State’s condolences to the family of Jeff Blair. Strategic lawsuits against public participation, known as SLAPPs, have been used by the rich and powerful to silence victims and undermine the free press in this country. Anyone engaging in public-interest activities can be a target of SLAPPs. Powerful individuals who are exploiting the justice system in this country should not be shielded from scrutiny, so when can we expect legislation from this Government to address this?
Sarah Sackman
I entirely agree that the profound financial and psychological impact of SLAPPs, and the chilling effect that they have on public-interest journalism, pose a threat to our democracy. The Government commenced the SLAPPs provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 in June 2025, and we recently saw the first case that engaged those provisions. While this is a positive first step, I am keen to consider all options for how we might take this further, and I look forward to working with Members right across the House on how we do that.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
My hon. Friend raises the important issue of knife crime, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson). Every incident of knife crime is taken seriously and has a devastating effect on the victim, their family and the community. As I said, knife crime is down 8% under this Labour Government. That is a good start, but we have also just announced record investment in early intervention services, whether that is the Turnaround programme or youth justice services more generally. In the coming weeks, we will publish a cross-Government strategy for tackling knife crime, which will involve work by colleagues at the Department for Education, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. That is the best way of ensuring that we tackle the causes of knife crime.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Member for his question and his tireless advocacy, which is a way of honouring Sara, who was brutally murdered at the hands of the very people who should have been protecting her. Of course, it is essential for justice that all court users understand what is happening in hearings. We believe that Sara Sharif’s birth mother was entitled to an interpreter, but she did not request one. However, we need to look into what should have been done to guarantee that she had an interpreter. We make over 200,000 interpreter bookings every year to ensure that people can understand proceedings, but I look forward to working with him to see what more we can do to implement that review.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Sarah Sackman
We are maximising the number of judicial sitting days in the immigration and asylum chamber. We are recruiting more judges in this area, as well as working with the Home Office to develop proposals for a new independent appeals body that would handle appeal types currently heard in the immigration tribunal, all of which I hope will benefit my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
I am sorry to hear about that case. These sorts of delays mount trauma on trauma for many of those going through sensitive family court proceedings. We have to get this right. Because of the sensitive nature of family proceedings, there has to be judge approval of transcripts, and they have to meet the rigorous requirements of the secure transcription unit. We cannot compromise on accuracy and quality, but we do need to get the delays down.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Mr Lammy
I sat down with the POA just a few weeks ago to discuss this and other matters. Of course, it is right that I prioritise investment in our prisons as I seek to support prison officers, who do an incredible job against the backdrop of a system that was horrendously underfunded for 14 years.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I am so sorry to hear of the experience that Simon has endured. Sadly, so many others like him, fathers in particular, have similar experiences while going through the family court. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister has announced today the national roll-out of a child-focused model—formerly known as pathfinder courts—for the next three years. It will provide early risk assessments, specialist domestic abuse support for all involved, and non-adversarial problem-solving processes, and it will reduce stress and anxiety for all families, better supporting their mental health. This will not come as a comfort to Simon, but we hope that it will help many other fathers and families going through this process.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Mr Lammy
This is a sensitive matter. My hon. Friend will recognise that our judiciary is independent, but I continue dialogue with the Lady Chief Justice on these and other matters.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Jake Richards
The practicalities of that case are for colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that human rights in a health setting are incredibly important. Specific tribunals deal with that issue, and I would be very happy to deal with that case in writing if he writes to me.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Unlike in category A prisons, prison officers at HMP The Verne and HMP Portland are not routinely issued with protective body armour—namely, stab vests. Protecting our prison officers from harm is essential in all prisons, as has been made abundantly clear to me by local branches of the Prison Officers’ Association. With that in mind, will the Minister work constructively with me and Lord Timpson to introduce appropriate body armour for all prison officers, regardless of the category of prison in which they serve?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. The Government have invested £50 million to ensure that our brilliant prison officers, who do incredible work, are fully protected. I believe that I am meeting my hon. Friend tomorrow to talk about an issue in his constituency, and we can put this matter on the agenda, too.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Grooming gang survivors have told us that they were trafficked between England and Scotland. Police were aware of those allegations of abuse but failed to do anything about them. Will the Minister explain how the grooming gang inquiries on either side of the border will work together to ensure that the perpetrators, and those responsible for the cover-up, are held to account?
Mr Lammy
The sexual exploitation and rape of children by grooming gangs is one of the darkest moments in this country’s recent history. We accepted all of Baroness Casey’s recommendations. We are changing the criminal law to ensure that adults who penetrate children under 16 are charged with rape or equally serious offences for other penetrative sexual activity. I want to assure the hon. Gentleman of that.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Ministers will be aware of the campaign to make all court and tribunal transcripts available for free. Fees can run into the thousands, effectively acting as a paywall to justice. Do Ministers agree that access to the law cannot be based on wealth alone, and what will they do about it?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right: we are seeking to increase transparency and reduce barriers to justice. That is why we are legislating to make sentencing remarks available to all victims upon request, free of charge. We want to go further by creating more opportunities for broadcasting court proceedings and by working towards the greater availability of proceeding transcripts.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
One of my constituents has been waiting since September for a three-day fact-finding hearing in the family court. A hearing scheduled for February was cancelled at only a few days’ notice because no judge was available. My constituent had to pay nearly £2,000 in legal fees for preparation and representation, even after their barrister reduced their costs. Will the Minister reform the system so that families facing delays caused by the courts are not left bearing the financial cost of failures in the system itself?
Sarah Sackman
The impact of delays, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, is a feature of not just our criminal courts, but our civil and family courts. The financial impact, and, if an individual has been waiting, the build-up to the nerve-racking prospect of a trial in court, can be absolutely devastating. We are working to maximise capacity in every jurisdiction and hiring more judges to improve timeliness. I will continue to work with colleagues across the Department to deal with delays in the family court.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have met the academics behind the University and College Union reports on the prison education service, which highlighted the real challenges around the wellbeing and mental health of educators, as well as their safety, especially with the racism they have been experiencing. Will my hon. Friend look at carrying out a complete review of the prison education service to ensure it is fit for purpose and able to do the job it was designed for?
Jake Richards
Lord Timpson and I are looking at this issue in the round. We are ensuring that where prisons have education contracts, they are being given full effect, which often is not the case. My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are working on it, and we will keep her informed.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
While it would be inappropriate to speak of a live case, I am mindful of the McNally family from my constituency, who are currently sitting through the trial of a man accused of murdering their daughter—truly heartbreaking. There was another murder in County Fermanagh recently. This demonstrates how unsafe society is for women, particularly with social media and online abuse. Will the Minister outline what efforts she is making with online platforms to do more?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing that horrific case to the attention of the House. She is right to draw attention to the impact of social media and online abuse on violence against women and girls. It is why we are working across jurisdictions to try to tackle some of these crimes. We are bringing in the strongest protections against non-consensual intimate imagery, and we are working through the Online Safety Act 2023 and with our regulator, Ofcom, to hold social media accounts accountable. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology recently held a roundtable with the platforms to discuss what more we can do to tackle this heinous abuse. The Government have been clear: where the platforms refuse to act, the Government will.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I have noticed there is a lot of debate on the role of juries at the moment—nothing gets past me. It might be a better informed debate if the researchers and jurors could talk about what happens in the jury room. The Law Commission recommends decriminalising that so it cannot be a criminal offence. Will the Government do that in the Courts and Tribunals Bill?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is something that I will reflect on in the coming days.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
First, I thank Ministers for inviting me to a meeting yesterday on unduly lenient sentences. My constituent, Tracey Hanson, and other campaigners like her continue to raise powerful points on the need for victims to have parity with offenders on rights and support. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government intend to achieve that parity during this Parliament?
Jake Richards
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his attendance at yesterday’s meeting. The testimonies given by his constituent, Tracey, and other victims there were truly powerful. I said this at the meeting in private and I am happy to say it again at the Dispatch Box: we are working at pace to look at all the solutions. We will contact his constituent, and indeed him, as and when we have our position.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Given the massive immigration tribunal backlog left by the previous Government, would it not make more sense to lift the cap on non-salaried tribunal judges who are already recruited, and invest in court venues such as Taunton, instead of abolishing their role and doing massive damage to morale?
Sarah Sackman
Plainly, we have to address the backlogs in our immigration and asylum chamber. It is why we are maximising capacity in terms of sitting days and traditional recruitment. I had the pleasure of visiting the immigration and asylum chamber on Rosebury Avenue recently, and I saw the commendable work being done by the resident judge. We are focusing on a new appeals body, working with the Home Office. We think that is the better plan, and we will make sure it is properly resourced.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Last week, Flora Page KC resigned as a board member of the Legal Services Board. In her letter to the Lord Chancellor, she said that she could not stand idly by while he halved the number of jury trials and ripped the heart out of our constitution. She also rebutted the suggestion that backlogs are because of jury trials, saying that was being used as a “cover”. Faced with such a devastating critique, is it not time that the Department thought again?
Mr Lammy
I am sorry that Flora Page felt that she was no longer able to serve. We took very seriously Sir Brian’s recommendations that we would need to make more investment, that we would need to modernise —we are doing both of those—and that reform was essential. We put out the modelling because we are serious about bringing down the backlog to levels that are acceptable to the population at large.
Meningitis Outbreak
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the outbreak of meningococcal disease in Canterbury and east Kent.
My thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of the entire House, are with the families and friends of the two young people who have sadly died. I cannot begin to understand what they must be going through. This is an unprecedented outbreak. It is also a rapidly developing situation. With these considerations in mind, it is absolutely paramount that we stick to the facts, which is what I intend to do.
This is the current situation: as of 9.30 am today, the UK Health Security Agency has confirmed four cases of group B meningococcal disease, with another 11 cases under investigation. The two deaths are associated with this cluster. The majority of cases link back to the Club Chemistry nightclub over the dates of 5, 6 and 7 March, and their associated networks. Club Chemistry is currently closed voluntarily. Going forward, these figures will be updated publicly by UKHSA each day at 9.30 am.
Let me now turn to the timeline of this outbreak. UKHSA was notified about the first case on Friday 13 March. In line with established protocol, health officials began identifying and tracing the patient’s immediate close contacts, who were offered prophylactic antibiotics as a matter of urgency.
On Saturday, UKHSA was in touch with the University of Kent to ensure it had the necessary support, advice and guidance and to establish where the patient was living. Also on Saturday, the French authorities alerted UKHSA to a second confirmed case in France, from an individual who had attended the University of Kent. Both cases lived in private accommodation and at that stage there was no apparent link between the two.
At 7 pm on Saturday evening, hospitals reported that a number of severely unwell young adults were presenting with symptoms consistent with meningococcal disease. Contact tracing of these individuals began immediately and continued into Sunday morning, 15 March. All those traced were offered precautionary antibiotics. So far, 700 doses have been administered.
Recognising the scale of the potential outbreak, at 10 am on Sunday, UKHSA stood up a full-scale response, including preparations for more widespread distribution of antibiotics on campus. By 5 pm on Sunday those antibiotics were in place and distribution began to students in the two halls of residence where we were aware of cases, and by 6 pm, a public health alert was issued.
It is important that the House, and the wider public, understands that even before the public health alert was issued, students and young people who had been in close contact with suspected cases were being offered antibiotics. This is precisely what one would expect as a rapid response, and I am confident UKHSA acted as quickly and as comprehensively as possible.
In addition to cases involving students at the University of Kent, two cases were identified involving sixth-formers in year 13, one of whom has sadly died. The UKHSA made contact with the headteachers at both schools first thing on Monday morning and has worked closely with the schools to provide information, advice and support, including a letter to parents that was issued the same day. We are working closely with the Department for Education on wider communications to schools across the Kent area, and a briefing with schools has taken place this morning.
The strain associated with this outbreak is meningitis B, known as menB. It is an uncommon but, as we have seen, serious and potentially lethal strain of meningococcal disease. The onset of illness is often sudden, and early diagnosis and treatment with antibiotics are vital. It does not spread very easily. The bacteria are passed to others after a long period of close contact—for example, through living with someone in shared accommodation, through prolonged kissing, or through sharing vapes and drinks. However, the symptoms are easily mistaken for other common conditions, and even for something like a hangover.
Let me set out the current advice from the UKHSA. Anyone who attended Club Chemistry on 5, 6 or 7 March, and anyone who believes that they were in close contact with someone who is confirmed or suspected to have meningitis, should attend a treatment centre and receive antibiotics. There are four centres open in Canterbury today, with 11,000 doses available on site. Details about the location of those centres are available on the UKHSA website and are being promoted by the UKHSA, the NHS, my Department, schools and the university, as well as the BBC, and I encourage all media outlets to do the same. There is no need to book an appointment.
A single course of antibiotics is highly effective in preventing the contraction and spread of this disease in 90% of cases. If you become worried about yourself, your child or a friend, particularly if symptoms are getting worse, please seek medical help urgently. Anyone with symptoms should call NHS 111 or, in an emergency, dial 999 to seek medical attention.
People are understandably asking about a vaccine. From 2015, the menB vaccine has been available on the NHS as part of routine childhood immunisations, but clearly most students will not be vaccinated. Given the severity of the situation, I can confirm to the House that we will begin a targeted vaccination programme for students living in halls of residence at the University of Kent in Canterbury, which will begin in the coming days. The UKHSA will provide further advice on other cohorts in the coming days.
On the question of wider eligibility, we obviously follow the expert independent advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. In the light of this latest outbreak, I will ask it to re-examine eligibility for meningitis vaccines. I will do so without prejudicing its decision, because we have to follow the clinical advice on this. I will keep the House updated as the situation unfolds, and I commend this statement to the House.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for the clarity that he has provided to the House this afternoon. Our thoughts are also with the families of the two young people who have so tragically lost their lives—I cannot imagine the pain that they must be going through at this difficult time. This will also be an extremely distressing time for parents, students, staff and the wider community across the south-east, especially as I understand that two more cases have just been announced. Yesterday, friends of mine were very anxious about their own son, who was in the vicinity over the weekend. I pay tribute to the NHS staff, public health teams, school and university leaders, and all those working at pace to respond.
I welcome what the Secretary of State has set out on the daily publication of figures, the scale-up of antibiotic provision and the decision to introduce a targeted vaccination programme for students in halls of residence, alongside seeking further advice from the JCVI. However, a number of important questions remain. First, concerns have been raised out there on the timeline. The Secretary of State has set out the sequence of events in detail, but can he be clear about the threshold used for wider public communication? Is that threshold being reviewed in the light of this outbreak? He also set out that headteachers were contacted on Monday morning. Can he clarify when those schools were first identified, and whether there is a need to review how quickly educational settings are brought into the response, given that cases were identified several days beforehand?
Secondly, turning to the nature of the outbreak, while many cases are linked to a single venue, can the Secretary of State confirm whether all cases are believed to be part of one cluster, or whether there remains a risk of multiple sources of infection? Thirdly, on escalation, given the involvement of both a university and schools, can he set out what criteria are being used to determine when more extensive interventions are required across educational settings? This situation will undoubtedly cause concern among families, particularly with the end of term approaching.
Can the Secretary of State therefore set out what steps are being taken to manage the risk of onward spread as students return home, and what advice is being provided to families and local health services in other parts of the country? Can he also confirm that public health messaging is fully consistent across schools, GPs, local authorities and NHS services, so that families receive clear advice wherever they turn? What steps are being taken to counter misinformation online, where false claims may undermine confidence in public health advice? Can he also confirm that local laboratories, intensive care capacity and public health teams are fully resourced to manage any increase in cases, and that supply chains for antibiotics and vaccines are resilient, should further clusters emerge?
Finally, although I welcome the targeted vaccination programme and the decision to seek further advice from the JCVI, the Secretary of State has acknowledged that most students will not have been routinely vaccinated against meningitis B, and protection among older teenagers is clearly not as strong as it is in infancy. Does he accept that this creates a particular vulnerability among older teenagers and young adults, and will he ensure that any further advice on eligibility or wider catch-up measures is brought forward as quickly as possible?
This is a serious public health situation. It is right, though, that the response remains calm, evidence-led, and focused on protecting patients and supporting those families affected.
Wes Streeting
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his constructive response and support as we respond to this incident, and I welcome the way in which he has rightly brought scrutiny to the response. I should say from the outset that once we are through this, we will obviously look at the handling of the UKHSA’s response at every point, because there are always things that we can learn from and seek to do better.
The balance that needed to be struck in the public communication was to ensure that people were informed in a timely way, but also that, first, we did not spread unnecessary anxiety and concern, and secondly, having been made aware of the risk, there was a channel through which people could receive support. As I set out in the timeline, in response to individual cases, thorough contact tracing was undertaken and antibiotics were offered in cases of direct contact. By 5 pm on Sunday, the antibiotics were more widely available, and public communication went out at 6 pm. The schools were identified over the course of Sunday—that was not a straightforward experience.
The two schools identified, Simon Langton grammar school and Queen Elizabeth’s grammar school in Faversham, were both contacted first thing on Monday. We are also looking at Norton Knatchbull school in Ashford, where there may potentially be another case. We are working closely with those schools and have stood up wider school briefing. We will look carefully at whether we could have done more, and more quickly, to identify those schools and make contact ahead of Monday morning.
The shadow Secretary of State asked about the criteria for educational settings and the wider availability of vaccinations. We are looking at this issue actively with the UKHSA and will make announcements about further cohorts in the coming days. Turning to local NHS capacity, the NHS in the south-east region is supporting the UKHSA, which is the lead agency, in the response to the bacterial meningitis outbreak. Kent and Medway integrated care board has stood up, and is currently operating, a hub at the University of Kent site to deliver prophylaxis to students, and a second site has also been opened. We have obviously made sure that appropriate support is in place for hospitals responding to patients presenting at those hospitals.
The shadow Secretary of State asked about the supply of antibiotics and vaccinations. We are confident that we have the right levels in place to respond, and as we think about potentially widening cohorts, we will obviously make sure that supplies are available in a timely and effective way.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I particularly welcome his announcement that he is reviewing the ongoing use of the vaccine and considering expanding it to a wider cohort. Given that the University of Kent also has campuses in Medway, could he inform me what work he is doing with the university to ensure that the spread across other campuses is monitored on a regular basis, and that if there is any potential for this outbreak to spread further, it is being reviewed regularly?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, which raises an important point—the shadow Secretary of State also raised it—about public health information. There are exams taking place at the University of Kent this week, but many students may have returned home, and indeed there will be some students at the University of Kent in Canterbury who commute in from the surrounding area. We have four sites available on and around the campus: the senate building at the University of Kent, the Gate clinic at Kent and Canterbury hospital on Ethelbert Road in Canterbury, Westgate Hall in Canterbury, and the Carey building at the Thanet community health hub in Broadstairs, which is planned to be open from Tuesday 17 March. We are also making sure that students who have gone home and who may wish to access antibiotics because of risk factors or concern about symptoms are able to contact their GPs and receive support locally.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. Like other hon. Members who have spoken, first and foremost my thoughts are with the family and friends of the two young people who have lost their lives, and everyone who has been touched by this devastating outbreak. It is understandable that many young people and their families will be feeling anxious. With that in mind, is the Secretary of State confident that this outbreak is contained and has not yet spread beyond those present at the initial event?
It is not unreasonable for young people and their families elsewhere in the country to be wondering whether they should be seeking catch-up vaccines. Young people will not have been protected by the menB vaccine that is available to those born after 2015. Is the Secretary of State confident that there is sufficient stock to deliver protection to all those who need it? As well as talking to the JCVI, will he involve Meningitis Now, which has called for teenagers and young people born prior to 2015 to be vaccinated against meningitis B on the NHS?
Vaccination rates are falling in the UK, including for meningitis. For that reason, all politicians and political parties have a moral duty to support science over conspiracy theories. It is deeply regrettable that certain parties have not been responsible in this respect in recent months, and I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues are worried that these avoidable deaths will become more common should a conspiracy theory narrative persist. We must encourage those communities and healthcare workers who are not currently taking up vaccines to do so. We must build trust, tackle disinformation and encourage people—regardless of where they live—to take up lifesaving vaccines.
Wes Streeting
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her response, and I strongly endorse what she said about the importance of vaccination. When it comes to determining which vaccines are available and to which cohort, we follow the advice of the JCVI, but if one good thing can come out of this awful situation, I hope it is general public awareness of the importance of taking up vaccinations where they are available. They remain one of the best public health tools available to us.
On the one hand, it is a very good thing that few people alive in this country today remember the dark days when this country did not have a national health service and did not have vaccination available for common treatments. It is wonderful that we now live in a country where the memories of some of those everyday conditions being widespread killers are distant, but there is also a real risk of a return to those Victorian conditions, because of the misinformation and irresponsible anti-science political positioning that we see in certain corners of even this House. I hope that politicians in particular will think carefully and responsibly about our shared duty to the public in helping people be protected.
On the specific concerns that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson raised, the public health risk to the wider population remains low, but we are actively contact tracing and offering antibiotic prophylaxis to those in close contact with cases. The antibiotics are one course, and they are effective in 90% of cases. I once again emphasise to those watching that if you or someone you know develops symptoms of meningitis or septicaemia, you should seek medical help urgently by calling 111 or 999, particularly if symptoms deteriorate. If you are one of those students at the University of Kent who may have left campus and would otherwise have been visiting one of those four sites, we are making arrangements for you to be able to see your GP and receive the antibiotics there.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I pay tribute to all the health leaders in Kent and the school leaders for their calm and quick actions yesterday and over the weekend. I was able to get a briefing from UKHSA yesterday morning and also was able to visit my local hospital, the William Harvey, which has made immediate changes to accident and emergency to take care of those patients who are turning up. There is much speculation on social media and in local newspapers that vape sharing might be the reason behind this outbreak. I am not asking the Secretary of State to comment on that speculation, but can he reinforce the public health message? Can he offer advice to young people and parents in the Kent area on precautions they should be following at this time?
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the local health system and for engaging so actively with my Department and the UKHSA team in response to this incident. He is absolutely right to press on public advice. It might be helpful to be clear that transmission requires close and prolonged contact, such as someone living in the same household or intimate contact such as kissing or the sharing of vapes or drinks. It is those sorts of things where the risk of spread exists. This disease is not like some of the other respiratory conditions that we have seen recently. It is important that people understand how it is spread, because they may find that reassuring. A range of symptoms can present, including a rash that does not fade when pressed with a glass, the sudden onset of high fever, a severe and worsening headache, stiff neck, vomiting and diarrhoea, joint and muscle pain, dislike of bright lights, very cold hands and feet, seizures, confusion or delirium, and extreme sleepiness or difficulty waking. Those symptoms can also apply to a wide range of other conditions. As ever, if in doubt, the best thing to do is to seek medical advice, whether that is calling 111, or in an emergency dialling 999, or seeing your GP. I urge everyone to share the public health information that is disseminating online, so that we can spread facts rather than misinformation.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I share my condolences with those families and communities affected by this outbreak. I cannot begin, as the Secretary of State said, to imagine what they must be thinking and feeling during this time. I also thank those staff who have been involved in the response. I echo the Secretary of State’s hope that from this tragedy will come greater public awareness, but may I add that there should be an increased laser-like focus on vaccination and immunisation from the highest levels of Government? He may be aware that the Select Committee did a one-off inquiry into vaccination and immunisation. I have to be honest with him: our letter to the Department is one of the strongest we have ever sent. We have deep concerns. We use words such as “complacent”, although I do not think that applies to this specific case. I believe that UKHSA has taken this matter incredibly seriously and the mobilisation has happened, although that is despite, not because of, the level of underlying resilience in the system. Will the Secretary of State undertake to look at what we have sent him and his Department? Will he undertake to lead the response himself, not just on this incident but on all vaccination trends in this country from now on?
