House of Commons
Business before Questions
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
This is a matter for the Treasury, although we remain closely engaged. The UN framework convention is focused on improving effective and inclusive international tax co-operation, not on creating specific global taxes on oil and gas companies.
Iqbal Mohamed
The combined market value of the six big oil super-majors has soared by more than $130 billion since the first US-Israeli attack on Iran, while my constituents and those across the country face higher bills. Will the Energy Secretary and the Government work with international partners to establish global taxes on the fossil fuel industry through the UN tax convention and help bill payers with their energy costs?
Michael Shanks
As I said, this is a matter for the Treasury, but we look closely at where we can co-operate around the world. This country’s windfall tax has raised £12 billion, funding public services and supporting the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and many others with the cost of living. We will continue to invest in bringing down bills, but we will also invest in the infrastructure that gets us off fossil fuels.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
We are delivering the biggest upgrade to the grid since the 1960s, using strategic plans to identify where new capacity is needed and accelerating infrastructure build. In west London, network operators have used innovative measures to help new developments to connect, despite exceptionally high growth in electricity demand.
Danny Beales
I thank the Minister for that response. As well as grid capacity for much-needed new homes and infrastructure such as Hillingdon hospital, capacity is needed in west London for the large number of data centres being proposed at a regional level. What actions are being taken to strategically co-ordinate those demands and, crucially, to secure local benefits such as jobs and heat capture to lower household bills? Those things are present in the local planning system in Hillingdon, but are not being secured.
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right that strategic infrastructure planning is crucial, which is why we are engaging in the first ever national strategic spatial energy plan, which will lead to a centralised strategic plan for the future of the network. We are also looking at how we manage demand projects such as data centres across the country in order to get the greatest advantage. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the local benefits that can come from heat networks. We will be carrying out heat network zoning to identify where waste heat can be reused, which will bring huge benefit for communities. We are also delivering the jobs that go with the building of the network, ensuring the manufacturing and infrastructure jobs that the UK has missed for many years.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The problem for the West London Alliance, which comprises six boroughs, is the lack of grid capacity, which means that new home developments and new projects providing business opportunities are frozen for a number of years, into the 2030s. Unless there is urgent action to provide more power to the grid, all those excellent projects will be frozen for far too long.
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman has framed that perfectly. The challenge is not just about being able to get clean power into homes and businesses; on the demand side, it is also about how we can connect these critical economic growth opportunities. That is partly why we have cleared out the connections queue, so that more projects can connect. We have also launched a consultation to look at how we reform the demand side of the queue. Fundamentally, though, we have to build more grid—we have not built the grid that is needed since the 1960s. We are now embarking on the biggest grid upgrade in a generation, which is how we unlock the potential in communities like the hon. Gentleman’s and right across the country.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
Families will be deeply concerned about the impacts they are facing as a result of the Iran conflict. This Government are determined to fight the people’s corner. As a result of actions in the Budget, the energy bill price cap will fall from next week and is guaranteed till the end of June. We have already provided £50 million of immediate support for vulnerable customers who use heating oil and will act to prevent unfair practices like price gouging. Above all, we will work to end this conflict, which is so essential and urgent for our national interest.
Sonia Kumar
Given that around one in five households in Dudley are in fuel poverty and that electricity levies fall disproportionately on low-income families, I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to remove some social and environmental levies from electricity bills. That has helped to shield some of my constituents from the impact of the war in the middle east. Does my right hon. Friend agree that rebalancing these levies can both support households and accelerate cleaner heating?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. It is an important reassurance for understandably worried families that, from 1 April, the energy price cap will fall by £117 thanks to this Government’s actions. That happened not automatically, but because the Chancellor made decisions in the Budget to raise taxes on the wealthiest, which was opposed by the Conservative party. That decision is making possible that relief for families, including those in her constituency.
Liz Jarvis
Before Trump’s illegal war, we had Putin’s illegal war. Both have meant soaring energy bills for families and businesses in my constituency. Citizens Advice Eastleigh tells me that more than 2,000 households are in fuel poverty. Does the Secretary of State agree that, so long as the price of wholesale electricity is directly linked to volatile gas, we will be at mercy of despots and dictators, and that decoupling is essential if people in my constituency and across the UK are to have energy security?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Member is right about this country’s exposure to fossil fuels, and that is the legacy of the previous Government. I am incredibly proud to say that, as a result of our two record-breaking renewables auctions, we will power the equivalent of 23 million homes. She is also right to say that the decoupling of gas and electricity prices is an important issue, on which we are working intensively.