Wes Streeting
May I first welcome what the Chair of the Select Committee has said about the response to this incident? She is right to press more broadly on vaccination. The winter campaign that we have just run was more successful than last winter’s, but on her point about complacency, I would be the first to say that even with that improvement, we are still not doing well enough as a country on vaccination rates. I am particularly concerned about childhood vaccination. I can give her the assurance that I and our new public health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson)—I welcome her to the Front Bench—will look at that issue carefully. We take it seriously, and we will reply directly to the Committee with actions and with the seriousness that the letter warrants. To reassure the Chair of the Select Committee, I am already talking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education about what more the Department for Education, the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care can do together to ensure that we improve childhood immunisation as well as wider vaccine uptake across the population.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
My heart also goes out to everyone affected by this terrible and unfolding tragedy. I think particularly of my constituents in Sittingbourne and Sheppey, many of whom are students who attend the universities in Canterbury or who go to school in Faversham. Many are staff there, too. It will be particularly hard on my constituent, Sue, whose son died of meningitis a few years ago. She has been tirelessly campaigning for a change in the law on the duty of care for people in those situations. Matthew would be alive today if action had been taken swiftly enough by the people who were with him. What more can we do to ensure that everyone on the ground across Kent and more widely knows what to do if they see the signs and symptoms of meningitis?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend raises such an important point. Let me, through him, convey my thoughts and condolences to Matthew’s family and, via them, to so many families across the country for whom the news headlines will be particularly painful, because they have lived through and are still living with grief and loss as a result of this devastating disease and the loss it can bring about. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to ensure not only that there is wider public understanding of the signs and the symptoms, but that we are not complacent about that within the health system. Sometimes, in busy A&E departments, GP practices or pharmacies, things can get missed. It is important that we that we pick those concerns up and act quickly. I know that there are views on vaccination and the need for more widespread vaccination. I have asked the JCVI to look at that, but we will follow the scientific evidence.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for his communications with me.
Juliette was a schoolgirl in year 13 at Queen Elizabeth grammar school in my constituency. She died of meningitis this weekend. Her headteacher said of her:
“She was incredibly kind, thoughtful and intelligent”,
and that she had been “treasured”. I too am a parent of a year 13 student and my heart goes out to Juliette’s family, and also to the family of the university student who has died.
Sixth-formers and university students mix in the same crowded venues in Canterbury, so the Government must fully consider the risk to schoolkids as well as the students in the universities. I am grateful to the NHS and the UKHSA for the action that they have already been taking locally, but many parents feel that they are not receiving enough information, and schools have also found themselves struggling to obtain guidance. May I ask the Secretary of State why there was no contact with schools until Monday, whether all school pupils who went to Club Chemistry have been identified and invited for treatment, and whether he will roll out the vaccination programme to local schools, including residential schools in the area?
Wes Streeting
I thank the hon. Member for repeating that wonderful and moving tribute to Juliette from her headteacher, which brings into sharp relief the devastating impact that this has had and the anxiety that many other parents will be feeling, in common with her. I also thank her for the proactive way in which she has been in contact with me and with the UKHSA over the weekend. She is asking the right questions. We will obviously review this and return to her and to the House with more detail, but I understand that on Sunday identifying the schools concerned posed some challenges and that contact was made on Monday morning. We need to look hard at whether more could and should have been done to be in touch with those particular schools on Sunday, but also with schools more generally.
The hon. Member was right to point out that there will have been other sixth-formers over the age of 18 in the nightclub, including, perhaps, some who should not have been there. It is important for us to have a grip on who those young people are, to ensure that they have access to high-quality health information and advice and know where to go if they are concerned. I am confident that the four hubs that I mentioned will reach those young people and that the flow of information is improving, but the hon. Member is right to press and probe on whether we could and should have been more effective in communicating with schools, as we certainly were in communicating with the university.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I echo his words and those of other Members about the tragic loss of two young lives to meningitis as a result of this outbreak. Many Dartford residents remain understandably concerned, and I therefore welcome his assurance and those of the UKHSA that the outbreak is linked to a very specific venue and event. It has of course been encouraging to see the swift action from health authorities, as well as local public health teams, to trace those who attended Club Chemistry, and to offer preventive antibiotics to tackle the outbreak. Can the Secretary of State confirm for my constituents that those who attended the club should go immediately to designated sites for antibiotics, and that anyone else experiencing symptoms should contact their GP or dial 111 as soon as they can?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is entirely right. I did not respond to a linked question from the shadow Secretary of State earlier, so let me let me respond to both questions now.
All cases are currently being treated as being connected with the Club Chemistry incident and cluster, but we are not taking that for granted: we remain open-minded and assess it continually as information comes in from patients and their families, which can take time because they are often very sick. Via the UKHSA, we are providing the opening times and locations of the four hubs. If people fear that they have been in close contact and are worried about the risk to themselves, they can come forward for antibiotics, which will be made available to them.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State and his team for their engagement with this awful situation in Canterbury. As he can imagine, all in my constituency have been devastated by the tragic death of Juliette Kenny and another student from this cruel disease, and I thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), for her lovely tribute to my constituent.
We have been inundated by questions from extremely worried constituents, and the Secretary of State has answered some of them in his statement. The main question has been about the roll-out of the vaccine, and I was really pleased to hear that that will happen soon. Worried parents and vulnerable students are telling me that communications from their education settings are not consistently clear, and one school has been closed to those in year 13. What is the Secretary of State’s message about attendance in person?
There are reports from medics on the frontline in the hubs that the service has been overwhelmed by requests for antibiotics, with people presenting with mild colds and coughs. Will the Secretary of State make very clear once again exactly why and when people should turn up? The time for addressing the concerns about the roll-out of information is not now, but hopefully we can drill down on that when this horrible event is over.
Wes Streeting
I thank the hon. Member for her proactive approach over the weekend and in recent days, given the impact that this is having on her constituency and the devastating impact on her constituents. Let me reassure her about two things.
First, we are not advising that there should be school closures. I think it important once again to underscore the nature of the transmission of this disease, which is close personal contact, such as kissing, sharing vapes—which I am concerned about in the context of young people—and sharing drinks. Obviously, if people live together in a household, some of those things are even more likely to occur, but the general risk is low. I want people to think carefully about their own situation, but they should not be unnecessarily worried or anxious.
Secondly, on antibiotics access, students at schools who have had close contact with those who were at Club Chemistry can attend the sites that provide antibiotics. That message went out to all Kent schools this morning, so hopefully there will be an improvement in the flow and accuracy of information going to schools.
The hon. Member was absolutely right to say that once this incident has passed we will need to look back and reflect on what was done and when, and what we can learn from that. At the same time, I am keen to ensure that we are listening, getting active feedback from Members across the House, and improving in real time as well. We will keep these channels open, not just through questions today but through briefings with Members, so that we can get feedback from local elected representatives, which in the hon. Member’s case and others has been extremely valuable.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I send my condolences to the families affected, and to all those who have lost young lives to meningitis in the past. I welcome the Secretary of State’s targeted vaccine programme, as well as the roll-out to deliver antibiotics at pace. Vaccines are the most effective and powerful way in which to protect individuals and the community at large, but we know that infectious diseases mutate, and we must be ready. Will the Secretary of State commit to future work to examine the menB vaccine to ensure that it provides wider protection? Would it be considered as part of the package including the MMR vaccine that is offered to students and young people before they embark on life?
Wes Streeting
We can be proud in the United Kingdom that this was the first country in the world to roll out the menB vaccine. As for who might be eligible in the future and on what basis, we always rely on the advice of the JCVI, which is independent and is based on the data and on scientific research. However, owing to the nature of this outbreak and the speed at which we have seen the disease spread, I am asking the JCVI to look again at the advice that it has provided, without prejudice to any decision that it might make. Given our most recent experience and what we have seen in recent days, I think it prudent for the JCVI to take those factors into consideration and issue fresh advice to the Government.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State and the medical teams who have responded incredibly quickly, particularly UKHSA, which has done a phenomenal job in tracing and in making sure that we have preparations in place. There are lessons to be learned, but we will park that for a moment.
May I ask about the antibiotics? People from not just east Kent but Tonbridge were at Club Chem on the relevant days and, for very understandable reasons, they do not particularly want to go all the way back to Canterbury; many of them are feeling rather nervous about it. Is there a reason why the antibiotics are not available in Tonbridge, as I have been told by one of the medical groups in the town? Is there a possibility that the antibiotics will be spread, so that people can receive them in other locations?
Wes Streeting
Following the right hon. Member’s question, I will ask whether expansion to Tonbridge would be a sensible thing to do, given the number of people who may have been in Club Chemistry on the relevant dates. I take his point about some people not being willing or able to travel to the four sites that have been made available in Broadstairs and Canterbury. None the less, and not least because some students have left university for the Easter break, we are making sure that GPs are able to prescribe antibiotics through the NHS. I know he is talking about different cases—they will not be students—but we will make sure that people can get access to antibiotics via their GP. If I have not fully answered his question—he is shaking his head—I will catch him after this session to make sure that I do.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
May I share my condolences with the friends and families of the two young people who have very sadly lost their lives? Nine years ago, I saw my own daughter have a 42-minute seizure. Thanks to the work of the NHS and the drugs, she recovered from meningitis B, but I know exactly how terrifying that situation can be. For lots of families around the country, their children are currently at university and are hundreds of miles away. What advice can the Secretary of State give families about the conversations they should have with their young people in Canterbury about the health advice that they should seek and the symptoms that they should look for?
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing his awful experience, and for once again emphasising the importance of good public health information and advice, including for parents whose students will still be in Canterbury and who may therefore be particularly worried. UKHSA is now advising anyone who visited Club Chemistry on 5, 6 or 7 March to come forward for preventive antibiotic treatment as a precautionary measure; it can be collected from four sites. If they or people they know develop symptoms of meningitis or septicaemia, they should urgently seek medical help by going to the nearest accident and emergency department or dialling 999. If it is not an emergency but people are concerned, they can contact their GP or NHS 111.
Symptoms of meningitis and septicaemia can include a rash that does not fade when pressed with a glass; a sudden onset of high fever; a severe and worsening headache; a stiff neck; vomiting and diarrhoea; joint and muscle pain; a dislike of bright lights; very cold hands and feet; seizures; confusion or delirium; and extreme sleepiness or difficulty waking. I want to underscore that the general risk of transmission is low and that it takes place through close, direct and prolonged personal contact through things like kissing or sharing vapes and drinks. We need to get the balance right between promoting awareness—people thinking about their own situation and whether any of these factors apply to them—and not spreading unnecessary anxiety, because most people, including the overwhelming majority of students at the universities and people in Canterbury, will not be at risk.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Our thoughts are with everyone involved in this matter, particularly all those who are dealing with it, including medical professionals, university staff and UKHSA. I understand that the Secretary of State’s immediate priority today will be this specific outbreak. Dr Amirthalingam from UKHSA was on BBC Radio 4 this morning and suggested that the progression of the outbreak is atypical. Will the Secretary of State give a reassurance that the devolved health authorities will be given updates if there is another atypical progression anywhere else in these islands?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Member is absolutely right about the atypical nature of this outbreak. I can reassure her and the House that UKHSA is in regular contact with the devolved Administrations.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
My heart goes out to the bereaved families affected by this terrible tragedy. Their pain must be unimaginable, and I wish those who are being treated in hospital a swift recovery. I commend UKHSA for its swift response; notwithstanding any lessons that need to be learned, it seems to have reacted very quickly and effectively. How confident can we be that the outbreak is contained within the identified area, and is there a contingency plan for any outbreaks in other areas? As a south-east London MP, I have concerned constituents.
Wes Streeting
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and I am mindful of the concerns of neighbouring communities across his part of London and the wider south-east. I can provide reassurance on two points. The general risk is low because of the nature of the transmission of this disease and because of the active contact tracing that is under way, on which UKHSA has done a particularly impressive job, given the unusual nature of this outbreak. We can be reasonably confident that we are tracing people and managing risk in that way. Even as students return home from university, we are managing the risk, proactively contacting people and making antibiotics available. We are preparing for a targeted vaccination campaign in the coming days, but we are also considering the wider cohorts that UKHSA may deem necessary to vaccinate.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I know from my time in medicine that all those involved in combating this outbreak will be working at pace, and they have our utmost respect. However, there will be concern about the report in The Independent in the last hour or so that certain pharmacies in the region are running out of or running low on the menB vaccine. Will the Secretary of State commit to looking into that personally and ensure that we get a robust supply chain?
Wes Streeting
I can understand that some people may choose to buy the vaccine, but I will reassure the hon. Gentleman on two points. First, we have a significant stockpile of vaccines. Secondly, we are taking an evidence-based approach to vaccination, starting with the targeted vaccination programme that UKHSA is preparing. We are thinking about additional cohorts, and we always keep an eye on our medicine supply more generally.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his statement. Parents of teenagers and students across the country will be looking on with increasing anxiety. What is the Secretary of State’s advice to parents in other parts of the country, particularly those in the Kent area? What exactly are the symptoms that they should be looking for?
Wes Streeting
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and I know that lots of parents will be concerned about this issue. As I have said, the first thing that individuals should do is think about their risk of exposure. We have already made available the four hubs for people to come forward and get antibiotics, and we will continue to contact people actively and trace the outbreak.
As I have previously said, there is a range of symptoms: a rash that does not fade when pressed with a glass; a sudden onset of high fever; a severe and worsening headache; a stiff neck; vomiting and diarrhoea; joint and muscle pain; a dislike of bright lights; very cold hands and feet; seizures; confusion or delirium; and extreme sleepiness or difficulty waking. Those symptoms can apply to a range of conditions, but it is good to be cautious. Students who may have been at Club Chemistry on the dates concerned should not write off some of the symptoms as a hangover. It is better to be reassured than to be ignorant, so seeking medical attention and advice is the right thing to do, rather than simply writing off the symptoms as something else. I urge parents to give that advice to young people, and students to follow the advice.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Meningitis is one of the worst nightmares that parents worry about, particularly when their teenagers leave home and are living away. My constituent Vicki Purdey from Corfe Mullen had her life changed by meningitis two years ago, and she is still unable to walk unaided. She is calling for meningitis awareness in schools, particularly via PSHE lessons, and at university through freshers’ packs. Will the Secretary of State talk to his colleagues in the Department for Education to progress this, given the high-risk nature of those in this age group and the fact that they will not have been vaccinated as they were born before 2015?
Wes Streeting
I think that is a really constructive suggestion, and we will absolutely look at it.
In reply to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who had left us but has just returned fleetingly to his place—it is an amazing skill he has—I think his question was about the availability of antibiotics in Tonbridge, not necessarily at a distribution centre. I would just reassure him that there are sufficient antibiotic stocks at the university, hospitals and the ambulance service, and we are working with local resilience partners to ensure effective distribution. However, I will pick up his point about Tonbridge, given the proximity and the likelihood that many residents will have been at the club in question.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I join other hon. Members in sending my condolences to the families of the students who have died. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, I was once upon a time the National Union of Students officer responsible for national health campaigning, and a meningitis outbreak on campus was always one of our great anxieties. We used to run awareness campaigns that, as we know from feedback at the time, enabled students to be aware of the symptoms and get urgent medical treatment.
Although this is a localised outbreak, there will obviously be anxiety among parents and students across the country. Would the Department work with the national meningitis charities, the National Union of Students and university authorities to run a national awareness campaign, so that the symptoms he has outlined are fully understood, and students are aware of them and can understand what to do if they spot them?
Wes Streeting
Like my hon. Friend, I am a member of the NUS mafia in this place, and I well understand the enormous value that students’ unions bring to promoting student welfare and raising awareness. I think he is absolutely right about the risks of meningitis and other infectious diseases on university campuses, and to suggest that we should work with the meningitis charities, the NUS, student unions and others to see what more we can do not just in response to this outbreak in Kent, but more generally to raise awareness among groups of students, who, because of the nature of their studying and living conditions, can be more prone to the spread of infectious diseases.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks: the thoughts of all of us in this House are with the families of those, tragically, who have died and all those who have been affected.
While there are understandably questions about vaccination and antibiotic eligibility, it is important that decisions continue to be guided by clinical experts, and in this country we have some of the best in the world. I welcome the Secretary of State asking the JCVI to review the eligibility criteria, but will he please be unequivocal—I think he has alluded to this—in saying that he will continue to be guided by its expert clinical advice in any decisions he subsequently makes?
Wes Streeting
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that question and making that point. It sometimes feels that barely a month, if not a week, goes by in this job when I am not regularly exhorted to make a political decision overriding clinical advice. I think that is the wrong thing to do and it sets a dangerous precedent, particularly when others in this House might be minded to make ideological judgments about science and medicine that are neither good science nor good medicine. There is an important principle to defend here, which is that where we are making clinical decisions, they should be based on good, high-quality clinical advice on the basis of robust evidence and data. I give him the assurance that I will continue to follow clinical advice, and he is absolutely right to raise this particular point of principle.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and join him in expressing our sympathies with and condolences to the families who have lost young people in recent days.
Obviously, parents and students are very concerned at the moment, and there are reports online that private pharmacies are selling vaccinations for several hundreds of pounds. Can the Secretary of State assure this House that NHS England and the Department of Health are monitoring any possible price gouging on vaccinations and that there is no profiteering following these tragic events?
I echo the comments of the Chair of the Health Committee. We recently looked at vaccinations, and there have recently been a number of outbreaks of different diseases across the country, some of which are associated with declining vaccination rates—although that is not directly related to this incident. Will the Secretary of State update us on his thoughts about whether the last Government’s 2023 vaccination strategy needs a fresh look in order to deal with both uptake and responses to outbreaks?
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent work he does as a member of the Select Committee, and reassure him that we are taking the Committee’s letter and advice very seriously. I think he is right to ask us to look again at the 2023 strategy.
I also reassure my hon. Friend that to price gouge or profiteer in this situation would be a totally immoral and irresponsible thing to do. More generally, we are not advising the public to pay for a vaccine. If it is decided that any vaccination is required, that will be offered on the NHS. The menB vaccine is already offered to infants, and the menACWY vaccine, for adolescents and young adults, is free on the NHS. That is the advice. I understand that people may wish to make individual choices, but the advice stands, and I would urge people not to allow themselves to be ripped off by those trying to exploit understandable public anxiety.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have heard a suggestion that this type of meningitis is more widespread in some countries than in others. Is there any truth in that, and if there is, would there be wisdom in suggesting to young people travelling to the countries concerned that they ought to add the vaccination as a prophylactic against that possibility?
Wes Streeting
I am not sure about the point of prevalence, but we will look carefully at the genesis of this outbreak. Of course, in common with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser), we will think about what advice ought to be offered. As ever when it comes to travel advice, we rely on the evidence available, and with our partners at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, we regularly offer good travel advice to British citizens travelling abroad where there may be exposure to greater health risks.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Given that we are nearing the Easter holidays, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland about ensuring that students travelling home are aware of the situation and the need to take precautions?
Wes Streeting
I reassure the hon. Member that UKHSA is in close contact with all the devolved Administrations to make sure they understand the nature of this outbreak, what we are seeing and how we are responding, and we are also helping the devolved Administrations to manage risk through contact tracing. We will continue that regular contact.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Obviously, we are rapidly approaching the time when, right across the country, university students will be dispersing and heading away from halls of residence and their campuses. What actions is the Secretary of State taking—working not just with universities, but with health authorities and other bodies right around the country—to make sure that any cases that may be dispersed around the country are quickly acted on?
Wes Streeting
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I can reassure him that, through partners in the NHS, we are ensuring that antibiotics are available to GPs to prevent students from necessarily having to return to Canterbury, especially if they have travelled a long distance to get home. There is obviously a widespread public awareness of the outbreak, so in all our NHS settings there will be a particular vigilance for these types of cases, which are rapidly reported. I am also reassured by the extent to which contact tracing with UKHSA is effective, and people are responding accordingly.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I, too, would like to express my condolences to the families and loved ones of the two young people who have passed away, and send my best wishes to those who are in hospital. As the father of a daughter at university, I cannot imagine what they must be going through.
Many students have expressed to newspapers such as The Guardian their concerns about returning home where they have vulnerable loved ones, citing a mother coming back from hospital or those who live with their grandparents. Does the Health Secretary have any advice for students returning home to loved ones on not spreading the disease to them?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. It is worth bearing in mind that the transmission of this particular disease is through close and prolonged personal contact. Therefore, the risk of transmission is much lower than other outbreaks of disease we have seen in this country in recent years, in particular respiratory diseases and some of the concerns people had around flu over the winter. We are actively contact tracing and making antibiotics available. It is for individuals to make their own judgments about their own risk of exposure, and what that means in terms of close personal contact. More generally, if students returning home from university are sat next to someone on a train, for example, that is not close prolonged personal contact. I hope that reassures people that, through contact tracing, the availability of antibiotics and the standing up of the targeted vaccination campaign, we are actively managing the risk of transmission, and that the risk to the general public is very low.
Middle East
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
I would like to update the House on the conflict in the middle east. Since the start of the conflict, we have seen Iran fire over 900 missiles and over 3,000 drones across 13 countries in the region—countries that are UK partners, and that hundreds of thousands of British citizens visit, work in or live in. Regional air defences have intercepted the vast majority of Iranian strikes, but in recent days we have seen damage to oil export infrastructure, gas facilities, ports and airports, and restrictions on the strait of Hormuz, with major consequences for the global economy; there are impacts on the UK economy, too. US and Israeli strikes across Iran are continuing. We have also seen attacks from Iranian proxy groups, and troubling escalation in Lebanon. The UK is continuing our support for British nationals in the region, our defensive military support for partners against Iranian strikes, and our intensive diplomatic activity on both security and economic issues in the UK national interest.
In Riyadh a few days ago, I saw the work to get British nationals home from across the region, and how we are protecting our people and our partners. I stressed the UK’s support and solidarity as I met counterparts from across the Gulf. Over the last week alone, I have held discussions with my counterparts from all six nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, and with the US, Israel, key European allies and other regional partners. We want the swiftest possible resolution to the crisis to bring security and stability back to the region, and to stop Iran’s threats to its neighbours and its efforts to hijack the global economy.
The events in the middle east have consequences around the world and affect our security and our prosperity here in the UK. Our response is based on clear principles and calm leadership: we will support UK households under pressure; we will protect our people in the region; and we will defend our allies under attack. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we will not be drawn into a wider war; nor will we outsource our foreign policy. Our decisions will be based on UK values and the UK national interest.
Let me update the House on support for British nationals in the region. At the outset of the crisis, more than 300,000 British citizens were in the region. When the air strikes started and airspace closed, many were stuck. Since then, we have been working relentlessly to help them get home. That has been a complex task. Our 24/7 crisis response centre has been working with our embassies, partner Governments and the rapid deployment teams we sent to operate on the ground. We have worked closely with airlines and laid on additional Government charter flights from Muscat and Dubai. We estimate that the number of British nationals who will have flown back from the region since the start of the war will today reach 100,000. We continue to monitor the situation to provide the latest advice, but I want to put on record my sincere thanks to all those involved in the tireless efforts to support British nationals abroad and to bring British citizens home.
Turning to the conflict, as the Prime Minister set out to Parliament, we took the decision not to be involved in the initial US strikes, or to join any offensive operations. We have taken a different position on that from the US and Israel, based on what is in the UK national interest. When Iran began to target other countries across the region, putting our partners and citizens in danger, we took the further decision to support defensive action. In Saudi Arabia, I have seen the air defences that the British Army is helping to operate to counter drones. We discussed additional defence assets, which were pre-deployed by my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary to the region before the conflict began, and we have increased support since. We have jets operating from sovereign base areas in Cyprus, and eight in Qatar, including in the joint UK-Qatari squadron. As I speak, British Typhoons and F-35s are flying in defence of the eastern Mediterranean and across Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq. The UK’s defensive military action is supporting the wider region, with four extra Typhoons, three Wildcat helicopters and a Merlin helicopter already deployed. We are increasing our naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean, as HMS Dragon and RFA Lyme Bay approach. As the House is aware, we have given permission for US forces to use long-standing basing at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to support defensive strikes against the ballistic missiles that are targeting the Gulf, but let me confirm again the point that the Prime Minister made last week: our Cyprus base is not being used in those US operations.
We want to see an end to this war as quickly as possible. The longer it goes on, the more dangerous the situation becomes, and the more pressure on the cost of living here at home. Iran’s capabilities have been massively degraded, but the conflict has confirmed the threat that the regime poses through its weapons and its proxies, and why for so long there has been an international determination that Iran should never be able to develop nuclear weapons. As the conflict eases or ends, we will need some form of negotiated agreement to contain and constrain the future threats from ballistic missiles, drones, proxies and Iran’s nuclear programme, and to safeguard international shipping.
In the past seven days, we have seen Iran particularly focus its strikes on economic infrastructure in the Gulf: oilfields in Saudi; ports in Oman; strikes against commercial ships from Thailand and Malta; and threatened mines in the strait of Hormuz. Iran is seeking to hijack the global economy. It is holding hostage supplies of oil, gas and fertiliser, affecting prices and supply chains across the globe, threatening the cost of living here at home, and causing real worry for our constituents across the country. That is why the Prime Minister laid out yesterday how the Government will stand up for working people here in Britain, including by providing support for households with heating oil costs, and by maintaining the energy price cut and cap. Last week, we joined 31 other countries in the biggest co-ordinated release of oil in the International Energy Agency’s history, while maintaining our economic pressure and sanctions on Russia. As we welcome President Zelensky to London today, we are determined that war in the Gulf must not become a windfall for Putin. We continue to stand with Ukraine.
Reopening the strait of Hormuz is vital for market stability, and for the cost of living for British households. However, as the Prime Minister has said, this is a serious and complex issue, and there is no easy fix. We are discussing this with international partners in Europe and Asia, Gulf partners and the US. These discussions are separate from the conflict itself, as the US has said; countries around the world have been clear that they do not want to see escalation, or be drawn into a wider conflict, but they do want to see the strait open and functioning, and they do not want to see the fundamental principle of freedom of navigation undermined. Because it is an international shipping lane, multiple nations need to be involved in planning the way forward. Our discussions will continue to reflect serious, expert military and commercial assessments of what is credible and feasible, so that commercial shipping can return as soon as possible, as the conflict subsides.
I turn to Lebanon, which I am extremely concerned is on the precipice of a widening conflict that risks disastrous humanitarian consequences. In recent days, I have spoken to the Lebanese Prime Minister and the Israeli Foreign Minister, as well as holding discussions with the US, France and other European and Gulf partners. We need urgent diplomatic action to avert further escalation, but amid that danger, it is possible that there is also a moment of diplomatic opportunity, and we must bring all support and pressure to bear so that it is seized and not squandered.
Let me set out the UK position. First, we condemn the appalling attacks by Lebanese Hezbollah, which has fired hundreds of rockets at northern Israel. This must cease immediately. The actions of this proscribed terrorist group, at the instigation of the Iranian regime, are once again drawing the people of Lebanon into a conflict that they do not want and that is not in their interests.
Secondly, we support the sovereignty of Lebanon. We welcome the commitments made by the Lebanese Government, including the significant decision to ban Hezbollah’s military activities, and we will continue to support the Lebanese armed forces—they, not Hezbollah, are the sole legitimate defender of Lebanon.
Thirdly, we are extremely worried about the civilian consequences of current Israeli operations. An estimated 1,000 people have been killed, and one in seven Lebanese civilians have reportedly been displaced from their homes. This scale of humanitarian displacement is unacceptable and risks devastating consequences. This weekend, I announced that the UK would provide an additional £5 million in essential humanitarian aid, and today I can announce a further £10 million of humanitarian support to provide emergency medical care, shelter and other lifesaving assistance in Lebanon and the region. This will help prevent further displacement and instability that would risk escalating regional problems and have a wider impact on other countries beyond the region.
Fourthly, we believe that diplomatic progress can be made, as there is a shared interest across Lebanon and Israel in seeing an end to the Hezbollah threats and seeing peace and stability return. Both the Lebanese and Israeli Governments have expressed an interest in joint talks. We strongly support this path, the framework for which is in Security Council resolution 1701, as it presents the best route to lasting peace, security and stability beyond the region. The UK stands ready to provide diplomatic support to this process.
This conflict in the middle east is affecting countries across the region and the world. These global events are impacting our security and economy here at home. This Government are resolute in our determination to protect the safety, security and prosperity of British people and our partners. We are pursuing the swiftest possible resolution to the conflict, and security and stability, in the national interest of the United Kingdom. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I want to put on the record the thanks of the Opposition to our brave armed forces in the region and to those en route, as well as our thanks to the diplomatic and consular staff for all their efforts to support the quarter of a million British nationals in the region. We also thank our GCC allies for their care in hosting the thousands of British nationals who have returned home via their commercial carriers—Emirates and Etihad Airways—through the air corridor that they secured.
British nationals in the region, our assets and interests, and our allies continue to be on the receiving end of indiscriminate targeting by Iran’s despotic regime. As our friends in the GCC have said, the regime has pursued a nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programme, and sponsors terrorist proxies, whose destabilising activities across the region and interference in domestic affairs of state have threatened us all. The world would be a safer place free from the tyrants of Tehran.
While Iran attacks our military bases, targets British nationals, holds Lindsay and Craig Foreman captive and indiscriminately fires missiles and drones on its neighbours, we cannot stay silent or inactive. The UAE’s Minister of International Co-operation, Her Excellency Reem Al Hashimy, has called Iran’s actions “unhinged”. Our friends in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have rightly stated that Iran must stop the attacks on economic infrastructure. We have consistently called on the Government to work closely with our friends in the Gulf. We must back our allies in their attempts to safeguard their regional airspace, freedom of navigation and economic and national security. Given the concerns that they have raised in recent weeks, what assurances and confidence did the Foreign Secretary give our friends in the Gulf about the depth and reliability of our support to them? What specific commitments did she make to them about better protecting our bases and allies in the region? The way that our friends and close security partners who host British armed forces have been subjected to outrageous, unprovoked aggression has been painful to watch. Britain cannot stand by while our allies do the heavy lifting to protect us all.
Take Bahrain, for example, with whom we signed the C-SIPA—comprehensive security integration and prosperity agreement—in 2024. I am yet to receive a substantive answer from the Government on how we are mobilising the agreement to better protect our ally and our naval base near Manama. What commitments has the Foreign Secretary given to ensure that British assets would be made available to bolster our allies’ defences? Will minehunter vessels be returning to our base in Bahrain, and will a destroyer, which can take down projectiles, be in the region?
What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with Israeli Ministers on the Iranian-backed terrorist organisation Hezbollah, whose actions are undermining regional stability and the Lebanese Government and causing terrible hardship for both the Lebanese and Israeli people? Can she advise the House on any actions that the British Government are taking to support practical efforts to see Hezbollah disarmed? What is her assessment of the capacity of the Lebanese armed forces to deal with this threat?
Earlier this month, the Minister for the Middle East summoned Iran’s terrorist representative in London. What was discussed? Will the Foreign Secretary summon him again? Has she held any direct discussions with her Iranian counterpart?
As well as threatening regional security, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps threatens our homeland. It has been designated a terrorist organisation by every corner of the world, including the United States, the European Union, many members of the GCC and our Commonwealth partner, Canada. At this time of war, why does the UK diverge from the rest of the world? What leverage over Iran are the Government exacting for taking the position of not acting? If the Government bring forward legislation to proscribe the IRGC, the Opposition will stand ready to work with them. That also applies to the source of funding of the Iranian regime—what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking with our partners to cut off the financial flows that fund the Iranian regime through the international financial system?
The Foreign Secretary referred to her conversation with Secretary Rubio. Can she confirm that Britain is being kept informed of US actions, both militarily and diplomatically? What kind of agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme would she find acceptable, given the Government’s preference for a negotiated settlement? What is her assessment of the international efforts to reopen the strait of Hormuz? I say that following the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday about a new viable collective plan. What are the details of that plan?
Finally, Iran’s close friend Putin must not profit from this conflict in the middle east. What is the coalition of the willing doing to collapse Putin’s financial flows, make the shadow fleet unviable and stop refineries in India, China and Turkey buying Russian crude oil and funding Putin’s assault on Ukraine? Will the Foreign Secretary also join me in commending our Ukrainian friends for their support of our Gulf allies, when they themselves are under constant attack? This is a consequential moment for the world, and strong and consistent British leadership is required.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her questions; I will take each in turn. Not only are we working immensely closely with our Gulf colleagues and partners, but we are providing them with direct military defensive support, including with our F-35s and Typhoons, which are in operation over the region. We are taking action, including against drones, and providing basing support against the ballistic launchers and missiles that are targeted at the Gulf. We will continue to work closely with those partners, including looking to the future to see how we can support them with the latest anti-drone technology, learning from the experiences of Ukraine.
I have had discussions with the Israeli and Lebanese Governments on Lebanon and the threat from the terrorist group, Lebanese Hezbollah, and the threat from that Iranian-backed organisation is clear. Once again, it has been exposed in recent weeks as doing the bidding of the Iranian regime. Hezbollah does nothing to stand up for the Lebanese people.
On the IRGC, I gently point out to the right hon. Lady that she was Home Secretary for some time and did not introduce the legislation necessary to address some of the wider security issues. However, we continue to fully sanction not just the IRGC, but much more widely across the Iranian system, to keep up the pressure. We do so alongside our allies and alongside the defensive military operations that are in place. Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. That would be a threat not just to the region, but to the world. That is why I, alongside my French and German counterparts, led the work to ensure that we could trigger the snapback response to reintroduce sanctions on the Iranian regime back in October, before this conflict started. We will need to keep our focus on preventing not just the nuclear threat, but the ballistic threat, the proxy threat and the threat to the strait of Hormuz.
The issues around the strait are complex; that is the reality. That is why we need to ensure not only that we are guided by military and commercial expertise, but that planning is in place, drawing together countries across the world because there is international interest in the strait, and that is what we will continue to do.
Finally, I could not agree more with the shadow Foreign Secretary on her point about Russia and Ukraine. Russia and Putin cannot be allowed to benefit from this crisis. We see the long-standing links between Russia and Iran and the threat that both countries pose. Today, as we welcome President Zelensky to London, we continue our steadfast and, I believe, cross-party support for Ukraine. That support must continue, because we know that Ukraine’s security is our security.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and for her focus on the impact on our constituents from the fallout of this conflict. Specifically, what are our allies and partners in the region, who now find themselves under fire from Iran, asking of the UK Government, and are we able to deliver?
Yvette Cooper
When I met the Gulf Co-operation Council, our partners welcomed our support and our long-standing commitment to their security, stability and territorial integrity. At the moment, they face challenges from the ballistic missiles threat, so we are providing basing in support of the US defensive operations. They also face threats from drones and cruise missiles, so we are providing jets to help strike them down and some of the long-standing air defences that I saw in Saudi. They also face significant economic threats, because Iran is now deliberately targeting their economic infrastructure to escalate the situation more widely. That is why we are working closely with them on a way forward for the strait of Hormuz.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat Spokesperson.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.
The war of Trump and Netanyahu—cheered on uncritically by Reform Members and the Conservatives—has put our citizens and troops in the region under immediate threat from Iran’s reckless retaliation, and worsened the cost of living crisis for households here in the UK. The Government’s first priority must be to protect our citizens, our troops and our allies facing unprovoked attacks. They must also take action on the huge cost increases here at home. I wish to put on record my party’s thanks to our brave service personnel for their work to keep our citizens safe.
We also now face the possibility of another major escalation. Reports suggest that a ground invasion of Lebanon by Israeli defence forces is imminent. Hezbollah is a brutal terror organisation and must be disarmed, but that must be achieved by working with leaders in Beirut and through international organisations. Will the Foreign Secretary tell me what further steps she will take to pressure the Netanyahu Government to cease their devastating strikes on Lebanon, and pull back from plans for a ground offensive? Will she also set out what new steps the Government are taking to halt and reverse the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank?
The IRGC is also a terrorist organisation and should be proscribed here in the UK. Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why she has still not done that? We know that UK bases have now been used by the US to conduct strikes in Iran. The Prime Minister told this House that those strikes would be only defensive. To assure the House of that, it is crucial that the UK monitors the outcomes of US actions. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the Government have been supplied with that information by US forces or, if not, will she confirm whether the Government have asked for it?
It was wholly predictable that Iran would retaliate by closing the strait of Hormuz. Donald Trump has now made a shameless plea that NATO allies should clean up the mess that he initiated. Liberal Democrats are clear that we cannot afford to be dragged by Trump into this costly foreign adventure. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Government will seek to secure an emergency resolution from the UN Security Council, calling for a multilateral approach to reopening the strait of Hormuz? Will she commit to bringing a vote to this House before any UK forces are sent to operate in the strait?
Yvette Cooper
On Lebanon, as I made it clear in my statement, the threat from Lebanese Hezbollah is serious. This is a terrorist organisation that is doing the bidding of the Iranian regime, not standing up for the Lebanese people. The Israeli and Lebanese Governments have a shared interest in tackling Hezbollah, and there is an opportunity for both of them to engage in diplomatic talks and discussions, which we want to support. We urge Israel to support those talks and that process, and not to pursue the huge displacement of civilians, with all its humanitarian consequences. We want to see a shared set of operations against Hezbollah, including support for the Lebanese armed forces on that as well.
More widely, the hon. Member is right to recognise the support for our armed forces and the work that they are doing to secure the safety not just of British citizens in the region, but of our partners and the wider energy and economic infrastructure as well.
On the strait of Hormuz, the focus at the moment is on the practical measures that will help to restore shipping once the conflict subsides, and to ensure that Iran cannot continue with a long-term ability to hold the global economy hostage, which is affecting us here at home.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I commend the Prime Minister for his decision not to get involved in this war of choice. While we are all distracted by Israel’s illegal bombing of Iran and Lebanon, Israel has also occupied the west bank and, in the month of Ramadan, closed Masjid al-Aqsa, which is the third holiest Muslim site. It is in East Jerusalem, which, under international law, has been declared as being illegally occupied by Israel. This is a particularly pernicious and vindictive action. Can the Secretary of State please tell us what discussion she and the Foreign Office have had with their Israeli counterparts, and will she ask them to please reopen the Masjid al-Aqsa and allow the worshippers in, especially as Eid al-Fitr will be celebrated by the end of this week?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise real concerns about the escalation in the west bank. This is a critical issue—both for the west bank and the rights of Palestinian people in the west bank, and when it comes to addressing concerns around illegal settlements and settler violence—and it is fundamentally part of the wider issues around the peace process for Gaza and the future of a two-state solution. As we deal with the ongoing conflict in the middle east involving Iran, it is really important that we do not lose focus on the 20-point plan and wider issues around the west bank. We are continuing to raise these issues with the Israeli Government and more widely in the region and beyond.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If an Iranian rocket attack—hopefully this will never happen—successfully penetrated our defences and caused severe damage and casualties on a British base, is the Foreign Secretary ruling out any response by the RAF against the source, such as a battery, from which those missiles had been fired?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member will know that we are already taking defensive military action in support of our partners, against threats to them, and we take immensely seriously any threats to UK bases or military assets. He would not expect me to comment on operational issues, but he knows how seriously we take the UK’s military and defensive capabilities.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I commend my right hon. Friend on her statement, and I thank her and her offices for the safe return of two of my constituents who were caught up in the original bombings.
I support what my right hon. Friend says about the Government’s position not to get embroiled in this war of choice, but I note her equivocation around potential involvement in relation to the strait of Hormuz. If we are able to have further details about that, as appropriate, it would be really helpful. To what extent does she think that the international community’s lack of action—that includes from the UK—in holding Israel to account for its illegal actions in the west bank and Gaza has potentially made its action in Iran more likely?
Yvette Cooper
On the strait of Hormuz, I should be clear that the discussions that are under way are separate from the conflict, as the US itself has made clear. One thing that is being looked at is what is possible as the conflict ends or subsides. On the wider issue of Israeli operations in the west bank, I have myself raised these issues in the UN Security Council, and we will continue to do so. We take these issues immensely seriously. We also have to recognise the ongoing threats and challenges from the Iranian regime.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary said that the situation in the strait is complex, and so it is, but it is not that complex. Her Government or military must have war gamed this in the past, because it was foreseeable. Can she say when a plan will emerge and who she is discussing it with? Will she please reassure the House that she is not simply talking to the United Nations, because if we expect the United Nations to keep the strait open, we will be here talking about this at Christmas?
Yvette Cooper
I said in my statement that we were having discussions about the strait with our European partners, our Gulf partners, the United States and other countries who also have a strong interest in supporting freedom of navigation. This is complex. The nature of technology, including new drones—sea drones and air drones—the different kind of threats and the issues around commercial confidence make all of this complex. That is why we need to do this based on expert advice and multilateral discussions. All these issues can only be addressed through international partnerships.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for confirming today that British foreign policy is being decided by the British Government and not outsourced either to Washington or to Tel Aviv.
At the weekend, Israeli police killed two young Palestinian brothers and their parents in the occupied west bank, shooting all four in the head and face as the family returned from a Ramadan shopping trip. Mohammed was five, and Othman, who was blind and had special needs, was seven. Their mother and father were driving them through their home town of Tamoun late on Saturday when Israeli forces opened fire. Eleven-year-old Khaled, who survived the shooting, told Reuters that Israeli police who dragged him out of the car said, “We killed dogs.” Does this not show the need for the UK to take tough action against Israel for the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank and the wider crimes being committed by settlers in the west bank?
Yvette Cooper
The case that my hon. Friend describes is deeply disturbing. It is essential that all Governments follow international law and maintain international standards around human rights and civilian protection. The case is extremely distressing and obviously needs full investigation.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
When there is no long-term plan for military intervention, it is civilian populations who pay the price. We know that from Iraq, Libya and elsewhere. Given the importance of international law, which I hope the Foreign Secretary supports, will she tell me what the consequences are for Israel for its actions in Lebanon? Just as importantly, when it comes to RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia, what assurances has she been given that there will be no targeting of civilians from those bases?
Yvette Cooper
The UK Government continue to follow and to be guided by international law—that is an important part of our principles and values. On RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia, there are operational arrangements in place for our military, and an agreement was reached to use them for defensive purposes.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The illegal war started by Israel and the US is shifting focus away from the atrocities that we are seeing happen daily in Gaza and the west bank. This morning I listened to the mother of Hind Rajab. In the week when the film about her was nominated for an award, her name has become a symbol of strength for the children of Gaza. Investigations have shown that 355 bullet holes were found on the car in which Hind hid with dead members of her family—overwhelming evidence of the terror that she faced while trapped and frightened. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the horrendous actions of the Israel Defence Forces in this case, and so many others, as we have heard today, can only be described as barbaric and inhumane? Can she say what this Government are doing to challenge these atrocities and barbaric actions, and does she have more to say than just warm words?
Yvette Cooper
I heard part of that deeply distressing interview this morning. Not only does there have to be compliance with international standards, humanitarian law, international law and full investigations of any violations, but we have to ensure that there is a peace process, which is desperately needed, for Gaza and the west bank as part of a two-state solution. Only that will deliver peace and respect for human rights across the region.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
One of the most depressing things about the Foreign Secretary’s statement is that she seems to have failed to learn from the failure of her predecessors of both Governments, who were repeatedly warned that if the violence and cruelty in Gaza were left unchecked, it would spread out across the entire region and possibly consume it in flames. We find ourselves in exactly that position. I was struck by the passage of her statement concerning Lebanon, because it is almost completely the same as passages that were said about Gaza at the start of that conflict—“We are very concerned, we are protesting to the Israelis, and we are sending some aid, but there is really nothing we can do”.
I have three questions. First, we have been supporting the Lebanese armed forces for many years now, so do we believe that the Lebanese have a right to self-defence, and if they do, how will we support them in the defence of their civilian population? Secondly, what will the Foreign Secretary do to prevent Lebanon from becoming a new Gaza—a phrase that has been used by Israeli officials about this conflict? Thirdly, if she is not willing to do either of those things, how many Lebanese is an acceptable number for us to see killed over the next few weeks?
Yvette Cooper
Because of the immense scale of risks and the already horrendous humanitarian consequences in Lebanon, I have spoken directly to both the Lebanese Prime Minister and the Israeli Foreign Minister in recent days about exactly that. That is also why we have identified the interest shown, and the steps that the Lebanese Government have taken to propose direct talks are really important. It is essential that the Israeli Government support those and take steps forward for those, instead of taking ground offensive action, and that countries across the world support that process. This should become a diplomatic opportunity in a way that we have not seen before. It would be devastating if that were instead thrown away by extended conflict and by the Israeli operations that we have seen.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I reiterate the thanks to the Foreign Secretary for reconfirming that Britain will make independent foreign policy decisions in the interests of our own people. Many of my constituents are still stuck in countries in the middle east and the surrounding areas because of the closure of airspace, and some are still struggling to gain visa extensions to stay in those countries where they are on holiday. What work is the Foreign Secretary doing with airlines to ensure that those people can get flights back? For many of them, it has been several weeks.
Yvette Cooper
I am happy to pursue further the cases that my hon. Friend raises. The work being done by the 24/7 crisis centre that the Foreign Office set up, by our rapid deployment teams and by our consular teams in the region has enabled an estimated 100,000 British citizens to return home since the conflict started. Some of that is through additional charter flights that we put on, particularly from Dubai and Muscat, and some through working closely with the airlines to ensure that there are flights to the UK and routes that British citizens can take. There have been some areas where airspace has been restricted again and there have been additional problems, but we continue to work with anyone who is finding it difficult to return home.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary, in all her travels, has been considering the effects on the United Kingdom, and not just on energy prices but on fertilisers. Has she, by any chance, engaged in any conversations with countries that are some of the world’s biggest suppliers of fertilisers, such as Canada, whose Prime Minister was here, or indeed with the United States? While events continue in the middle east and there is absolutely no indication that her words are having any effect at all in opening up the strait of Hormuz, there may be something she can do to open up markets that British people can benefit from.
Yvette Cooper
I can confirm that I am seeing the Canadian Foreign Minister later this week. There are many international discussions under way. One of the things that I discussed with the Saudi Energy and Transport Ministers, whom I met while in the Gulf, was some of the work that they are doing, for example, to look at re-routing on different commercial routes and so on to ensure that different supply chains can keep moving.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that fertiliser is one of the important issues here. Most people have been focusing on oil, but fertiliser is hugely significant for a lot of different areas, and we continue to work across Government and internationally on what routes there might be. Also, bluntly, we want this conflict to reach an end as swiftly as possible, so that these global arteries for trade and transport get moving again.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Government are right not to be drawn into this war and that it needs to end, including with a negotiated agreement. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments about the situation in Lebanon, where I used to live and work as an aid worker. Does she share my serious concern at the conduct of the Israeli military, with at least 28 attacks on hospitals and health facilities in Lebanon so far and threats of forced displacement? The tactics used in Gaza were criminal and must not be exported with impunity.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that the humanitarian consequences of the Israeli operations are extremely serious already. It is estimated that over 800,000 Lebanese civilians have been displaced from their homes, which is already causing emergency problems with shelter. I have discussed this with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as directly with the Lebanese Government, and it is why we are providing £15 million in humanitarian assistance, both to Lebanon and to other neighbouring areas, to support people facing displacement.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is reported that the UK’s national security adviser was in the room at Iran-US nuclear talks last month, just before the war began, and it appears that diplomatic options were still viable and there was no solid evidence of an imminent missile threat to Europe, or of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. Does the Foreign Secretary therefore believe that a negotiated path between Iran and the US was still possible at that time? If so, surely that means that the initial US-Israeli strikes were premature and therefore illegal.
Yvette Cooper
The UK did provide support for negotiations and diplomatic processes around the nuclear discussions; we thought that was an important track and wanted it to continue—that was one of the reasons for our position on the initial US strikes. Also, as we look forward, we need to ensure that the approach covers not just the nuclear threats but the ballistic and drone threats to the region, as well as the proxy threats and the threats to the strait of Hormuz. It is also of central importance that we prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Thomas More, a former occupant of your chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, once famously said that when we cut down laws to defeat the devil, we are defenceless when the winds turn against us. In conflict the enemy always has a vote, and Iran has chosen to restrict the strait of Hormuz. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to get back to a rules-based order and that the UN convention on the law of the sea should make it clear to Iran that firing upon defenceless maritime vessels and restricting passage in international waters is wrong, and that that provides us with an opportunity for a way forward?
Yvette Cooper
I agree about the importance of maritime law, freedom of navigation and the law of the sea. Those are fundamental international principles and that is why the UK, as an international trading nation, has long supported them. It is also one reason why we have supported Bahrain’s UN Security Council resolution—we were a co-sponsor—because we also see the UN charter as part of the underpinnings of international law.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. I am slightly struggling to see what it adds to the answer to the urgent question we had yesterday, but it is always nice to see the Foreign Secretary. When she asks the US Government to de-escalate, what do they say in response?
Yvette Cooper
We have long been clear that, ultimately, we need a swift resolution to this conflict. We are providing the basing support for the US to be able to take defensive action against the military launches and the weapons that are being pointed at the Gulf, and we are also providing broader defensive support, but as the Prime Minister said yesterday, we need a swift resolution. We also know that, as the conflict ends, we will need a negotiated settlement that will prevent Iran from being able to rearm and pose an ongoing threat to the region and beyond. That is the best way to get stability and security in the UK’s national interest.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
While this war of choice is raging, Netanyahu’s forces have been murdering innocent Palestinians—men, women and disabled children —in the west bank, so what further action will the Foreign Secretary take to stop Israel repeating what happened in Gaza in the west bank and in Lebanon?
Yvette Cooper
As I set out in our concerns on Lebanon, we are urging the Israeli Government not to pursue further ground operations but instead to pursue the opportunity of talks and a shared interest with the Lebanese Government, who we continue to support. We have raised our deep concerns and condemned some of the decisions made by the Israeli Security Cabinet in the west bank, because they risk setting back the potential for peace and for the two-state solution that the Gaza peace process should have been an opportunity to move towards. We cannot let that process fall off track.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
In the Foreign Secretary’s statement—all six pages of it—there was not a single word of criticism of the illegal, reckless action of Trump and Netanyahu in launching the strikes that have set off this conflagration in the middle east. If the Foreign Secretary is not prepared even to criticise that, what hope can the British people have that the UK Government are standing up to the aggression of Trump and Netanyahu behind closed doors? Can she assure us that she and her Government are showing more backbone behind those closed doors? And can she assure us that she is investing in building a special relationship with allies we can really rely on, who believe in human rights, diplomacy and peace?
Yvette Cooper
This Government take decisions according to UK values and the UK’s interests. I know that there are different perspectives on foreign policy. There are some who believe that we should agree to and join in with everything that the US does. There are some who believe that we should always criticise and oppose everything that the US does. We believe that it is in the interests of the UK and the people across the UK to pursue UK values and UK interests in a hard-headed, serious and calm-headed way.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the staff of the British embassies in Doha and across the middle east for their professional work in incredibly challenging circumstances. On a separate note, the economic crisis flowing from this war will have a disastrous effect on the poorest countries in the world, plunging people into deeper poverty and leading to an increased risk of conflict. Will my right hon. Friend explain what her Department is doing with international allies to mitigate those risks?
Yvette Cooper
We have been monitoring and assessing the impacts, particularly of the restrictions on the strait of Hormuz and the restrictions around oil and fertiliser. We have been looking at the impacts that that can have, not just on the UK but on some of the most fragile and vulnerable countries across the world. We are monitoring that and looking at how we work with other countries to address that, and I would be happy to provide my hon. Friend with more information, because we have been considering this.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
In June last year, Mr Trump told the world that the Iranian nuclear sites had been “completely destroyed”, but the last few weeks prove that he did not believe that to be true. Last week, the President told the world that the war was nearly completely won and that he needed no help. He has said in recent months that NATO is useless. He now appears to need both help and NATO. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me—and, I believe, with many in the House—that the President himself is becoming an increasingly unreliable and erratic ally and partner, and that the UK is therefore right to be strategically questioning and sceptical about his pronouncements and his motives? I also echo the view of many people across the House that our remaining sceptical and questioning should not be an excuse for sitting idly by, wringing our hands and offering earnest words but no action in support of humanitarian aid to safeguard the lives of ordinary Lebanese and Palestinians and those in the west bank, because to sit and do nothing would make us as culpable as the guilty.
Yvette Cooper
Our relationship with the US on security and the economy is deep and long-standing. I was first briefed on our security co-operation as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee more than 25 years ago, and it has strengthened and deepened since then. Our focus needs to be on the substance of that relationship and the real issues, not on rhetoric or statements. That is immensely important, and it is because we take seriously the humanitarian issues that we are now providing £15 million of humanitarian support for Lebanon and talking to the Lebanese Prime Minister. We are raising the issue of Lebanon not just with the Israeli Government but with the US, with European partners and with other Gulf partners.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and in particular for her commitment to Lebanon, which does not want this war any more than we do. Others have also noted that while the world is focused elsewhere in the middle east, Israeli forces have stepped up their deadly attacks on Palestinians in the west bank. The accounts of the killing of the Bani Odeh family in the village of Tammun are utterly harrowing. One witness described to the BBC the little kids crying before they were killed in their car on the way back from their family shopping trip. Can the Foreign Secretary reassure me that she will keep calling out these crimes and make it clear to the Government of Israel that this cannot continue?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend; we have seen these deeply disturbing reports. This comes against a backdrop not just of increased settler violence but of settlement expansion and the decision of the Israeli Security Cabinet to extend control over the west bank in a way that we strongly condemn. That is deeply damaging. It goes against all the long-standing international agreements and arrangements, it is counterproductive and it sets back the process of peace and the two-state solution.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
In this overarching statement on the middle east by the Foreign Secretary, it is surprising that she did not take the opportunity to condemn the continuing genocide in Gaza, the brutality of the occupation of the west bank, the destruction of Palestinian villages there, the invasion of Lebanon by Israel and the continued supply of British weapons. Trump has declared war on Iran without any war objective or war plan, and we are involved in that. Can she end this nonsense about whether we are sending defensive or offensive strikes from this country? The reality is that if a bomber takes off from RAF Fairford and bombs civilian targets in Iran, we are involved in that act of aggression against the people of Iran. Should we not join Spain and say no to the USA?
Yvette Cooper
We have taken a different approach to the US and to Israel over this conflict, and that has been guided by our principles and our assessment of the UK’s national interest. But I would also say to the right hon. Gentleman that there have been Iranian airstrikes against our partner countries—countries that were not involved in those initial strikes and countries where 300,000 British citizens were either visiting or resident—and strikes on hotels as well as on energy and civilian infrastructure in places across the Gulf. If the UK had done nothing, when we had the ability to take out the missiles and the drones while they were in the air, I think people would have found that extremely difficult to understand.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her wide-ranging statement, including the support she outlined to protect British nationals in the region and to ensure that humanitarian aid gets into Lebanon, and the efforts to ensure that British consumers with heating oil are protected from price rises. Over 1,500 properties in my constituency depend on that.
May I ask specifically about Iran? Iran has been a threat to the UK, around the world and to many of our partners. It has been a destabilising force directly and through its proxies for many decades. Is it her assessment now that whatever the circumstances of how this war came about, we have an opportunity to permanently de-escalate and neutralise the threat from Iran so that the whole world can benefit from more peaceful circumstances without it?
Yvette Cooper
Iran continues to be a long-standing threat to international security through its attempts to develop a nuclear programme and to regional security through its proxies and its ballistic missiles programme, but also to its own people in some of the brutal repression that we have seen. It will be important as this conflict subsides and as we come out of it that there is a medium and long-term containment plan to prevent the threats in all these different areas from Iran to its neighbours, so that we cannot see this kind of threat again.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
In answer to an earlier question, the Foreign Secretary rightly said that Ukraine’s security is our security. But in answer to the last question, she equally set out why the current regime in Iran is a threat to our security, both through proliferation—a level of enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon—and the IRGC, which not only slaughters thousands in Iran but has been responsible for plots, which have been foiled, on our own soil. It is all very well the Foreign Secretary saying that she wants to see a swift resolution, but when diplomacy so far has failed and the Government will not join our allies in the attacks, how does she think this will end?
Yvette Cooper
When there are important decisions to be made about UK forces and operations they might be a part of, it is immensely important to look at whether there is a purpose—a clear structure—to the operations and a lawful basis for them, and whether they are in the UK’s interest. We will continue to work with our Gulf partners, European partners and allies and partners across the world on how we maintain the pressure together for a swift resolution that not only restores security to the region, but ensures that we have economic prosperity as well as national security protected.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. It was reassuring to hear her say that we will not be outsourcing our foreign policy—something I think we should all agree with. Is she confident that the United States properly understands that its actions in the middle east have not only made peace in Palestine much more difficult to achieve, but have provided cover to Israel for its ongoing offensive in Palestine and its aggression against Lebanon?
Yvette Cooper
Because the regional stability and security issues around the middle east have so many wider ramifications, some of the Gulf countries, for example, that I have spoken to are not only immensely seized by the issues around the Iranian threat and the direct threat to their airspace and communities, but are raising with me issues around Palestine, Gaza and Lebanon. This ought to be a moment for intense international diplomacy in support of regional security and not for allowing wider escalation and regional threat that would pose long-term instability for the region.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The one thing Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu knew full well when they entered this illegal war unilaterally was that the strait of Hormuz would be a place of strategic weaponry, if you want to call it that, for Iran to use against all other nations. Some European countries have unilaterally now decided to open negotiations with Iran, such as France and Italy. They have done that because they are not participating in any direct military action. My question for the Foreign Secretary is: if the Iranians said, “We would allow UK ships to pass through the strait of Hormuz, but you must prevent America from using your base,” would we comply?
Yvette Cooper
I can say to the hon. Member that we are working closely with our European allies, including France, Germany and Italy, on a range of these issues. I do not think that his characterisation of the situation is right.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I want to express my sorrow at the death and suffering of civilians, wherever that is happening in the region. I commend the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for their calm and principled approach to this crisis, which is rooted in respect for international law. Could she expand on efforts that she, the Prime Minister and our allies are taking to de-escalate this conflict and to seek a diplomatic solution that will put the interests of those civilians front and foremost in our minds? We hear far too much about regimes and actors in this region; we need to hear more about the rights of civilians.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that at every stage we have been urging the protection of civilians. That is immensely important as part of this and is also why we need to work so immensely hard to prevent further escalation. It is one of the issues we have been raising particularly around Lebanon, where I am concerned that we are on the brink of what could be much greater devastating humanitarian consequences. It is also why we have been looking forward to what diplomatic process and settlement process could prevent Iran from posing a threat in future.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The morning after the drone attack on RAF Akrotiri, the Foreign Secretary said in the media round that the drone had struck the runway at RAF Akrotiri. I clarified that with the Ministry of Defence, which went on to confirm that it in fact struck the hangar. The hangar in question was widely reported in the media as containing the U-2 spy planes of detachment one of the US air force’s 9th operations group, which is tasked with flying intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions over the middle east. To that extent, given that the Foreign Secretary stated that Cyprus is not being used in those US operations, could she clarify unequivocally whether Operation Olive Harvest is being used by the US to fly reconnaissance over the middle east in defensive support of these US operations? If she is sure that it is not, could she confirm what conversations she has had with the US that made her come to that assessment?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is right about the strike around the hangar. The request from the US to provide basing support for the operations against the ballistic missiles was a request for RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia. The agreement that we have reached to provide that basing support is confined to RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
It is abundantly clear to any fair-minded geopolitical observer that the US-Israeli actions in Iran were commenced without the cover of law and without a plan to follow the initial impulse of kinetic violence. But it is equally clear that the United Kingdom was caught short in our responsiveness and preparedness, particularly in relation to the island of Cyprus. Following the drone attack on that particular hangar, the Cypriot Government expressed disappointment in the UK, and the Cypriot Foreign Secretary has openly speculated about the future of our sovereign base areas. What work has the Foreign Secretary or her ministerial colleagues done to repair the damage with Cyprus, which is, after all, an incredibly valuable diplomatic and defence ally?
Yvette Cooper
It is because regional instability increased in the early part of this year that, since January, we have been pre-deploying additional jets to Cyprus—to the sovereign base—exactly to provide additional protection for Cyprus, including additional air defence and radar capabilities. We took that issue very seriously and continue to do so. I have spoken with the Cypriot Foreign Minister on a series of occasions, and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Defence Secretary has not only visited the sovereign base in Cyprus but met the Cypriot Government. We take our partnership with the Cypriot Government, and the defence of operations around Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean, immensely seriously.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I think, and hope, that everybody in this Chamber, including the official Opposition, now agrees that Donald Trump had absolutely no plan when he agreed, along with Israel, to this illegal invasion of Iran. Their first action was to bomb a school, killing more than 160 schoolchildren—mainly girls—and over 1,500 people have been killed and more than 20,000 injured. The whole region is in flames, and the obstruction of the strait of Hormuz is affecting the global economy. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that no UK warships should join this illegal war, and that there should be no boots on the ground to deflect from what is essentially Trump’s “Operation Epstein Fury”?
Yvette Cooper
We took a different view from the US on this conflict. We also think it right to provide defensive support to partners in the region who were never involved in the initial strikes but are being targeted by the Iranian regime. We want to see a swift resolution of the conflict because that is in the interests of the region and of the UK.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I wholly appreciate that none of this is of our making or choice, but when the Foreign Secretary says that Iran’s action in the strait of Hormuz is an attempt to hijack the world economy, does that not put a direct focus on what is in the United Kingdom’s interest? If we take no action, we assist Iran’s attempt to hijack the global economy, but if we take action, are we not inescapably in this war?
Yvette Cooper
It is exactly because the strait of Hormuz is an important global artery for the global economy that we are working internationally with partners on a way forward. We recognise the complexity of the situation, and are taking a serious approach to the detail to ensure that partnership work is viable, effective and in the UK’s national interest, because we cannot afford to get it wrong.
Youth Unemployment
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
I would like to make a statement on our new package of support to tackle the long-term problem of youth unemployment. Let me begin by wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the whole House a very happy St Patrick’s day. This year, due to Lenten abstinence, I will toast it with Guinness zero—one of the world’s great inventions.
The UK has historically high levels of employment overall. In its most recent report, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that employment would rise in every year of the forecast from 2026, and that unemployment would peak this year and fall in every year of the forecast after that. In fact, in only two of the last 150 peacetime years was the employment rate higher than it was in 2025. However, a particular and long-term issue faces the young, and it is time that young people were offered more hope and opportunity. That is what the package that we are bringing forward will do.
At almost 1 million, the number of young people not in education, employment or training is much too high. The Conservatives try to claim that that is all a result of decisions taken over the past two years—
Pat McFadden
In fact, we can hear them claiming it right now. But the truth is that the number of young people not in education, employment or training rose by 250,000 in the three years running up to the last election, and the Conservatives did precisely nothing about it. Youth unemployment has been rising since 2022, and youth employment never reached pre financial crash levels in any single year of the Conservatives’ 14 years in power. On top of that, the Conservatives kicked away the ladder of opportunity from young people when they presided over a shocking 40% fall in youth apprenticeship starts over the past decade.
The problem is long term and deep rooted. We will back young people with more youth apprenticeships, more chance of getting a job, and more help in overcoming the challenges they face. We have already announced a youth guarantee to help the young unemployed. It involves intensive work coaching, 300,000 work experience and training places, and subsidised work for long-term unemployed people aged 18 to 21. However, we will now go much further, with an explicitly pro young people package, aimed at helping them to learn and earn. From this summer, we will introduce hiring bonuses for businesses that hire a young person who has been out of work for six months. The bonus will be worth £3,000 per young person. There will also be bonuses of £2,000 for small and medium-sized businesses that hire young apprentices. Both bonuses can be combined if the young person hired has been out of work for six months or more. What a contrast with the Conservatives’ record on apprenticeships, which was to take opportunity away from young people—[Interruption.] They don’t like to hear it, but I am going to continue!
We are introducing new foundation apprenticeships in retail and hospitality, and new short courses in AI, electric vehicle charging point installation, electrical fitting and assembly, mechanical fitting and assembly, modular building, solar photovoltaic installation, and welding—the skills that young people need for the future. On top of that, the jobs guarantee, which we previously announced for the long-term unemployed, will be extended to those aged 22 to 24. Those young people will get six months of paid work, at 25 hours per week paid on minimum wage rates. Altogether, this will create 200,000 job and apprenticeship opportunities over the next three years.
This is our new deal for new times, offering new hope to the young people who are so often disparaged by the Conservatives as shirkers and scroungers. Our message is different: “We back you, we believe in you and we want you to succeed.” The package that I have announced is new investment of about £1 billion, and it comes on top of the funding that we announced at the Budget. Taken together, it is a package of support for young people worth about £2.5 billion. The existing exemption from employer national insurance contributions for workers under 21 will stay in place. This package is not just pro young people; it is pro business. I welcome the comments by the Federation of Small Businesses, which said that the provision is a “game-changer” and “a decisive step forward”, and rightly describes the package as “pro-jobs, pro-opportunities”. The package has also been welcomed by large employers such as Amazon, Kier Group and PwC, and the welcome goes beyond business. We know that a lot of young people face challenges in the labour market, and the chief executive of Mental Health UK, Brian Dow, said that the package
“will support young people to be ready for work and help organisations large and small to capitalise on the skills, talents and enthusiasm that young people have to offer.”
As well as the package, there is an urgent need to offer help to young people, given technological and demographic change. They need our help, and we cannot afford to lose their talent and energy. This is about not just young people, but their parents and grandparents. This is a generational challenge, because who does not want their child or grandchild to have a better chance in life? That is why investment in the young is a bond between the generations. It is an act of solidarity that is in the interests of the whole country, because if a young person has prolonged periods out of work, the scarring effects can stay with them for the rest of their life. A young person under the age of 25 on the health element of universal credit is now less likely to get a job than someone over 55 on the same benefit. We have to act to change that.
I am often asked, “So when will you do welfare reform?” Well, I tell the House that this is welfare reform. Putting work and opportunity at the heart of our system is the best reform we can make. Asking not just, “What are you entitled to?” but “How can we help you change your life?” is the change that the system needs. That view lies behind the changes that I am announcing in this package. I commend the statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The Government have lost control of welfare. The benefits bill is ballooning. Sickness benefits alone will cost us £109 billion by the end of the decade. Working-age benefits are costing £161 billion right now and rising. But instead of bringing forward welfare savings, Labour MPs have chosen to spend ever more on benefits. Just the other day, they backed an extra £3 billion spending on scrapping the two-child benefit cap. It is all paid for in the same way—by taxpayers, by hard-working people, and by the businesses that employ them.
First the Government tax jobs, and then they wonder why there are fewer of them. Let me tell them: if you tax it, you get less of it. Under Labour, unemployment has gone up month after month. Our youth unemployment now rivals that of Greece, at over 16%. That is one in six young people out of work, wanting employment but denied the chance—and a university degree will not save them, either. Some 700,000 graduates are out of work, and nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. So many young people have done everything asked of them. They have studied hard, done their exams and got their grades, but now they are getting rejection after rejection to their job applications.
The Government are letting down a whole generation, and the Secretary of State knows it. He said so himself this week on the radio. He talked about the “scarring effects” of youth unemployment: worse mental health, worse outcomes and even lower life expectancy. He is right, so why are his Government making things so much worse? Let us be clear about what this new policy is. It is not a jobs plan or a serious new deal for young people; it is a sticking-plaster, and an expensive one costing over £1 billion. These are state-subsidised jobs to replace the real ones that Labour has killed.
The Secretary of State has laid into our record on apprenticeships, but he knows perfectly well that the drop he refers to happened because we raised the standard of apprenticeships to make them a qualification that would actually count, and to make them a meaningful alternative to university, not just a way for businesses to get cheaper workers. I warn him not to just chase higher numbers in his reforms; quality matters. And why are the Government doing nothing about dead-end degrees and mounting student debt? Why not adopt the policy we have announced of cutting back on low-value degrees, and using the saving to increase apprenticeships? This Government’s answer is to just go back, cap in hand, to the taxpayer.
At the end of his statement, the Secretary of State talked about welfare reform, but why do we never hear the important word “savings”? I think we know why. The Government tried and failed to make welfare savings last summer. What has changed since then? The Prime Minister is only weaker and more indecisive, though the problem becomes ever more urgent. Today’s personal independence payment figures show that claims are up again. There are over 300,000 more people on PIP since Labour took over—a rise of 9%—and the number of young people claiming PIP has risen by 14%. There are nearly 150,000 more people claiming benefits for mental ill health and neurodiversity. I have been clear: this cannot go on. Benefits are not the right answer. Work is better for us. People who can work should work.
The Secretary of State needs to answer some questions. Where exactly has the extra £1 billion that he has just announced for state-funded jobs come from? Will this latest plan actually bring down youth unemployment? Will it even touch the sides? How will he stop fraudulent claims for the cash? How will he make sure that no one loses their job because of his cash handouts? How will he make sure that all this spending makes a difference, and that he is not subsidising employment that would have happened anyway? Does he accept that taxing jobs on the one hand and subsidising them on the other is not an economic strategy, but the economics of the madhouse? Finally, can the Secretary of State at least agree that the benefits bill needs to come down? Perhaps he could take this chance to use the word “savings”. Does he see the irony? Does he understand my feeling of déjà vu? This is another plan from his party for welfare reform that spends more money, rather than saving it. When will he bring forward a plan to actually bring down the benefits bill? He talks about welfare reform; is this it?
Pat McFadden
I fear that the hon. Lady’s response was written without her listening to a word in the statement. She has confirmed that the Conservative party not only bequeathed us the problem, but has learned nothing about how to tackle it. There was no statement of responsibility, no statement of regret and no apology for the record on youth apprenticeships—in fact, she defended cutting youth apprenticeship starts. It is a continued pretence that somehow all of this started just two years ago.
The hon. Lady asks where the funding to help young people comes from. It comes from stable management of the economy—something that the Conservatives know nothing about and that we have practised for the past two years. Young people, at whom all of this is aimed, will have heard her disparage efforts to get them into work and to give them more opportunity. They will have heard her dismiss our changes, which will boost youth apprenticeships. They will have heard her pretend that we can somehow wish all this away with tax changes. That proves that the Conservatives have learned nothing from their disastrous management of the economy. They will have heard her say that the package does not offer young people anything, when we have announced a plan to give them a new deal with more jobs and more apprenticeships. That is the difference between our approach and theirs.
I want to give young people in this country opportunities to get skills, to get a job, to get off benefits and to build a better life for themselves. That is much better than kicking the ladder away and leaving the system unchanged, which is what the Conservatives did. How does the hon. Lady explain the number of NEETs rising by a quarter of a million in the last three years in which they were in power? How does she explain their lack of action to deal with it? When it comes to welfare, what I have said today is very clear and simple: the best means of welfare reform is to put work and opportunity at the heart of the system, and that is what we are doing with this plan.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
Young people are often unfairly criticised, but it is worth remembering that the vast majority of them are in employment, education or training. Those who are not deserve our support, and to be provided with opportunity, not the condemnation and ignorance that was all they got from the Conservatives in government, and all we have heard from them today. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the number of young people not in employment, education or training is a scandal, and that it demands action? Will he set out how this new investment will support young people in St Helens North and across the country?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend says that young people deserve support; I believe that with the right support, young people want to work and to make the most of their life. He asked how people in his constituency would be helped. They could be helped through the hiring incentives that I have announced, and through the hiring bonuses that will allow small and medium-sized businesses to hire a young apprentice. The young unemployed in his constituency will be helped, because we are offering hope, ensuring that they get a chance, and offering the sense of pride, purpose and dignity that comes with having a job.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Secretary of State is correct to suggest that the Government inherited a crisis around youth unemployment. However, by introducing the hikes in national insurance contributions, the Government made that crisis into a catastrophe for young people, and supercharged the pressure on our youth across the United Kingdom. Rather than tackling what is now the root of the problem—the NIC hikes—these proposals are just papering over the cracks.
Young people’s childhoods are massively different from those that many of us experienced, especially hon. Members who grew up some years ago, so I pay tribute to the organisations that get young people to the right place, including Eat That Frog, Doorstep Arts, Sound Communities and South Devon college, who do incredible work. They help young people who have come through the pandemic, those who feel as though they are in a pressure cooker because of social media, which is gnawing away at their life, and who face a cost of living crisis.
The Liberal Democrats are concerned about an element of the Government’s policy: we do not understand why the Government are removing funding for apprenticeships for management. Surely managers are the people who support young people in their hour of need, as they go into work. Young people aspire to move into those positions eventually, so will the Secretary of State think again about the impact of the national insurance contributions hike on hospitality, retail and tourism industries in areas like Torbay?
I was interested to hear the Secretary of State speaking on the “Today” programme on Monday. The presenter challenged him by suggesting that the NIC hike had jacked up youth unemployment, and the Secretary of State appeared to agree with that. Finally, an article in The Times suggested that the Government are thinking about making young people second-class citizens through their changes to disability benefits; I would welcome comments from the Secretary of State about that.
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman opposes the changes that we made to national insurance, but he neglects to mention that employer national insurance contributions are not required for employees under the age of 21, unless they are earning more than £50,000 a year. He opposes those changes while supporting extra expenditure on the NHS. As I have said to him a few times, if his party supports extra expenditure, it really has to support revenue-raising measures to fund it.
Young people will have heard the hon. Gentleman dismiss the changes that I have set out today; in fact, they will have heard him say that if he was asked to choose between management courses and young people, he would choose management courses—that is now the established position of the Liberal Democrats. I think that many people would be surprised to hear that in some years, most apprenticeship expenditure has gone on those over the age of 25 who are already in work. We have made a choice; we have chosen young people, and for good reasons. We have chosen them because of the scarring effects of youth unemployment, which I mentioned in my statement, and we now have on record that both the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats are opposed to our prioritisation of young people.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
I welcome this excellent initiative, with the backing of £2.5 billion of investment, and I commend the Secretary of State on trying to get a grip on the scourge of youth unemployment. We saw a generation lost during the previous Government because of the failure to support young people. What will the Secretary of State do to support disabled young people? The backlog and delays in the Access to Work programme are a real issue. Will he say more about what charities and social enterprises can do, and how they will be supported, in addition to the public sector, to get more young people who are NEET into work?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend asks about disabled young people. It is really important that we get more help and support to disabled people who, in the past, were too often signed off, written off and forgotten about. That is not good enough for them or for the country as a whole. The Connect to Work programme, which is devolved to elected mayors and local authorities, is helping disabled people, and the WorkWell programme seeks to get over the divide between health advice and employment advice. She is right that there are issues with the Access to Work programme. It is a really good programme, but there is a backlog that I want to see reduced because it is an important programme that helps disabled people to get into work and stay in work.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The national insurance tax rise and the upcoming implementation of the Employment Rights Act 2025 are just two of the reasons why businesses are on their knees. I welcome the Government’s youth guarantee, but how can the Government guarantee jobs when there will not be any businesses to offer those jobs?
Pat McFadden
I welcome the hon. Lady’s welcome of the youth guarantee. Perhaps she might have a word with her hon. Friend the shadow Minister, who did not welcome it. She asks about national insurance, but the problem is not new—what is new is the package of help for young people that I have announced today.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for youth employment, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement on these new measures. Members will know that Newcastle is home to the country’s best retail and hospitality offer, and I know many businesses will welcome the support for employing young people. Will the Secretary of State set out how his Department is working to ensure the balance between fairness in the administrative processes do not create any burden for small and medium-sized businesses to access the support?
Pat McFadden
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question and her praise for the great city of Newcastle, which I am sure we would all echo. On small and medium-sized businesses, she is right that we need to ensure that the systems are as easy to use as possible. There is a real direction of help in the package to small and medium-sized businesses, particularly with the hiring bonus for young apprentices. That is perhaps why the Federation of Small Businesses has described this programme as a “game changer” and a “decisive step forward.”
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
This is a socialist economic statement. If it moves, the Government tax it; if it keeps moving, they regulate it; and if it stops moving, they subsidise it. Will the Secretary of State accept that his national insurance rises, the changes to business rates and the “unemployment” rights Act have contributed to the hostile environment to employing young people?
Pat McFadden
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman’s description of this statement will do me good or harm among my right hon. and hon. Friends, but once again he makes the mistake of assuming that this problem is something that happened only in the last 18 months, which is where the Conservative party is going wrong. It is a long-term and deep-rooted problem. We need a different approach to tackle it, and that is why we need to offer hiring bonuses to businesses and to redirect the apprenticeship system to help young people, precisely because of the long-term scarring effects of young people being out of a job for any length of time. That can mean worse mental and physical health and, in some cases, even lower life expectancy than their peers in work. We have brought forward this package of measures today because of our concerns about that.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I am glad to hear that the employer NI exemption for staff under the age of 21 is staying in place. The new £3,000 hiring bonus for businesses taking on young people will make a real difference. How will the Secretary of State ensure that it is taken up by businesses and young people in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield? Does he agree that the 40% drop in youth apprenticeships that we saw under the 14 years of the Tories left 1 million young people as NEETs and many without the opportunities and life expectations that they deserved?
Pat McFadden
We heard the Conservatives defend the 40% figure on the drop in youth apprenticeship starts—that is on the record. If they want to defend and own that record, so be it, but we want to prioritise opportunities for young people, and that is what we are doing with this package. There is a lot in it for employers in Burnley and for small and medium-sized businesses, which now have a new financial incentive to give a young person the vital start in life that can set them on a path of pride, purpose and dignity. That is what having a job gives you.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Government want to cut funding for level 7 apprenticeships and redirect resources to younger groups, but bodies such as the Royal Institute of British Architects tell me that young people are unlikely to enter professional training in the construction sector, because funding will be withdrawn at the later, more expensive stages of their training pipeline. Does the Secretary of State accept that a one-size-fits-all, generalised cut-off point for 22-year-olds just does not work for industries that have a longer training period?
Pat McFadden
Once again, the Liberal Democrats speak against the prioritisation of youth. We are for training throughout the system and throughout the age range, but we have to make a decision about where to prioritise it with a public budget. I have unashamedly made the decision to prioritise young people, and I think that is the right thing to do.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Happy St Patrick’s day to the House and to all across the country.
The Secretary of State is absolutely to committed to this agenda, and that comes across in not just his words, but the action that has been announced today. May I highlight the vacancy period for apprenticeships? Only 16% of vacancies in England are advertised in the two months when young people are leaving school and going into the summer break. That means that many are waiting for months and months to even get the opportunity to apply for an apprenticeship, and that is contributing to the NEET figures that he cares about so passionately. Can we at least address that issue in the public sector so that most apprenticeships are advertised when young people are finishing their exams and leaving school?
Pat McFadden
Let me return the greeting of a happy St Patrick’s day to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely vital point about information. When I talk to young people, they tell me that when they are at school, there is a lot of information about how to apply for a university course. That is great, and it is a great route for young people, but the information on how to apply for an apprenticeship is not as clear; it is not readily available to them or as much a part of the preparation process that many schools put young people through. There is a job of work to be done on information, because we want the clearest, most user-friendly information possible to be available to young people and their parents when making such a vital decision about their future.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I have known the Secretary of State for a long time, and I have a lot of respect for him and for the position that he is in. The key thing here, as I observe it, is that one of the big problems is the competition between younger people with no experience and older people. He is focusing on younger people. One of the things that we learned the hard way on this matter is that we also have to do something that moves older people through the system faster. We put up the Work programme at the time, which did not cost the Government any money, because it was based on payment by results. May I suggest that when the Secretary of State goes back to the Department and has a look at that, he is focused on the longer-term older people and moving them through jobs?
The second point is on the criticism of national insurance. I recognise that this is not the Secretary of State’s decision; it comes from the Treasury—he will have endless disputes with the Treasury. The threshold does not apply to those under the age of 21, but lowering that threshold puts a block in the system, because the risks to those who want to hire younger people are at the same time blocking older people from coming into work for the same reason. May I suggest that he says, “Let’s do a proper set-up so that we understand this issue”? We have to get older people and younger people into work, not just the younger people.
Pat McFadden
I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman; I walk past his picture every morning. He was responsible for a major reform to the welfare system with the introduction of universal credit, but after that his party stopped reforming the system. We are seeing the costs of that, particularly with what has happened in the last few years.
On the Work programme, I am happy to look at any successful programme to help people into work. We have more than one of these programmes in the Department, and they should all be evaluated. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point; we need to get support to people to overcome the barriers to get into work. With regard to national insurance, as I have said, all these things are costs for business, but this is not a new problem. This is a deep-rooted, long-term problem, and we need new answers to it. That is why I have brought forward this package today.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
My generation has faced deep generational inequalities over the last decade. That did not happen by accident; it was the result of years of decision making in which the Conservatives chose austerity over investment into future generations. Nowhere is that clearer than in the fact that one in eight young people are not in education, employment or work—a generation lost. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that his Department and the Government are hearing directly from young people so that we can fully understand the barriers they face when entering work?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right. That ratio of 1:8 is too high, and it grew a lot in the last few years. She asks about discussions with young people, and she makes a really important point. When I talk to young people, they tell me that they want to work and make the most of themselves; they just need a platform that will help them. In every part of the programme that we have brought forward today, whether it is the apprenticeship changes, the help for the long-term unemployed, the short apprenticeship courses or the hiring bonus, the motivation that I have had is to give young people a platform on which to stand and take the next step in their lives.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
People with special educational needs and disabilities are more likely not to be in employment or training. It is great that the new apprenticeship incentives will include recruitment for 19 to 24-year-olds with education, health and care plans, but a majority of people with SEND leave school without one. Will the Secretary of State set out what specialised support will be on offer to young people with SEND without EHCPs who are looking for work or apprenticeships, as well as what new guidance employers will get?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member raises an important point. The issue of youth inactivity does not start at the age of 16; it often starts well before that. The reforms to the SEND system announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education very recently are really important in that regard, and we want the maximum opportunity for people. The last thing that we want is for people with special educational needs to be written off from the labour market; there has been too much of that in the past. Part of the package that I have outlined today is not about helping people into work then forgetting about them, but about supporting them once they are in a job so that we can get job retention and give young people the maximum chance of success.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
The number of young people not in education, employment or training hitting 1 million follows a trajectory that has been ongoing for a long time and is a global phenomenon. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has today said that a Labour Government are determined to intervene and do something about it. How does he plan to measure the success of this scheme, and how does he think the Government and our education and work systems need to be more agile, given the onset of artificial intelligence technology?
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend for his question—I know that he takes a deep interest in this issue. There is an urgent need to help young people with the technological change that is taking place in the labour market. That is not just a British phenomenon; graduate unemployment in the United States went up from 5.3% to 5.7% in the final quarter of last year, and youth unemployment in the United States reached a four-year high last summer. We have to be less insular in our debate and understand that young people face particular challenges. That is why, for example, the different apprenticeship courses that I outlined in my statement are really important. They will train young people to cope with a different technological environment and ensure that we give them the maximum chance of success.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It frankly beggars belief that the Secretary of State does not understand the impact that the Government’s policies on business, tax and regulation have had on the confidence of businesses up and down the country to invest and employ. There is a direct causal link, and nobody will understand why the Secretary of State does not make that link and persuade the Treasury to do something about it. However, my direct question to him is this: why does he think that unemployment is always higher at the end of a Labour Government?
Pat McFadden
The OBR predicts that unemployment will peak this year and then fall in every year of the forecast—[Interruption.] Conservative Members disparage the forecast, but I gently remind them that disparaging the OBR did not work out too well for them a few years ago. In fact—to make a more serious point—the country is still paying the price for the fact that they did so, so I suggest that they learn that lesson.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the care and consideration he has shown in putting this package together. I am delighted today to be joined in the House by some inspiring apprentices from Caterpillar in my constituency, who have been talking about their experiences of moving into work. This matters in Peterborough, because we have one of the highest levels of youth unemployment for a generation, and it needs tackling. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the work we are doing will not just benefit large employers such as Caterpillar, but put in place opportunities in the supply chain for small and medium-sized enterprises, so the brilliance of the apprenticeships we have at Caterpillar is extended to more and more young people in Peterborough?
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend for his deep interest in this issue. I have visited his constituency, and I give a warm welcome to the apprentices from Peterborough who are in the Chamber today. He asked about supply chains and small and medium-sized businesses. Those businesses will benefit from the hiring bonus for a young apprentice, which is why the Federation of Small Businesses has welcomed this package, describing it as a “game changer” and a “decisive step forward”.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
For this scheme to work, we need vacancies for young people, yet we have a Government who are squeezing the very businesses that are needed to create opportunities and jobs for young people through business rates, energy costs and national insurance increases. The result, sadly, is that businesses up and down the country are going bust and unemployment is going up. I urge the Secretary of State, rather than apply an expensive sticking-plaster to this problem, to speak with the Chancellor and ask her to reverse the jobs tax.
Pat McFadden
I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s support for this package and the help that she has given me in putting it together. The right hon. Lady mentioned vacancies—there are about 700,000 vacancies in the economy, including 50,000 in manufacturing. I attended a jobs fair in Blackpool a couple of weeks ago, where almost 1,000 jobs were allocated on the day. There are vacancies in the economy, but we have to help young people to be in a position to be trained and have the confidence, skills and support they need to take them up.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Having seen the 40% fall in youth apprenticeships over the past decade and the long-term trend of increasing numbers of young people not in education, employment or training, I welcome the fact that this Labour Government are enabling more apprenticeships and opportunities for young people. Derby is a city of makers with a highly skilled workforce, but we need to train up the next generation, so can the Secretary of State tell us more about how this Government will work in partnership with businesses, including SMEs, to provide opportunities to young people, so that we can benefit from their talents?
Pat McFadden
Let me praise the magnificent industries in the Derby area, many of them manufacturing companies. As I said, there are 50,000 vacancies in manufacturing right now. What the trade bodies tell me is that they need help with skilling young people to take up those vacancies. That is precisely what will be made easier by the package that we have brought forward today.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I am not interested in discussing how we got to this point; we all need to work together to ensure that young people can get the opportunities they deserve and that those opportunities are available to them. I have read the Secretary of State’s statement from Monday, I have read the press release, and I have read and listened to today’s statement. There are some gaps about exactly how the timelines will work and what the legislative process for putting the package in place will be. Will he give us an assurance that the House will get this information at the earliest opportunity, so that we can work together to ensure that young people will have the opportunities that he is hoping they will get?
Pat McFadden
The rate of young people not in education, employment or training is, I believe, even higher in Scotland than it is in the UK as a whole. The hon. Member asks for more information on timescales. The hiring bonuses, for example, will be introduced from this summer, and the apprenticeship changes will be introduced from later this year.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I start by thanking my right hon. Friend for joining me at my jobs fair a few weeks ago, where more than 1,100 people secured work on the day. Some 900 are already in those jobs, working in our economy. That is Labour in action. I have spoken many times in this House about the need to support the hospitality and tourism industries, especially in coastal communities such as Blackpool, so that they can hire more young people and give them that opportunity. I got my first job at age 14, on Blackpool seafront. It was a great job that helped me get countless more jobs in hospitality. We need more young people to have access to those jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me, Blackpool businesses and the Federation of Small Businesses that this plan is a game changer in tackling youth unemployment in Blackpool and other coastal communities across the country?
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend for the enormous amount of work that he put into organising the successful Blackpool jobs fair, which I attended a few weeks ago. He is right that the evidence from that jobs fair is that the vacancies are there, with more than 1,000 jobs allocated on the day of the jobs fair itself. Hospitality is a great entry route for young people. We have announced a foundation apprenticeship in hospitality as part of this process, and I hope that extends opportunity to other young people, similar to the opportunities that he had when he was a young man.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I share the concern of many on the Opposition Benches about the national insurance increase, but I am particularly concerned by what is happening with graduate unemployment, which we have seen increase by 46% over the past six years. I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the work of upReach, a charity that I have been involved in over the past few years. It is a social mobility charity that offers workshops, work experience and career coaching to young people. Will he engage with organisations such as upReach and Nick Bent, the excellent CEO who runs it, to see what lessons can be learned? In a world where AI is already taking many graduate jobs, it is concerning that the trend will only accelerate further.
Pat McFadden
As the right hon. Member knows, I have great respect for him. I am happy to reach out to upReach to speak about the work to which he refers. As I said a moment ago in response to another question, graduate unemployment is an international issue, not just one for the UK. There has also been an uplift in the United States, which we think of as possibly among the most dynamic economies in the world. Precisely because there is technological change, we need to help young people and support them through it. Policy has to catch up with the discussion taking place among young people themselves, because they are very alive to this issue, and they are evaluating their employment choices in terms of what they think will happen in the labour market and which jobs will be sustainable through this period of significant technological change.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Before being elected to this place, I spent many years working for charities seeking to tackle the challenge of youth unemployment. I remember fondly the future jobs fund, which, under the last Labour Government, delivered real change for people across the country. I have established the Get Hyndburn Working group to help tackle the challenge of economic inactivity in my constituency. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could outline how what he has announced today will support that group in its endeavour to see young and, of course, older people secure good employment. Will he also—as he develops further strategies in this regard—pay particular attention to the importance of place and locally-led decision making, in order to tackle the specific challenges experienced in different parts of the country as we seek to get everyone into a good job?
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the record of the last Labour Government. I have described this as a new deal for new times, and it does adapt some of the lessons that we have learnt in the past to today’s very changed labour market. She mentioned the importance of locally-led work. It is true that local labour markets differ, and I want to work closely with local authorities and elected mayors on this agenda, because I think that they all want the best for the young people in their area. The Connect to Work budget, for example, is devolved for the next few years, with considerable flexibility for local leaders in relation to how they use the funding.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Measures to support about 17% of our young people in Wales who are not in education, employment or training to gain employment are welcome, although I prefer to use the term “LEET”—looking for education, employment or training—which I think is a much more positive way of viewing our young people. However, apprenticeships and skills are devolved in Wales, so will the Secretary of State tell me which aspects of his announcement apply to the young people of Wales and the other devolved nations?
Pat McFadden
I agree that “NEET” is not the best and most user-friendly term, but it has been used for some time. As for the hon. Lady’s question about what is devolved and what is UK-wide, the hiring bonus will apply throughout the UK, but the apprenticeship aspects are devolved to Wales.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
One of my main priorities as an MP is to ensure that we see more of our young people in good, fulfilling work, because I know that far too many young people in Clwyd North are unable to fulfil their potential. I am excited about the £3,000 youth jobs grant and the expansion of the youth guarantee in Wales, but can the Secretary of State tell me more about the difference this will make to young people in Clwyd North?
Pat McFadden
I think that the statement offers hope to young people throughout the United Kingdom. I look forward to a positive and close working relationship between the UK and Welsh Governments on this issue, because I believe that both Governments share a desire for young people, in Clwyd North and everywhere else in the country, to have the best start in life. I think that, for example, the £3,000 hiring bonus and the jobs guarantee for the long-term youth unemployed, which are UK-wide initiatives, can help people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and offer hope that there is a solution to the scarring effect of leaving young people to fester in long-term unemployment, which is not good for them and not good for the country either.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I think we can all agree that tackling the rise in youth employment is very important, but I am concerned about the approach that is being adopted for that purpose. We are essentially taking money away from employers and then giving some of them some of it back. Has the Secretary of State considered, for instance, the use of existing levers in relation to employer national insurance? That would be an obvious way to address the issue and ensure that some of our young people are employed.
Pat McFadden
The hon. Lady refers to national insurance. As I have said, there is an existing tax break for employers of people under the age of 21 in the system, and they will continue to have that, but in addition they will have the hiring bonuses that I outlined in the statement. When we bring those things together, it sends a message that we want to help employers to employ young people and give them a good chance in life.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
Under the previous Government, as the Secretary of State mentioned in his statement, youth employment never reached pre-financial crash levels in any single year, so the country had suffered a long period of stagnation. Crucially, some young people, unlike a bloke my age, have never known what an active Government can do to get them into good work. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this targeted package of support is precisely what the young people of this country need in 2026, and that it can finally turn the tables on years of Tory decline?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right. Let me repeat what he said, so that the whole House hears it: when the Conservative party was in power, there was not a single year in which youth employment reached the levels that there had been before the financial crash. Perhaps no other figure shows what a long-term problem this is. It is right that we have targeted support to enable young people not just to earn a wage, but to get the sense of pride and dignity that comes with having a job. I do not want to bombard the House with too many statistics, but another shocking one is that more than half the young people who are not in education, employment or training have never had a job in their life. They have never experienced the sense of discipline, obligation and pride that comes with getting up and going to work in the morning. That is what we have to change.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Chancellor has spent the last 18 months pricing young people out of jobs, and now the Secretary of State has been asked to ride to the rescue by paying companies to get the same young people back into work. The Government are effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul. Why does he think that youth unemployment in my constituency is up by 15% since the general election?
Pat McFadden
Youth unemployment has been going up since 2022—it has been going up for around four years. What we have not had is a specific package to tackle it, but that changes with the package that I have announced today, which will offer real hope and opportunity to young people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. My gentle advice to him is to go and make the most of this package. That is what he should do for the young people in his constituency.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I welcome the support for small and medium-sized enterprises in my Shipley constituency, which will be able to take on young people who have been long-term unemployed and to offer apprenticeships, but the Secretary of State will know that young carers face additional challenges with getting into education, training or work. Shipley college provides excellent training opportunities, but often struggles to find work placements. Will he commit to working with DFE to ensure that all young people, including young carers, can benefit from today’s announcement?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right: there is a particular challenge for young carers. A significant proportion of the 1 million young people who are not in education, employment or training have caring responsibilities. I commend the work of Shipley college, and I am very happy to keep talking to her about this issue to see what help we can give to young carers.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Like the rest of the nation, my constituency of Leicester South struggles with youth unemployment, and many young people are not in education or training. The statement is welcome to a certain degree, but I have a technical question for the Secretary of State. Which age range will bonuses cover? Is it 18 to 21? Also, when will the bonuses be paid? Will it be on hiring, or after a certain period of work?
Pat McFadden
It will apply to young people between the ages of 18 and 24. The hiring bonus will be available from this summer, and we will look at having a retention mechanism so that people are not hired one day and let go the next.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Apprenticeship starts fell under the last Government, largely driven by the reduced uptake from SMEs, so today’s SME incentive is a game-changer. Can the Minister confirm that that incentive can be stacked with other incentives—for example, when hiring a care leaver—and will he send a message from the Dispatch Box to York employers that they should take on apprentices and provide the opportunity of a lifetime?
Pat McFadden
I think employers want to do the right thing—they want to give young people a chance. My hon. Friend asks whether the incentives can be stacked, and the answer is yes. For example, if a small or medium-sized enterprise wants to take on a young apprentice who has been unemployed and on universal credit for six months or more, it can claim both the £2,000 apprenticeship incentive and the £3,000 hiring bonus. That sends a strong signal to business, and it is why the Federation of Small Businesses has called this a game-changer, just as my hon. Friend did. It sends a strong signal about giving young people a chance, which is exactly what I think small and medium-sized businesses want to do.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I was lucky enough to get my first job when I was 16—washing up in a kitchen as well as working in a warehouse—which taught me some really good life skills about what it is like to be employed and the responsibilities that come with that. From speaking to businesses in my constituency, I know that those opportunities simply do not exist for young people at the moment. Being paid a bung to hire young people will not help, because the problem is the huge impact of business rates, national insurance contributions and the minimum wage on their ability to retain the staff they have. They are having to lay off those staff because they simply cannot afford to keep them on. Knowing full well that I will clip this and put it on social media, what will the Secretary of State say to businesses in my constituency to show them that he is listening to those concerns and will address them, rather than putting on a sticking plaster, as this package surely does?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member mentioned his career in washing up, and let me tell him that we have that in common, because one of my first jobs was as a dishwasher in what I believe was Scotland’s first Mexican restaurant, Viva Mexico. I inherited that job from the current First Minister of Scotland, John Swinney, the previous dishwasher in that restaurant, so we can be the three founding members of a national union of dishwashers.
The hon. Member asked for my message to employers in his constituency. It is to look at this package and avail themselves of the support in it—hiring bonuses for young unemployed people, specific help for small and medium-sized enterprises when hiring a young apprentice, and foundation apprentices for retail and hospitality industries. All those things should be good for the small businesses, particularly those in the hospitality sector, in his constituency.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
I really welcome this Government’s investment in our young people’s futures, but almost half of NEET young people are disconnected from the benefit system and traditional support. I know from my experience of leaving school at 16 just how much of a difference youth workers and trusted adults can make in giving those hidden young people a bridge into support. Can the Secretary of State say a little more about the role that he sees trusted adults playing in supporting young people into work, and reflect on the work of the pilots and the youth trailblazer areas in looking at the co-location of youth services and employment support?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend makes the very important point that a significant proportion of the 1 million young people not in education, employment or training are not claiming benefits at all, and not signing on for standard universal credit or the health element.
One way in which we want to reach those young people is through the expansion of our youth hub programme, which gives them a chance to come into a place—often a sports or community institution—and get a range of help on the health front, the housing front and the work-finding front, because young people do not live their lives according to Whitehall departmental boundaries, and why should they? It is up to us to tailor the help to the way they live their lives, and get it to them in the places where they want to be.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
A couple of weeks ago, I hosted a student roundtable, with two pupils from my eight secondary schools and two from my further education college. I agree with the Secretary of State in that I was left incredibly excited for them and by their hopes and aspirations for the future. However, we also had a discussion about how AI-proof those plans were. His statement mentioned short AI courses, and he also talked about the urgency. Can he tell us how short these short courses will be, who is going to deliver them and how the young people of Spelthorne will sign up to them?
Pat McFadden
These short courses or apprenticeship units are something that employers have called for. Until now the minimum length of time for an apprenticeship has usually been eight or 12 months, or something like that, but these can be for a matter of weeks. We will publish more information about them as soon as we can. The sectors, including AI, in which the first wave have been announced are all sectors in which we will need the skills of young people. We are trying to adapt the training offer that we fund to the needs of employers, and one way to do that is with more short courses.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. This is exactly the kind of initiative to tackle youth unemployment that employers in Glenrothes in my constituency asked me for just a couple of weeks ago. Can he assure me that he will work with Scottish agencies and the Scotland Office to ensure that the scheme has the maximum possible impact in Scotland, where youth unemployment is also far too high?
Pat McFadden
Yes, of course. I want to work with the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and anyone who can make an impact. I visited the Bellshill jobcentre in central Scotland just before Christmas. I was told by the area manager that over 40% of the young people on her caseload were on what was called the “health journey”. That should bring us up short. It should tell us and warn us about the stickiness and the long-term effects of a young person being off long-term on sickness benefits. We have to do more to get opportunity to those young people and help them into work. I hope the package I have brought forward today can help us to do that.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Across the west midlands, around 29,000 young people are unemployed, with unemployment rates in parts of Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Walsall running at double the national average. I welcome the measures announced today, but how will the Government ensure they reach young people in high unemployment areas such as Birmingham Perry Barr, where approximately 2,000 young people are unemployed, rather than resources being spread thinly across the counties and the country?
Pat McFadden
Obviously, I know the west midlands well and I know the passion that our Mayor, Richard Parker, has for expanding opportunity, offering more skills and more opportunities to young people. I work closely with him on that agenda. I do not believe we should set area against area. Of course I am concerned about youth unemployment in the west midlands. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his constituents and mine, and those in every other constituency in the west midlands, can benefit from the proposals I have brought forward today.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Glasgow has many brilliant young people who just want to work. They have been let down by the Tories and the SNP, with school standards plummeting and the refusal to fund the Rolls-Royce welding centre. In many meetings I have with employers, they emphasise to me how little they see of the apprenticeship levy they pay in. Will my right hon. Friend outline how the package provides opportunities to young people in Glasgow?
Pat McFadden
I do not need any convincing about how great a city Glasgow is, and I will be going there very soon. My hon. Friend asks what this announcement will mean to young people in his constituency and the city of Glasgow. The hiring bonuses I have announced today will be available all over the country, as will the subsidised job—25 hours a week at minimum wage rates for six months for young people who have been unemployed for 18 months or more—precisely to give young people not just a wage but the sense of pride and purpose that comes with having a job. I hope that that gives hope to the young people in Glasgow. It is hope that we need to give to young people all around the United Kingdom.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The managing director of G. W. Martin, a manufacturing firm based in my constituency, welcomes the hiring bonus included in the announcement, but he says that it will barely cover the cost of one month’s pay. More important to him are the candidates’ attributes and commitment, rather than any bonus on offer. I absolutely welcome any measure to support young people in my constituency into work, but will the Minister tell me what more is being done to ensure young people remain and succeed in the workplace?
Pat McFadden
I welcome the hon. Lady’s—somewhat limited—support for the announcement, but she is right that we need to support young people in the workplace. There is perhaps a touch of nostalgia about some of the comments about young people not being work-ready, because that was the traditional role of youth apprenticeships. When the ladder is kicked away from them, it is no wonder that more young people are not work-ready. We are changing that with this announcement, because we are re-emphasising the importance of youth apprenticeships. I hope she welcomes that part, too.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for this announcement, which will make a big difference to so many young people in our area of the Black Country who are looking for work or training but unable to find the opportunities they need. I recently visited Asda in Great Bridge, where I saw the supported internship scheme that is being run in partnership by Asda, Project SEARCH and Sandwell college. The scheme’s employment rate for learning-disabled young people is 60%, compared with 4% nationally. Would the Minister join me in congratulating Asda, Project SEARCH, Sandwell college, Rose, Manvir, Oliver, Trish and Romeo on the work that they are doing together to ensure that learning-disabled people can get into good jobs?
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour for her question. I know Asda in Great Bridge. What a wonderful employment rate that is, after the programme. It gives hope to young people with learning disabilities, who should never be written off; there has been too much of that in the past. Part of our work is to get more help and support to young people with disabilities, in order to give them the confidence and the opportunity that a job can bring.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As someone who represents an area where more than 90% of businesses are SMEs, I particularly welcome the financial incentives for SMEs to take on young apprentices in the key industries of hospitality and retail. Demand for apprenticeships has been high for some time, so I welcome the Government’s recognition that supply-side incentives were needed to provide opportunities for young people in areas like mine. However, SMEs lack HR departments, and when I speak to business owners, they talk a lot about the complexity of engaging with the system. How will the Secretary of State make the system simpler for SMEs to engage with, so that we can give young people the opportunities that they desperately need?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right that we have tried to put extra incentives in this package for small and medium-sized businesses. In particular, there is the hiring bonus for young apprentices, which is aimed at both young people and small businesses. I hope that will be of help to the small businesses in her constituency. She is also right that clarity of information is important. Schemes like this can be complex, so I want to work with officials to make the information about this one, and the administration of it, as clear and simple as possible—consistent, of course, with the need to properly use and protect public money.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
It was a pleasure to join my right hon. Friend at Bellshill jobcentre last year to hear about the need to support young people who are not in education, training or work. I greatly welcome this announcement, which will help transform life opportunities. Businesses in my constituency across a range of sectors highlight that despite their willingness to train the next generation of workers, intentions are often undermined by the failing apprenticeship system in Scotland. Can my right hon. Friend expand on how the positive actions of this Government will support young people in Scotland who have sadly and tragically been left behind by the SNP?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend and I had a great day in Bellshill just before Christmas; I am grateful to him for the visit, and to the staff at the local jobcentre for explaining to us both the work that they were doing. The programme I am announcing today offers hope to young people in his constituency; the £3,000 hiring bonus will be available throughout Scotland. Of course, apprenticeship funding is devolved, but I hope that the Scottish Government will provide the maximum opportunity for young people to combine an apprenticeship role with the hiring bonus, which is available to businesses across the country.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I must admit that I am a little disappointed by those on the shadow Front Bench, who are sneering and suggesting that plunging 3,000 Gloucester children back into poverty will somehow solve long-standing issues with youth unemployment. That is not backed up by the facts, and, quite frankly, it comes across as quite nasty. The Conservatives promised to level up places like Gloucester, but they left the most deprived parts of my city, and the young people living there, without the opportunity to get on.
I am really pleased to see Gloucester boy Tom Kerridge, who grew up in Matson in my constituency, backing the proposals that my right hon. Friend is putting forward. Can he explain to the House how more young people will be able to benefit from the Government’s reforms?
Pat McFadden
Tom Kerridge has achieved a great amount and done fantastic things. I was very pleased to meet him and talk to him about this package a few days ago, and I welcome his warm support for it. I agree with my hon. Friend on the response from those on the Opposition Front Bench. Young people throughout the country will have heard them dismiss the help that we are putting in place. If that is what the Opposition want to do, that is up to them, but we take a very different view. We want to give hope and opportunity to young people; we want to stop dismissing them; and we want to give them belief in their future. That is what this package is about.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
The message from this Dispatch Box is clear: apprenticeships, apprenticeships, apprenticeships. This Government will meet the challenges that we face today with fantastic careers for the next generation, so thank you. SMEs in Darlington are huge engines of growth across the country. Many of the business owners came up through apprenticeship routes, and desperately want to pass on that opportunity to the next generation. We will bite the Secretary of State’s hand off for the £2,000 hiring bonus. Can the Secretary of State outline any sector-specific restrictions on the types of SMEs that can take advantage of the bonus?
Pat McFadden
We do not propose restricting the hiring bonus by sector, though my hon. Friend will have heard me list in my statement the areas covered by the new apprenticeship units—areas such as artificial intelligence, electric vehicle charging, infrastructure, solar panel installation, welding and so on. As regards the new short apprenticeship units, there are some specific areas that we are putting forward first.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I welcome this announcement. It will make young people’s lives and futures better. Calder Valley is famous for its world-class specialist manufacturing, but in the UK, one third of manufacturers are over 60. Can my right hon. Friend please confirm that this policy announcement will help us bring in the new generation of skills that we need for our economy?
Pat McFadden
This package can make a big contribution towards that. As I have said, there are 50,000 vacancies in manufacturing in the UK today. That is partly because of the difficulty that people have in finding skilled workers. With today’s extra help for apprenticeships for young people, we can begin to change that. That is why it is such an important part of this package.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Chris Bloore for the final question.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I am always happy to be last on an announcement such as this. The businesses and young people in my constituency strongly welcome what the Secretary of State has announced today. As I listened to those on the Opposition Front Bench, I was reminded of the statement by Senator Moynihan of New York:
“you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts”.
Sadly, the Opposition have failed to mention that for over a decade, the UK has fallen behind other OECD countries when it comes to reducing the number of young people not in education, employment or training. That is because of structural failings in both education and public health, which the previous Government did nothing to solve. How can young people and businesses in my constituency of Redditch take part in this scheme, which will finally start addressing the tragedy of NEETs in our constituencies?
Pat McFadden
On the final question, I agree with my hon. Friend that this problem of young people not in education, employment or training is a long-term one that grew under the tutelage of the Conservative party, and about which it did precisely nothing. This statement and package is a different approach, with a very clear message behind it. Let us go out and sell it. That message is: we believe in Britain’s young people; we want to give them a better future; and we have a package of help to enable them to achieve that.
Points of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have raised concerns in the House about the activities of the organisation called Labour Together. Labour Together was exposed by a group of journalists for wrongdoings, including the non-declaration of political donations to the Electoral Commission. Members were concerned that Labour Together had commissioned a US agency, APCO, to collect information and investigate the journalists. APCO produced a report, which was then used in attempts to smear those two journalists, affecting their careers.
After that matter was raised in the House, I was contacted by a journalist, and it was indicated that Labour Together might have been collecting information on not just journalists but possibly Members of Parliament. I submitted a subject access request to Labour Together, which replied that because this is a complex case, the deadline for responding will be three months, not one month. I also submitted a subject access request to the US agency APCO, and I received a reply last night that confirmed that, yes, it has been collecting information on me. It does not say why, or who commissioned the work that it is undertaking. APCO then gave me 11 redacted pages that are nonsensical. Literally whole pages are redacted, except for three or four words on each page, usually just names.
I am concerned that an organisation or agency could be collecting information on Members of Parliament. It does not know who for, or for what purpose, but if we look at what happened to those two journalists, the purpose was to smear them and affect their careers. I have called on a number of occasions for an independent inquiry on the activities of Labour Together and APCO. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to place on the record again my request for the Government to consider the establishment of an independent inquiry into the activities of both these organisations.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Member for notice of his point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but he has put his point on the record. If he has concerns about compliance with the law, he may wish to consult the Information Commissioner.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek guidance on a matter that goes to the heart of the standards of this House, and the safety and cohesion of the country that we serve. Earlier today, the shadow Justice Secretary made remarks about a peaceful and entirely lawful iftar gathering in Trafalgar Square, organised with the prior approval of the Greater London Authority. He described that gathering as an “act of domination”, and implied that such expressions of Muslim faith are unwelcome in our shared public spaces.
Public spaces in this country, including Trafalgar Square, have long been places where people of all faiths and none come together—where Muslims break their fast, yes, but it is also a place where Sikhs, Hindus, Jews and many others have marked their traditions openly and proudly. That is not extremism. That is not domination. It is the expression of the plural democratic society that we claim to defend. To single out one minority community in this way is not only inconsistent with that tradition, but deeply dangerous and inflammatory.
Words from Members of this House, who are public officials, do not exist in a vacuum. They can legitimise prejudice and embolden those who seek to divide our country and society. This House has a duty to uphold respect, equality and the dignity of all communities. Madam Deputy Speaker, what recourse is available when such rhetoric threatens not only the reputation of this House, but the safety and cohesion of our communities in our country?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Member has put his point on the record.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to make this point of order and apologies for not making you aware of it in advance. I have just seen an email response from the private investigation organisation APCO in response to my subject access request, which says that
“this has produced a large volume of data”
and that they
“therefore require additional time in which to supply our response to you”.
It adds:
“This has made the response to your DSAR complex in accordance with the statutory framework.”
Labour Together responded:
“we will need some further time to complete this work”,
saying that they may need up to 18 May.
Madam Deputy Speaker, will you provide guidance on how the democratic and political rights of elected Members can be protected when a private investigation firm states that it has gathered a large volume of data in relation to us? By arguing that it is some way complex, it clearly holds a large volume of data. What guidance can you give as to how our democratic duties and political freedoms can be protected when a private investigation firm is operating in this way?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. You may not be aware of a previous point of order from your right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but you have put your point on the record. If you have any concerns about compliance with the law, you may wish to consult the Information Commissioner.
Bill Presented
Clinical Negligence
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a fixed recoverable costs scheme to limit the costs that may be recovered in respect of certain cases of clinical negligence; to provide for regular review of the limits set by such a scheme; to amend the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948; to require the Secretary to State to report on options for reform of clinical negligence compensation relating to obstetrics; and for connected purposes.
Horrified by the money spent on paying out for failure rather than on improving care, I was already set on bringing forward a Bill to implement some of the findings of our recent Public Accounts Committee “Costs of clinical negligence” report when Amie Evans from Forest Hall walked into my constituency surgery. Her story confirmed the urgency of the issue and the desperate need for change.
Amie, a teaching assistant, is a truly inspirational young woman. With unimaginable grace, she told me about the heartbreaking loss of her daughter Seren, stillborn last year, and its ongoing impact. She told me how the concerns she raised about reduced movements in the days leading up to her due date were simply not listened to. The fourth time she raised it, after her due date had passed, it was already too late.
On top of being utterly devastated, Amie feels completely failed by the medical professionals who were supposed to be taking care of her and Seren. Yet despite their grief, Amie and her partner Lewis have shown remarkable courage in campaigning to raise awareness and encouraging pregnant mothers to trust their instincts. She has succeeded in getting the hospital to review and change procedures in the hope that no other mother will ever have to experience such heartbreak.
Yet sadly, Amie is far from alone. Failures at maternity units across the country have sadly returned to the spotlight in recent years. The Secretary of State was right to commission a national review, led by Baroness Amos. Her interim report, published last month, sets out a horrifying catalogue of failings: culture issues, weak leadership, discrimination, and a lack of transparency and accountability when things go wrong. That lack of accountability is at the heart of the problem. Review after review have found families who feel ignored by hospitals, left desperately seeking answers and concerned that the same errors will happen again.
Rhiannon Davies and her husband Richard spent years calling for a review at Shrewsbury and Telford hospital following the death of their daughter, Kate, at just six hours old. Their steadfast commitment to ensuring that could never happen again led to the Ockenden review, which concluded that failures had led to the death of over 200 babies at the trust. Rhiannon said:
“All we wanted was the truth about why our daughter died. Instead, we faced years of denial.”
This theme of denial was front and centre of the Kirkup review into the Morecambe Bay NHS trust. One member of staff who was interviewed said as she left the room:
“Sometimes bad things happen in maternity—people just have to accept it.”
How can any parent have faith that lessons will be learned with attitudes like that? In Dr Kirkup’s next review into failings at East Kent, one parent said:
“Every time at the hospital, it always seems like one person is covering up for the next; they are a team and they work together, but they shouldn’t cover up when children are dying.”
As Chair of the Petitions Committee in 2021, I led a debate on black maternal healthcare, backed by 170,000 people calling for better care for black women, who continue to receive disproportionately poor outcomes in maternity care. I recounted the story of a woman who had said:
“As soon as the second midwife was on shift, she just seemed to have one goal in mind and that was delivering my baby as soon as possible. She didn’t seem to care about easing any part of my pain or reassuring me for the many worries I had at the time—she rushed my labour along and as a result almost cost me my son’s life.”
This is also personal for me. I had my own experience of poor care when in labour with my first child. Despite being in significant pain, nauseous and vomiting, and waters broken, I was sent away from the hospital numerous times. I was finally admitted as a full emergency, my unborn baby with a falling heart rate and in clear distress, both of us having endured 24 hours of unproductive, painful and dangerous back-to-back labour. I recalled afterwards that the midwives behaved more like nightclub bouncers than carers.
One even said to me, I think on the third time of being sent away:
“I know it’s exciting having your first baby”.
She clearly had never given birth. Fortunately both my daughter and I came through the experience without lasting damage, but when I read the stories of parents who have experienced the worst, I can see how close we came.
It is no surprise, then, faced with issues around accountability, denial and a lack of trust, that so many parents have to pursue legal avenues to get their answers. When mothers feel they haven’t been listened to and they hit the brick wall of NHS defensive culture, they have nowhere else to turn. Maternity claims are the highest-value negligence claims and can often involve babies born with catastrophic, lifelong injuries, yet the average birth injury claim in England takes six and a half years to conclude, during which time parents are trapped, having to fight for the support their child needs.
As the Public Accounts Committee’s extensive inquiry found, other countries have shown that a better, safer and more compassionate system is possible. New Zealand’s automatic no-fault scheme costs roughly half what England spends per capita. Japan’s cerebral palsy scheme combines compensation with a robust investigation and prevention programme, improving care while reducing claims. Sweden has a long-standing no-blame compensation scheme, where cases are assessed on whether it was avoidable, rather than proving negligence. This encourages transparency from clinicians and has contributed to a reduction in avoidable birth injuries. In Sweden, one baby fewer dies each day than in the UK. In Japan, that figure is two.
At the heart of this must be a willingness and openness to seek answers and learn lessons, so that healing can begin and care can improve. That is why this Bill calls for the incorporation of the lessons of existing maternity reviews and asks the Government to draw on international best practice, so that we can build a fairer, safer and more effective system in our NHS. The Bill also reflects the further findings in the Public Accounts Committee report. The Government’s liability for clinical negligence claims has quadrupled over the last two decades and now stands at £60 billion. When it comes to maternity, it is truly shocking that we spend more on failure than we do on the care itself.
NHS Resolution is working to resolve more claims without litigation, and that is welcome but it is far from enough. In 2024-25, claims under £25,000 in value cost the NHS £183 million, yet only £39 million—just £1 in every £5—went to patients in damages. The rest was absorbed by legal and defence costs. It is staggering that so much public money goes to lawyers, not to those patients who have been harmed or to improve care. The previous Government consulted on introducing a fixed recoverable costs scheme, mirroring the approach already used in many personal injury cases, and while it was agreed to three years ago, it remains under review. The Bill will put in place a system that will improve this, and I am grateful to the former Chancellor and Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), for supporting the Bill.
There is also a long-standing anomaly in how compensation is calculated, dictated by a law predating the NHS that prevents consideration that the NHS may be the best place for claimants to access ongoing care. As it stands, it can lead to the state effectively being double-charged. To ensure that every pound is focused on improving care and preventing harm, we must finally amend and update this law—this 1948 relic—to reflect modern-day reality.
Fundamentally, the Bill is not about numbers on a balance sheet, nor about restricting compensation for those who have experienced harms. It is about the mothers, patients and families who live every day with the consequences of failure, and who are crying out for a system that listens, learns and acts to reduce harm. We have to restore trust and have an NHS built on compassion, not defensiveness, when things go wrong. We must ensure that lessons are learned quickly and openly, so patients get the answers they need and a reassurance that the same mistakes will not happen again. The vast sums of money we currently spend on legal costs must instead go to improving the system, rather than forcing families into years of litigation just to get the answers they deserve.
For Amie, Lewis and baby Seren, and for all parents and babies who have suffered the most unimaginable harm, I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Catherine McKinnell, Sir Jeremy Hunt, Marsha De Cordova, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, David Smith, Peter Prinsley, Rachel Gilmour, Mary Glindon, Jen Craft, Paulette Hamilton, Anna Dixon and Josh Fenton-Glynn present the Bill.
Catherine McKinnell accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 April, and to be printed (Bill 407).
Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time)
Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am pleased to open the debate on this short Bill that has a straightforward, singular aim. It seeks to amend the statutory limits on the number of ministerial salaries available, currently capped at 109, to 120. That reflects the average size of Government since 2010 and largely ends the practice of unpaid Ministers. It will ensure that the Prime Minister of the day has the flexibility needed to appoint enough paid Ministers to meet the demands of modern government.
It may be helpful to explain the context of the Bill before us. Under the constitution, the monarch appoints the Prime Minister as the person most able to command the confidence of the House of Commons. All ministerial appointments thereafter are made by the monarch on the sole advice of the Prime Minister. There is a statutory limit on how many ministerial salaries are available, as set out in the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. The current limit of 109 salaries has not been changed since then. There is a separate statutory limit on the number of Ministers who can sit and vote in the House of Commons, whether paid or unpaid, under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. This limit is 95, and the Bill before us does not change that. There is no equivalent limit on the number of peers able to serve as Ministers.
The Ministerial and other Salaries Act also sets out the salaries that should be paid to eight other officeholders: the Speakers of both Houses, the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, the Chief Opposition Whips in both Houses and two assistant Opposition Whips in the House of Commons. The Bill does not seek to amend the number of salaries allocated to those roles. Within that limit of 109, 83 salaries can be allocated at Secretary of State, Minister of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretary ranks; a further four salaries are allocated to the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Advocate General for Scotland; and 22 salaries are allocated to Government Whips.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Given the economic situation, the public expect restraint at the moment. They also expect leadership—and that means ministerial leadership. Does the Paymaster General seriously believe that the public will welcome this? The explanatory notes tell us that it will involve a payroll hike of between 13% and 19% for that group of people, plus superannuation and severance payments, which is not an insignificant sum. Has he considered perhaps reducing, rather than increasing, the number of Ministers?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am genuinely surprised by that intervention, because when I was taking the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill through the House, the fact that Ministers in the Lords are unpaid was raised not only by Conservative Front Benchers in this House, but by the Conservative leader in the Lords. The right hon. Gentleman is very much out of step with his own Front Benchers. On the substance of his point, I give the reassurance that the freeze on ministerial salaries absolutely remains. This is not about the level of salary for individuals; it is about the number of salaries available for the Prime Minister to allocate.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I may be at risk of making myself fantastically unpopular, but I think I can do so having no prospect whatsoever of reaching ministerial office again. Although I am perfectly willing to admit that the previous Government did not do this, does the Paymaster General agree that a Government will at some point have to reconsider the constant freezing of the ministerial salary? It has to increase, or we will get to the point of there being no meaningful reward for ministerial office, which I think could have a detrimental impact on the calibre of people we can attract over the long term. He is being very bold on this, so why not be bold with ministerial salaries?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind the House that what we are discussing—and what is in scope—is the number of ministerial appointments, not the salaries of Ministers.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
If ever Ministers were looking for a trade union leader, we have found one in the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden). Having already held very high office and been Deputy Prime Minister, he should perhaps worry less about future ambitions.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The freeze remains in place.
The 1975 Act sets cumulative limits on the salaries allocated to Secretaries of State, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. Within the overall limit of 83, the cumulative limits are 21 Secretary of State rank salaries; 50 Secretary of State and Minister of State rank salaries; and 83 Secretary of State, Minister of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretary rank salaries. The salary limits were set in 1975, which is over half a century ago. As a result of the demands of modern government, all Governments since 2010 have consistently featured larger ministerial teams than the existing Act’s provisions permit to be paid. Team numbers ranged from an average of 118 in the Cameron and May Governments to 123 in the Sunak Government. There are 122 personnel in the current Government.
That has led to an unsatisfactory position in which Governments of all parties have become dependent on Ministers being willing and able to work unpaid. To be fair, historically that has predominantly fallen on Ministers in the other place. I do not think that is right. Lords Ministers work incredibly hard, and they often manage some of the broadest and most demanding portfolios across Government. I am sure that the whole House can support the notion that Ministers should be paid for what they do. This is a Government of service. We have more state-educated Cabinet Ministers than ever before, and it is right for Ministers to be paid for the job they do, and to focus on that job rather than relying on external funding.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his typical courtesy. I am sure that there will be wide agreement with his proposition that someone who is doing a ministerial job ought to be paid for it, and such jobs should not be reserved for the people who can afford not to be paid. However, on the principle that a bigger Government is not necessarily a better Government, can he guarantee that if there is an increase in the number of paid ministerial posts, there will not be a commensurate increase in the number of unpaid ministerial posts?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have every sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but the number 120 is not an objective for the Government to become bigger; it is the average size of the Governments we have had since 2010 in any event. We are not trying to expand the number of unpaid Ministers—far from it. We are trying to ensure that all Ministers in the Government are paid rather than expanding the number, which he quite rightly draws attention to.
To summarise, the Bill increases the cap on ministerial salaries from 109 to 120. All additional salaries will be allocated at either Secretary of State, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary rank, at the discretion of the Prime Minister. The salaries operate cumulatively, which means that salaries not allocated at a senior rank can be used to pay a Minister at a more junior rank within the limits. The Bill will therefore make provision for: one additional salary at Secretary of State rank, increasing the limit to 22; four additional salaries at either Secretary of State or Minister of State rank, increasing the overall limit from 50 to 54; and 11 additional salaries at either Secretary of State, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary rank, increasing the overall limit from 83 to 94.
Given that cumulative structure, if the Prime Minister of the day chose to allocate the salaries to the most senior Minister possible, that would result in one extra salary for a Secretary of State, three for Ministers of State and seven for Parliamentary Secretaries. The limits on the Lord Chancellor, Attorney General, Solicitor General, Advocate General for Scotland and Government Whips salaries will remain unchanged. The limits on the other office-holder salaries will also remain unchanged.
Sir Julian Lewis
I am sorry to come in again. One of the things that I have never quite understood, given that the workload is broadly the same, is why there is a differential in salary between the different levels of Minister—particularly in the Lords, where their jobs are effectively the same. Why are some Ministers of State or Under-Secretaries paid a different amount? After all, whatever our seniority, we are all paid exactly the same as Members of this House. Why would they not all be paid the same?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. If we go back to the debates from 1975, we will see some of the reasons why that is the case. We have always differentiated not just in the ranks but in salaries. That is also how we have done it historically for Law Officers. It does not necessarily mean that there is a logic behind it, but it is the historical system we have inherited. The Bill is meant to correct just one of the anomalies. That is not to say that there are not others, as the right hon. Gentleman sets out.
The increase to 120 salaries reflects the average number of Ministers since 2010, as set out in clause 1. Set against the existing limit of 95 Ministers who can be Members of this place under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, 25 salaries will effectively be reserved for Lords Ministers. As I indicated when responding to the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere, the Bill does not increase the pay of individual Ministers—I take a different view from him on that. With the exception of Lords pay in 2019, the salaries of Ministers have not increased since 2008 and the Prime Minister maintained the salary freeze upon entering office. The Bill does not change that position.
Sir Oliver Dowden
The Minister has made frequent reference to the figure of 120 Ministers. Further to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), why not legislate to make that a fixed cap on the number of Ministers? In my experience of advising many Ministers and being involved in many reshuffles, there is always an enormous temptation just to squeeze one more in, and then another. So although there may be a cap of 120 Ministers, there could be some new brief and, before we know it, we will have 125 Ministers in total, with 120 salaried and five unpaid, and we will be back where we started. If the Minister wishes to gain the consent of the House of Commons for increasing the number of salaried posts—and he makes a convincing argument for doing so—why not guard against that risk by introducing an absolute cap on the number of Ministers?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I can reassure the former Deputy Prime Minister that that is absolutely not the objective of the Bill. He will have been involved in more reshuffles than me over the many years that he was either in No. 10 or subsequently as a Minister, but the objective is that we do not have the situation where there are unpaid Minister. That is the very clear objective of the Bill. The purpose of the legislation is that the Prime Minister has the flexibility to appoint enough paid Ministers to meet the demands of modern Government.
There is general acceptance, which I agree with, that anyone in the country should aspire to be a Minister, no matter their background, without having to rely on personal wealth in lieu of a salary. On that basis, I hope that this short piece of legislation will command the support of Members across the House. I commend the Bill to the House.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Hon. Members will be delighted to hear that I will speak only briefly, because the Opposition do not intend to oppose the legislation. My contribution is already substantially longer than that made by my predecessor, Teddy Taylor, in 1975, when the legislation originally came to the House, who said only 14 words before sitting down.
Although the Conservatives do not oppose the measure, I have a few questions based on issues raised by my hon. Friends. The next Conservative Government intend to reduce the size of Government and, in due course, reduce the number of Ministers that the Government require. On principle, we think that Ministers ought to be paid. However, referring back to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), the former Deputy Prime Minister, it would be good to have a Dispatch Box commitment that there will be no more unpaid Ministers under this Government. I understand that the Bill has not been drafted in that way and that the Government intend to bring forward amendments only in Committee, but such a commitment would reassure the House that this is not just going to be an ever-increasing problem, and that unpaid Ministers will be added to paid Ministers, and so on.
It would be helpful if the Minister set out for the House the Government’s intention for the additional Secretary of State salary. That will command some interest, both inside and outside this place. It is pretty obvious that the Government have something in mind and it would be useful to air that at this stage.
As I have said, we believe that those who serve as Ministers ought to be paid. It is not really right that Prime Ministers should ask people to be a Minister of the Crown without offering them a salary, and I think our constituents would feel the same way. While our approach would be slightly different, we will not oppose the legislation today.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats believe that people should be paid fairly to do a job, and that it should not be only the wealthy who can afford to be a Minister.
Ministers will face enormous demands on their time, for there is much to be done, and the Government should prioritise finding talent across both Houses to fill these positions. We recognise the importance of having a well-rounded and efficient Government, but expanding the ministerial payroll is only justifiable if it comes with transparency, accountability and a genuine commitment to public service.
When the previous Conservative Government—or maybe it was the one before that, or the one before that —were in power, we witnessed a merry-go-round of Ministers. We had the shortest serving Prime Minister ever, endless Cabinet reshuffles and a revolving door of Secretaries of State that left Departments directionless and policy in a constant state of flux.
Instead of everyone being famous for five minutes, almost every Conservative MP in the last Parliament was a Minister for 15 minutes. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that Ministers who hold office for only a few days or weeks should not be entitled to handsome severance payouts. Under the chaos of the last Government, we witnessed severance payments to Ministers who had been in post for under a week. That is an insult to the taxpayer, and this Government must ensure that such practices are consigned to history.
In recent months, we have seen that those we should be able to trust in positions of government do not always have our best interests at heart, from Mandelson’s dismissal and the sharing of confidential information to a former Cabinet Office Minister being implicated in efforts to discredit journalists. Those scandals have led to further corrosion in public trust, which we should be doing everything in our power to rebuild. Last year, YouGov found that only 4% of people feel that politicians are doing what is best for the country, while 67% feel that politicians act out of self-interest. Our political system is under enormous strain, and public outrage at the numerous instances of corruption, lawbreaking or just poor judgment is a gift to those at the political extremes. Meek promises to tweak some processes are not enough.
With this legislation, the Government are adding an estimated £600,000 to £850,000 a year to the cost to the taxpayer. If the Government are demanding that amount of taxpayers’ money each year to pay for these additional salaries, they should be able to provide a guarantee that the public are getting full value for that money. The Government should commit that none of the newly salaried Ministers or any Minister drawing a taxpayer-funded salary will be permitted to hold a second or third job. If the Government are expanding the payroll to fit the size of the Government that they need, there is no excuse for those Ministers to be dividing their time with outside employment.
That being said, the work that Ministers do should be recognised. The Government have 120 Ministers, of which two in the House of Commons and nine in the other place are unpaid. Expanding the ministerial payroll must come with greater accountability, not less. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to enshrine the ministerial code in law so that the standards we expect of those in office are not merely guidelines to be ignored at will, but legal obligations with real consequences.
We also call for the ethics adviser to be made truly independent. They should be empowered to initiate their own investigations, determine breaches and publish findings without interference from the very Prime Minister they are supposed to hold to account.
This Bill does not tell us very much new about what responsibilities the additional Ministers will take on. Before we nod through this additional taxpayer expenditure, I would welcome an assurance and a clear explanation from the Minister on what the roles will be and why they are needed. Transparency when signing over this amount of money should be an expectation, not a request.
This Government and their predecessors talk of devolution—something that we Liberal Democrats strongly support. We believe that the best decisions are those made closest to the people they impact, and this Government have taken some steps to devolve power and funding closer to the communities we all represent. They have not necessarily done it in the way that we Lib Dems would have done it, but we acknowledge that they have made some progress.
In his closing remarks, will the Minister comment on how he sees the number of Ministers changing over time? If the number of decisions taken locally or in the regions and the amount of power in those regions increases, does that mean that he expects the number of Ministers needed at a national level to decrease? Liberal Democrats will support measures that make Government work better, but we feel that this Bill expanding the ministerial payroll is a missed opportunity to strengthen ministerial accountability or do anything truly meaningful to rebuild the public trust that has been so badly damaged.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
What a pleasure it is to speak in this debate. Speaking in a debate where there is no time limit attached to the speeches made is a rarity and an opportunity that we should all relish and take advantage of.
I must confess that when I saw the title of this Bill, the radical in me was excited. I thought that the Government were going to do something bold, visionary and different, but sadly that opportunity to do something different seems to have passed them by. Instead of listening to what the Chancellor has said about some of the great challenges that this country faces in balancing the books and ensuring that we have the ability to pay our way and make savings in government all the way from the top to the bottom, the Cabinet Office seems to have gone on a little jolly of its own. It has decided to do something completely different and expand the cost of doing government. That is not quite what the British public are asking for.
Before this debate, I thought I had best check my emails, because I was wondering when I last had a deluge of emails—or even one email—calling for more Cabinet Ministers, more Ministers of State or more Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State. I searched my emails over the past month, and I could not find one. I searched over the past year, and I could not find one. I went all the way back over 16 years, desperately searching for an email calling for more Cabinet Ministers, more Ministers of State and more Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, and I found none whatsoever.
I am concerned for the health of this Government, who are having a few difficulties. Are they doing things that the public do not want? I do not think there is a great demand for more Ministers. I urge the Minister to look again at this legislation. I agree with one element of the Bill—that if a person is being asked to do a job, they should get a wage for it—but why not bring down the number of people who can be Ministers? Why not turn this Bill into a saving for the Government and the Treasury? That will earn the Minister great plaudits from No. 11. He will probably be hailed; he will probably be earmarked for promotion, so that he can get one of the reduced number of Secretary of State positions.
I question why, at this time, the Government are bringing forward legislation enabling them to expand the Government payroll. I remember that when I was Chief Whip, I would often be confronted with Members of Parliament who were quite willing to do a job without any pay as long as they were going to be called “Minister”. Admittedly, that was many years ago—maybe things have changed—but I worry about sending the message that we have found the time to pass legislation to pay more people to be Ministers. What the public want to hear is that the Government and this House are tackling the issues that impact their lives. They want to hear that this House is tackling the issues that will make a difference to their living standards, not those of Members of Parliament and Ministers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman is waxing lyrical about the Bill, but the fact of the matter is that my constituents are facing an oil cost of over $100 a barrel, are paying more tax and having less money to spend, and are wondering how having more Ministers will make an ineffective Government more effective. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this only adds to the disconnect felt by people in the street—the ones telling me what is happening, what is going on and how we can make it better?
Sir Gavin Williamson
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a disconnect between all the priorities and all the issues around the world and our wanting to pass legislation to create more ministerial offices.
I also understand and appreciate the challenges that the Prime Minister will face. I am sympathetic to his position, because he will be constantly badgered to make more Ministers, with more people wanting patronage and elevation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has pointed out, there is no upper limit to the number of Ministers, so if we are in this House in 10 years’ time, we will be having a debate about how there are another 15 Ministers who are unpaid. The Government Minister will be at the Dispatch Box, possibly trying to defend the idea of paying even more Ministers. We will have a creep, creep, creep of patronage, with ever more people going on to the Government payroll. I feel, and I fear, that that may weaken this House.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for his powerful remarks. I hope he did not spend too many hours trawling through 16 years of emails, but it is yet another example of his hard work and diligence in this place. I sympathise with his points, but I hope he is comforted by the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) that a future Conservative Government will reduce the number of ministerial posts and reduce the size of Government.
As I am sure all Members would agree, it is only right that those who choose to serve the public as Ministers of the Crown should be able to receive a salary if they wish. Although the Government of the day must always be drawn from and ultimately accountable to the elected House of Commons, previous Governments of all stripes have benefited from the knowledge and wisdom provided by noble Lords who have served as Ministers or held one of the great offices of state. I am sure many Members will have had the privilege of working alongside them and know personally of their dedication and public service.
All those who serve as Ministers of the Crown, whether they be Members of this House or the other place, give up their time and energy and take on an extra burden of responsibilities in doing so, both relating to their departmental work and in representing the Government in the Chamber. It is only right, therefore, that Ministers should receive equal payment regardless of the House in which they sit. It should also be noted that the impetus for ensuring that all those who serve as Ministers of the Crown can receive a salary came from the other place, which debated this issue at length during the passage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. Although it remains a great disappointment that the Government chose to proceed with that misguided piece of legislation, at least some comfort can be taken from the fact that this debate emerged from that Bill.
In particular, I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord True, who so eloquently made the case for ensuring all Lords Ministers can receive a salary in the other place, and who laid amendments to the hereditary peers Bill to that end. While it remains disappointing that the Government did not support the Opposition’s amendments when they had the opportunity to do so, those Lords who have been calling for this change can take comfort in knowing that their efforts were not in vain. It is also further proof of the quality of debate in the other place, and the importance of its constitutional role in strengthening our laws through scrutiny, that we should be debating this Bill because of their efforts.
To conclude, peers with the experience and expertise to serve as Ministers should not be prevented from doing so due to a lack of private means. I therefore join my hon. Friends in not opposing this Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I thank the limited numbers who took part in this debate, taking advantage of the lack of a time limit. This is a simple Bill with just two clauses, and it has a simple purpose: to increase the number of Ministers who can be paid to 120, which is the average number of Ministers since 2010. It is also rooted in the simple principle that holding ministerial office should not be dependent on individual wealth.
The Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General set out, amends the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. It does so to better reflect the nature of modern government, including the number of Ministers any modern Government tend to require. It allows, but does not require, a maximum of 120 salaried members across both Houses. That number is based on the average number of Ministers since 2010 under successive Governments. Since 2010, an approximate average of 11 Ministers have been unpaid in each Government. I know that is not among the great injustices of our age—hence this is a short Bill—but the Bill addresses a clear inequity that limits those in the other place who are able or willing to take on a ministerial role. This Bill rectifies that, broadening the bench of those able to serve as Ministers. It recognises that private income should never be a requirement to serve as a Government Minister.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Was any consideration given to reducing the ministerial total, as against increasing it, in preparing this Bill?
Chris Ward
The number of Ministers in the current Government is virtually the same as it was in the previous Government. I think actually it is one lower than the previous Government. The intention of this Bill—this speaks to a point raised by a couple of Members—is not at all to increase the number of Ministers or the size of Government; it is simply to rectify the anomaly of unpaid Ministers in the other place. The right hon. Gentleman served in several Governments of this size over the past 10 years, and he asked why this Bill should come forward at this time. One answer to “Why now?” is that the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords proposed it in an amendment. It was put forward by the Conservative side. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that that was wrong. That is one of the reasons this has come forward, and it is one of the reasons for addressing the inequality with which we are dealing.
Let me refer to a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). The Bill will allow, but will not require, one additional salary at Secretary of State rank. It is for the Prime Minister to decide whether or not it goes to a Secretary of State; Parliamentary Under-Secretaries can be rewarded as well, as can Ministers of State. The Bill also allows four additional salaries at Minister of State or Secretary of State level, and 11 additional salaries overall. As I have said, those limits are cumulative, which means that the Prime Minister has discretion to make the awards. There is no prior intention; it is about discretion.
Let me turn briefly to what the Bill does not do. As the Paymaster General said, it does not alter the salaries of Ministers, much to the disappointment of the former Deputy Prime Minister. They will remain frozen, as they have been since 2008. The Bill does not necessarily create additional ministerial roles; this is a point that was raised. Indeed, it simply reflects the average number of roles since 2010. It does not alter the maximum number of paid Commons Ministers, which remains at 95—it effectively reserves 25 places for Lords Ministers—and, of course, it does not affect MPs’ pay, which is rightly entirely independent of this House. All that the Bill will do is increase the maximum number of salaried Ministers, so that it is in line with the average number of Ministers over the last few Parliaments. As I have said, the size of the Government remains unchanged, and the Government have no intention of increasing it. The purpose is merely to allow higher numbers to be paid, and to remove that inequity.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) raised the issue of the amount of minimum service for severance pay. The Government have already addressed that by introducing a power requiring a Minister to serve for six months before any severance payment can be made, thus removing some of the absurdities under the last Government, which she rightly pointed to. People were being paid for a day, or in some cases a few hours, in the job. She also raised the matter of second jobs. I remind her that the Labour party has a manifesto commitment to address that, and to ensure that second jobs are permitted only in particular circumstances—for doctors, for instance. The Modernisation Committee is dealing with that issue. I am keen for it to be addressed as quickly as possible, but it will come back to the House.
The hon. Lady mentioned the ethics adviser. Let me emphasise again that at the beginning of this Government, the Prime Minister made changes; there was an increase in the role and the independence of the independent advisers, so that they are truly independent—we have seen that they are, on several occasions—and the ethics adviser can now initiate his own inquiries. That is an important point. The hon. Lady also asked what roles the new salaried Ministers would fulfil. As I have said, that is a matter for the Prime Minister, and we have no intention of changing that.
Lisa Smart
The Minister of course will know that the Prime Minister is responsible for the contents of the ministerial code. While the ethics adviser can launch an investigation, the Prime Minister reserves the right to raise concerns about any such investigation, so that the independent adviser does not proceed. Have I understood that correctly?
Chris Ward
As I have said, the Prime Minister polices the ministerial code and has responsibility for it. The independent adviser was given the power to initiate his own investigations of Ministers, which is, I think, an important step forward. It comes, in part, because of some of the problems we saw under the last Government. I think that the role of the independent adviser has been significantly strengthened under the present Government.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am reminded of that great fictional character Sir Humphrey Appleby, who once observed that a party with 300 members gets to form a Government, but 100 are too young and too callow, and 100 are too old and too silly, so the Government pretty much select themselves. I congratulate the Minister on making it into the middle group.
On the subject of second jobs, being a Minister is essentially a second job, for which the Minister is remunerated. Does he not feel that it is a bit mean-spirited to pull up the drawbridge on other MPs who might desire to have a second job, just as he does?
Chris Ward
I thank the hon. Gentleman for flattering me by not putting me in the first or third group. As I say, the Labour party has a manifesto commitment to limit second jobs significantly. It is not about pulling up the drawbridge in all circumstances; there will be exemptions, particularly for people who serve in the NHS and so forth. However, I do think that we should consider the hon. Gentleman’s point. There is a basic expectation from the public that being a Member of this House is an MP’s one and only job, except in exceptional circumstances, but this matter is being dealt with by the Modernisation Committee, and we will look at its findings.
The right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said that nothing bold or radical is being put forward, but I point out that this Bill comes alongside a number of other reforms that this Government are delivering to modernise our democracy. Last week, following the Herculean efforts of the Paymaster General and others, legislation was finally passed to remove hereditary peers from this legislature—and not a moment too soon.
Chris Ward
I will not, because I know the right hon. Gentleman is not a great fan of that legislation. In a few months’ time, this Government will also introduce legislation to widen the franchise to people aged 16 and 17, delivering on our manifesto commitment. What better sign of bold and radical constitutional reform than removing hereditaries and broadening the franchise? I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because I am feeling generous.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank the Minister for his generosity. He is right to say that the Government have moved to remove hereditaries, which is an important step forward, but they have failed to do a number of other things that were in their manifesto, including introducing an age limit and making rules about attendance. Can he give some clarity about when that legislation will come forward, and about whether he can also get rid of the bishops?
Chris Ward
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might raise the bishops. He is quite right to say that the removal of hereditary peers is a step forward in modernising the other place, but it is not the conclusion of the process. Our manifesto commits to a number of things that will be included in the second phase of Lords reform. A Committee is being set up to advise on how we go forward. I look forward to debating that second phase with him, and issues including a retirement age and other steps for modernising the second Chamber. However, those steps are quite far removed from this Bill.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is a simple Bill. It has a very narrow purpose, and it is designed to address a very simple inequity. I commend the Bill 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).
Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) 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 Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Question agreed to.
Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, as I open the proceedings in the Committee of the whole House. I set out the core arguments for this Bill in my Second Reading speech, so I will not rehearse them again, although I have not matched the Teddy Taylor standard from 1975. However, for the benefit of the Committee, I will outline the two clauses and why they should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 1 amends paragraph 2 of part V of schedule 1 to the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which determines the maximum number of salaries that may be paid to certain ministerial office holders. Sub-paragraph (a) replaces the previous provision for 21 salaries at Secretary of State rank with a new provision for 22 salaries, sub-paragraph (b) replaces the previous provision for 50 salaries at Secretary of State rank and Minister of State rank with a new provision for 54 salaries, and sub-paragraph (c) replaces the previous provision for 83 salaries at Secretary of State rank, Minister of State rank and Parliamentary Secretary rank with a new provision of 94 salaries. This increases the total number of ministerial salaries available by 11. As I have said, the new limits are cumulative, meaning that the Prime Minister has the discretion to allocate salaries to a large number of Ministers at more junior ranks within those limits, if so desired.
Clause 2 sets out the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill. The Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Of course, the Bill comes into force on Royal Assent. I very much look forward to the rest of the debate and seeing the Bill on the statute book soon.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I have just a few short remarks. First, it would be helpful if the Minister set out how the Government have come to the totals that they have come to: why one, four and nine in total? Why not fewer, and why not more? Secondly, I did not quite get the Dispatch Box commitment I was looking for that this would mark an end to unpaid ministerial posts in this Government. [Interruption.] There is a little bit of a debate on the Government Front Bench about whether that commitment was made, but if the Paymaster General would be crystal clear, we can all go home happy.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will try to be brief on those two questions. It was the usual precise contribution, as ever, from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. First, why those totals? Because they reflect the average practice since 2010. Perhaps to reassure the hon. Gentleman, we are trying to look at the existing practice rather than looking at additional totals in the future. Secondly, on whether we are ending the practice of having unpaid Ministers, which has largely been ended, that is exactly the intention of the Bill.
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.
Third Reading
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I will keep my remarks brief. I just want to thank Members across the House for their contributions to the debate. I am sure there are issues of House of Lords reform that are far wider than this Bill, and that we will continue the debate on that in due course. If I may say a word to the officials and the team who put the Bill together, Members across the House are grateful for their work. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Corpusty Primary School
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
As a serving county councillor, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Corpusty primary school is a valued small rural school in my constituency threatened with closure at the end of this academic year. It has educated generations of children in North Norfolk, and is a vital asset to the rural communities of Corpusty, Saxthorpe and the surrounding villages. The Conservatives on Norfolk county council could take action to try to prevent this closure, but they are refusing. Catchments could be widened, new housing will bring new families, and proper placemaking strategies could be employed—but the council will not do it.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Synergy Multi-Academy Trust and Norfolk County Council to pause the proposed closure of Corpusty Primary School until alternative arrangements to secure the future of the school have been fully explored and the forthcoming local elections have taken place.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Corpusty, Saxthorpe and the surrounding communities of North Norfolk,
Declares that Corpusty Primary School is a vital part of the community and provides essential education for local children and families.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Synergy Multi-Academy Trust and Norfolk County Council to pause the proposed closure of Corpusty Primary School until alternative arrangements to secure the future of the school have been fully explored and the forthcoming local elections have taken place.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003171]
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today is 17 March, St Patrick’s day. People will be celebrating across the world, something that has been made easier for us this evening because Opposition Members voted for the Government business today. Madam Deputy Speaker, as chair of the Ireland and the Irish in Britain all-party parliamentary group, I seek your guidance on the best way for this House to send its best wishes to all the Irish staff working in this place, and to all those who are Irish and who wish they were Irish, in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across the kingdom. And may I say, through you Madam Deputy Speaker, happy St Patrick’s day?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
While that is not a matter for the Chair, the hon. Member has put his comments on the record.
Isles of Scilly: Transport
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am pleased to have secured this debate, and I am sure the Minister is delighted that we have reached the Adjournment at a point when we have ample time to explore the important issues of transport to and between the Isles of Scilly.
There is, frankly, a shocking injustice. Scillonian residents have been treated as second-class citizens when it comes to affordable transport, especially when compared to everywhere else in the United Kingdom. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that point, take it on board and consider working with me, the council of the Isles of Scilly and the residents to ensure islanders receive parity on public transport, which other parts of the country take for granted. Some places struggle with transport, particularly in rural areas, but the circumstances are very different in the Isles of Scilly.
This is not the first time I have secured a debate of this kind. For example, I raised these issues in Westminster Hall on 8 January 2002—column 158, to help the Hansard Reporters—and on 15 January 2003, and on many other occasions since. I raised these issues outside the House even during my nine sabbatical years away because of the injustice. Some improvements have been made, but services have also gone backwards. One example comes from one of my constituents on one of the four off-islands. There are four inhabited off-islands in the Isles of Scilly—St Agnes, Bryher, Tresco and St Martin’s—and one main island, St Mary’s. To get over to the main island of St Mary’s, where all the services operate—the hospital, other medical services and the council—residents from the off-islands need to get across waters that are sometimes very tempestuous. This constituent says:
“I broke my wrist…recently, and because there was no bone showing through my arm I had to wait 5 days to see medical personnel, have it x-rayed and put in plaster. I have had a medical procedure which involved 2 daily visits”
from this off-island
“to St Marys Health Centre but fortunately it was summer. If this was in the winter, I would had to have paid £240.00 just for the boating”
to and fro each time—it is a £120 return trip—as residents have no alternative but to book what are known as “specials” to attend an X-ray appointment or medical appointment or to visit an elderly resident, friend or family member in St Mary’s hospital.
“This again is £120.00 return. There has also been a cut back of transport funding for the under-five nursery services and clubs like the Brownies and so the list goes on and on, of all the problems that the residents of St Martins”—
where this constituent lives—
“are facing due to the lack of affordable boating.”
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for his constituents. Does he agree that this is a problem not just for the Isles of Scilly, but for the Isle of Wight and the Western Isles? We are an archipelago. Those who live on the outer islands suffer from this inequity; they are as British as us, but they do not enjoy the same connectivity.
Andrew George
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who leads me on to my next point. Although he says that we are all in the same boat—if you will pardon the pun, Madam Deputy Speaker—the fact is that we are not. Services in Scotland are very heavily subsidised, as I will explain. When we look for parity and comparability, the services offered for the Isles of Scilly and for Scottish islands are significantly different.
Of course, the Isles of Scilly have the additional challenge of being some 40 miles off the coast. I do not know how many miles the Isle of Wight is off the coast—is it 1.5, 2 or 3 miles? It is certainly a very short journey. In addition, because of the numbers of passengers going in that direction, the costs are obviously significantly less than for those on the Isles of Scilly.
The costs and prices for passenger transport, freight and indeed air transport for the Scottish islands are, in most cases, very heavily subsidised. I know that the UK Government are not responsible for the practices of the Scottish Government, but it was their responsibility prior to devolution, and indeed that is when the policy was established. The Minister may attempt to distance himself from something that is not the responsibility of the UK Government and hide behind that, but it was their responsibility originally, and that left a legacy that has given Scotland significant advantages.
There is no equivalent of the £3 bus fare for the Isles of Scilly—it is a £120 return, as we have just heard. There is no subsidised air travel, either. The entire economy depends very much on tourism, and tourism depends on travel. In those circumstances, we hope that the Isles of Scilly will be treated fairly.
There are very high freight costs, and the costs of getting food and other essential services to the islands are therefore very significant. My ask of the Minister is that he works with me, the council, transport providers and others to alleviate these pressures by finding an agreeable way to provide support to reduce these costs of living.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman bringing this important debate to the Chamber. Exeter airport, which is one of the key transport nodes for the Isles of Scilly, is based in my constituency. My grandparents and great-grandparents on my dad’s side really enjoyed going down there on holiday, adding to that tourism economy. I have seen the price of travel to the Scilly Isles increase in recent years, which means fewer people are able to enjoy that. I would like to offer my support to the hon. Gentleman; if there is any way I can add in Exeter airport and work with him on some of these problems, I would be very happy to do so.
Andrew George
I am pleased that the hon. Member and his family have strong connections with the islands, but I caution him against describing them as the Scilly Isles—he will not be well received on the islands if he uses that particular nomenclature—but, certainly, if he continues to call them the Isles of Scilly, I am sure that he will be very well received. His offer of working with me and the islanders—the Scillonians—will also be well received, and I am very grateful to him for it.
Transport Scotland, an agency of the Scottish Government, subsidises most routes to islands in the Hebrides through a contract with Caledonian MacBrayne —CalMac—which is owned by the Scottish Government. The islands are also served by several other routes, some of which are subsidised by local authorities, and a handful are served without subsidy by private operators. The Scottish Government have supported the sector since the 1960s. They have been obliged to tender for services since the late 1990s, to comply with state aid regulations. That has altered the ownership structures of what remains a state owned and operated set of services.
Approximately 70% of CalMac’s revenues come from the Scottish Government. It is often said that for every pound paid by a ferry user, another £2 of public subsidy is required. By contrast, passenger services between the mainland and the Isles of Scilly have always been operated on a commercial basis, with the exception of during the covid pandemic, when, like all companies around the country, it was subsidised. Certainly, this was seen as a lifeline service by the Government.
The Isles of Scilly Steamship Group, the primary operator of the transport services to the Isles of Scilly, operates Scillonian III, which is now in its 49th year and will be replaced next year by the Scillonian IV. Indeed, it was purchased in the 1960s with a Government loan of £1 million during the period when Harold Wilson, who was a resident of St Mary’s, was Prime Minister. That did help the company purchase that vessel at that time. As the Minister will know, Harold Wilson is buried on St Mary’s, and his love and affection for the islands are well known. The ISSG operates that important lifeline link to the Isles of Scilly, but only during the summer months; it cannot operate during the winter because of the inclement conditions.
The ISSG offers concessionary fares for islanders through its “travel club”, as it calls it, which is a way of building and rewarding loyalty. However, it is seen by others that somehow this service is being subsidised by visitors to the islands. We do not want to get into a situation where we discourage visitors to the islands. However, it is worth pointing out—I checked this online today—that if we were to book a return fare on the ferry from Penzance to the Isles of Scilly, which is a three-hour journey, more or less, on a 40 mile trip, that would cost around £220. If we were to catch a ferry from Mallaig to Canna, approximately 30 miles in Scotland, that journey would cost £14.20. If we were to go from Kennacraig to Port Askaig—Isla—the two-hour journey would cost £18. The comparison is something on which we need to reflect.
It is worth saying that most ferry services in England, such as the ferries to the Isle of Wight, are operated by private operators, just as they are on the Isles of Scilly, and receive no central Government grant or funding. There are other examples of publicly owned ferries in the UK, and between the UK and the Isle of Man. On Merseyside, Mersey Ferries is effectively owned by the local transport authority, Liverpool City Region combined authority. In 2018, the Government of the Isle of Man brought into public ownership the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, which operates ferries between the Isle of Man, the UK and Ireland. The Isle of Man Government do not control the day-to-day running of the company’s ferries, but they do own a 100% stake in its parent company.
I have referred already to inter-island transport and the costs and made comparisons with the subsidies available to local authorities and passengers elsewhere. As I say, there is not an equivalent to the £3 bus fare, nor is there free transport for older people. This means that islanders have a significantly increased cost of living.
While the Isles of Scilly council is responsible for transport and the economic strategy as a member of the Isles of Scilly transport board, which also includes representatives of the transport providers and business groups, the council’s strategic economic plan—“Island Futures”—includes a core aim to
“improve transport connectivity across the islands and to the mainland”.
In relation to connectivity, the strategy aims to secure
“resilient, year-round transport services to Cornwall and further afield”.
It recognises that improving transport connectivity is a “major challenge”—that is an understatement—and aims to make the islands more self-sufficient and resilient to future changes, including in relation to transport connectivity and between the islands.
There are other matters that complicate and worsen the situation for the Isles of Scilly. Its council is responsible for running the airport. It is a very small council, with a budget of £8.8 million, but it has to run a fully regulated airport, which is a lifeline service. I understand that its landing fees are due to increase 18% this year simply to meet the pure costs of the regulatory challenges. The transport operators are complaining about this, and understandably so—it is a great expense.
When I was last in Parliament, the European geostationary navigation overlay service system—Europe’s satellite-based augmentation system that ensures safe use of the services—was in operation. One of the many so-called Brexit benefits is that we can no longer use the European safe satellite system. It has been withdrawn, so the services have become less resilient and more weather-dependent than they were just 10 years ago. So even where a system is in operation, it is struggling.
The Minister will also know that the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company has expressed concern about the expansion of the emissions trading scheme. While we want to have cleaner atmospheres, the question is about the proportionate impact this scheme is likely to have. Initially, it will apply to vessels with a gross tonnage of over 5,000 from 1 June this year, and then to vessels with a gross tonnage of over 400 from 2028, which will add cost to the service. It would be helpful if the Minister talked to the steamship company, but I know that he is addressing this issue, which is very helpful—I do appreciate that.
Help has been provided. As part of the previous Government’s levelling-up programme, £48.4 million was offered to create a new vessel. Indeed, when I was elected other subsidies were available, but unfortunately it was not always possible to get the operator of the service—the steamship company—to agree to use those funds in the way that they were offered.
I know that the Minister has responded, in correspondence and in meetings, about how the English national concessionary travel scheme is supposed to operate, but we do not have buses between the off-islands and the main island, so it is absurd to attempt to apply mainland, landlocked transport policies to a maritime environment such as the Isles of Scilly. I urge him to look at that again. He goes on to tell me that the local authority can provide concessions, but the council of the Isles of Scilly is struggling to survive, let alone being able to provide additional concessions for its transport services. I hope that the Minister will look again at these matters.
The recommended policies that we ask the Minister to consider are: extending the powers under the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 to classify inter-island boating as eligible public passenger transport; beginning a pilot scheme with the Isles of Scilly, perhaps during next winter; and seeing how we get on and evaluate it after a 12-month period. We could create an islands transport mechanism, equivalent to the Scottish air discount scheme or ferry support services, and establish a statutory footing for island-appropriate subsidy powers. We could provide emissions trading scheme transitional relief for lifeline routes and describe the service to the Isles of Scilly as such a route to prevent fare spikes when the ETS comes into force. We could also support harbour electrification for Penzance and St Mary’s.
I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the issues that I have raised previously and I hope that he will take on board the issues that I have raised today. I am delighted to say that the chair of the council of the Isles of Scilly, Councillor Robert Francis, is in the Public Gallery watching this debate, and he will be as keen as I am to continue the conversation with the Minister after the debate, as it is desperately important that we address the very serious transport challenges that Scillonians face.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to respond to this Adjournment debate. May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing it and for speaking so passionately about transport provision for the Isles of Scilly? He speaks with his characteristic good nature on what are really severe and challenging issues facing his constituents and, at the first instance, I acknowledge that and his tireless work across many decades in Parliament where he has advocated on their behalf. I also thank him for his kind offer for us to work more closely together on this issue, which is certainly a commitment I would be glad to accept.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the Isles of Scilly are unique, both in their beauty and their appeal to both residents and visitors, as we have so ably heard, but also that they have clear and pressing challenges in their transportation needs. Their location, 30 miles to the west of Cornwall, brings a set of unique transport challenges that the hon. Member has set out.
If he will allow me, first, I will briefly highlight some of the work that this Government are doing across transport, and notably in Cornwall, that will benefit the hon. Member’s constituents, before turning to the specific concerns that he has raised. We are providing record levels of investment to road, bus and active travel projects across the country to boost connectivity through simplified multi-year settlements. Although I appreciate that the Isles of Scilly are treated separately for funding purposes, Cornwall council, the local authority for much of the hon. Member’s constituency, will receive over £30 million of local authority bus grants during the spending review period, in addition to the £10.6 million it is receiving this financial year. It will also receive over £4.5 million for active travel, up to £221 million for highways maintenance and £24 million in local transport grant funding over the next four years. However, I appreciate that the hon. Member has brought this debate today because he wants to speak about the specific concerns of islanders, and it is those matters that I will now turn to.
The Isles of Scilly are served by a ferry service for eight months of the year, provided by the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company and its vessel, the Scillonian III. I am pleased that the company has commissioned the building of a new passenger ferry, the Scillonian IV, which, as the hon. Member has outlined, is due to come into service next year. In addition, it has two new freight vessels coming into service this summer, and a further vessel is to be launched in 2027. These investments will help secure services between the isles and the mainland for the foreseeable future.
The hon. Member is right to point out the cost of living impact of the transport challenges that his constituents face. The cost of living is a key issue for this Government, and I recognise his and his constituents’ concerns regarding the unique challenges around the high cost of travel to, from and between the islands. I acknowledge the difficulties the island communities face, both in travelling to and from the mainland and in travelling between the islands, and my Department remains committed to delivering better, sustainable and more affordable transport provision. This will be reaffirmed in the integrated national transport strategy, which will soon be published.
Although the amount of transport funding that we are able to offer the Isles of Scilly through the legislative means that the hon. Member outlines is, in my view, limited, that does not mean that we do not wish to do all we can to improve the services there. I can confirm that we are providing the council with a total of £291,000 in highways maintenance incentive funding, up to and including 2029-30, to maintain and improve local roads. Alongside this, we have allocated £140,000 in active travel funding to support the development and construction of walking, wheeling and cycling facilities, and to support network planning and community engagement.
I would like to reassure the hon. Member that I am committed to continuing the engagement between the Government and the Isles of Scilly. It is of paramount importance to me and other Ministers that this continues. Officials from my Department and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government visited the Isles of Scilly last year and spoke to residents to gain a greater understanding of the challenges that people face. This was followed by a visit in July from Baroness Taylor. These visits were valuable for our Departments, which have worked collaboratively to understand the challenges for people on the islands, including economic difficulties and transport-related issues. Both Departments remain in regular contact with the Isles of Scilly council, which is proactive in driving forward change.
I also recognise the impact of the increasing cost of fares and of transport operations on the people of the Isles of Scilly. It remains the case that all air and sea services to and from the islands are commercially operated, without public subsidy. As I have explained in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, the threshold for Government intervention in such markets is extremely high, and there are no current plans to intervene, given that commercial services remain viable. I take his point about the provision for the Scottish islands and the legislative hangover from previous Governments’ time in office, but I would note that the situation in question was distinct, in that the services could not operate on a commercial basis. I reassure him that, through the Department’s public service obligations, a policy is in place that if any air transport routes were at risk of being lost, we would assess whether intervention was needed to ensure that the vital links between the islands and the mainland were maintained.
I also recognise that inter-island boat services are vital for the Isles of Scilly community. As I have set out to the hon. Gentleman, however, if a service is to be covered by the £3 national bus fare cap, it has to meet the necessary criteria, including being an open bus service that allows all members of the public to board. The English national concessionary travel scheme is a statutory bus-specific scheme, and it does not extend to maritime transport, but I understand his concerns about the limitations of that framework.
Local authorities have the discretion to offer concessions on other modes, and I am aware that the Isles of Scilly council already provides a health pass, as well as a discretionary concession pass. On ferry services, it is for the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company to decide whether to offer concessions, but I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s very reasonable point about the fiscal pressures faced by the council, and the concessionary offers that it is able to provide. That is certainly something that I will take away and reflect on as a result of our debate.
Andrew George
To a certain extent, the Minister has implied the answer to this, but of course he is well aware that a bus cannot drive between the off-islands and St Mary’s—though there might be some inventive way in which someone could do such a thing. He must accept that if one is looking for parity between the Isles of Scilly and the mainland, one must recognise that we cannot have an open bus service. There are boats and launches that go between the islands—and yes, anyone can use them. Surely there must be a way of finding a parallel for the Isles of Scilly.
Keir Mather
I take the point the hon. Member makes, and the point that he made earlier about the basic issue of equity for British citizens, irrespective of which part of the United Kingdom they live in. That being said, it is incumbent on me in my ministerial capacity to work within the framework of the regulations that have been set. Unfortunately, if they are too narrow to facilitate the interpretation that he advises us to make. I am afraid that that is the reality of the situation, but that is why it is all the more important that we find ways to engage together to solve these challenges. That is certainly what I want to do, following this debate.
Since last year, Artemis Technologies and other stakeholders have taken forward activity as a result of their successful bid to the Department’s clean maritime demonstration competition fund round 6. The Department provided £750,000 to enable a feasibility study to ascertain whether Artemis’s technology could provide a viable solution for an island route passenger service, particularly in the winter months, when residents have no regularly scheduled water crossing. We expect to hear the results very soon.
The UK emissions trading scheme will be extended to cover UK domestic voyages and all UK in port emissions for vessels of 5,000 gross tonnage and above from July 2026. I can assure the hon. Member that we have assessed that these criteria are not met for the Scillonian IV or the Scillonian III. Both remain outside the scope of the UK ETS, and the exemptions and threshold will be reviewed in 2028.
Andrew George
I am grateful for that clarification; I am sure that it will be music to the ears of the steamship company. Going back to the point about Artemis, which is exciting—I congratulate the Government for investing in it—is there any indication of the timescale for any roll-out that might benefit the Isles of Scilly?
Keir Mather
The Department, of course, wants to pursue these projects at pace. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will respond to him in writing with a more detailed timeline of when roll-out will begin.
To conclude, the Government are investing in roads, rail, buses and active travel projects across the country to connect people to jobs, education and opportunities. Our multi-year transport investments help local authorities to drive economic growth and deliver on our plan for change. There are still challenges that we need to overcome, and I commit to working with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that we tackle them for residents of the Isles of Scilly. I sincerely thank him for securing the debate, and for allowing me to address the House on these important issues, which I know are of paramount importance to both him and his constituents. I am sure that he will be able to cover this subject in more detail when he meets Lord Hendy, Lord Berkeley, Baroness Taylor and representatives from the Isles of Scilly council tomorrow morning. I look forward to working closely with him on delivering better transport provision and improved connectivity for everyone in his constituency and right across the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.