James Wild
Twenty thousand households across North West Norfolk and 140,000 across the county are off the gas grid and paying much higher prices for heating oil. Ministers are creating an expectation that support will be there for those who need it. What action will the Government take if Norfolk county council is unable to meet the demand and provide support through the crisis and resilience fund to those who are struggling?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. The reason why we decided to put the money into the crisis and resilience fund three weeks after this crisis began was to get the money out the door quickly. During the previous crisis, that took 200 days. He asks an important question about local authorities’ provision of support and also what happens if they do not have the funds. That is something on which we are working intensively, and we are keeping closely in touch with local authorities. We want the help to go to those who need it and we want to work with local authorities to make sure that that happens.
Charlie Dewhirst
The latest wind auction has signed us up to sky-high prices for the next 20 years, but Ministers are claiming that their internal analysis proves that this will bring down bills. Will the Secretary of State publish those calculations in full so that we can see exactly how prices will be lowered?
Ed Miliband
We published the levelised cost analysis, which showed that new renewables were much cheaper to build and operate. As gas prices are soaring across the world and hitting us here at home, the idea that the Conservative party still opposes our renewables auction, which gives us clean home-grown power on which we can rely, is absolutely nonsensical.
Wendy Morton
The Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and promised families that energy bills would fall by £300, yet, since the general election, bills have already gone up by £73 and are forecast to go up more. It is hardly surprising that my constituents do not believe a word that they hear from the Government. Will the Minister explain to me when families in my constituency will actually see that £300 saving delivered?
Ed Miliband
Families in the right hon. Lady’s constituency will see savings on their bills from next week thanks to the actions of this Government. She is wrong on her facts, because, if we look across 2025, we will see that bills were lower in real terms than in 2024. We remain absolutely committed to our manifesto commitment to cut bills by up to £300 by 2030.
Peter Fortune
The Secretary of State promised that Great British Energy would lead to a “mind-blowing” reduction in bills. Can he confirm how much the average family has saved as a result specifically of Great British Energy?
Ed Miliband
Public services across the country, including schools and hospitals—I hope this will come to the hon. Member’s constituency—are seeing reductions in their bills, and money is being transferred to the frontline. We on the Government Benches support those proposals. We support lower bills. As I said to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), he can look forward to his constituents having lower bills as a result of this Government’s actions.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
There are people who are saying that the way to bring down bills is to reach agreement with the oil and gas companies to charge less for gas in the North sea. Is not the problem with that argument that there is absolutely no way that those privately owned companies will agree—or that their shareholders will allow them to agree, to be more accurate—to a lower price than they can get elsewhere in the world?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes the really important, and relatively basic, point that gas is priced and sold on the international market. Whether it comes from the North sea or is imported, it is charged at the same price. And do not just take my word for it; when the shadow Energy Secretary was in post she said that more drilling would not necessarily lead to lower energy bills.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that this energy crisis offers the opportunity to shift further and faster on clean energy. Will he consider an energy social tariff linked to the warm homes plan to support those who are most exposed to the volatility of fossil fuel prices, not just those on benefits, but other vulnerable communities like the disabled?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises a really important point, and no doubt the Chancellor will cover this in her statement shortly. It is incredibly important that we protect the most vulnerable, particularly at this time. I am proud of the action we have taken to nearly double the number of people getting the warm home discount to 6 million people. This very important action will take another £150 off people’s bills, so in a sense, we have a form of a social tariff, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will keep looking at how we can expand that and help more families.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I am pleased to chair the newly formed all-party parliamentary group for warm homes. Newcastle is leading the way with its hugely impactful warm homes local grant scheme run by Warmworks in conjunction with Newcastle city council. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to see more of these locally led grant schemes, which are helping people to insulate their homes so that they can protect themselves from any incoming global insecurity that might affect their ability to heat their homes?
Ed Miliband
First, let me congratulate my hon. Friend’s council on its great work. The Government are putting hundreds of millions more this coming year into warm homes as part of our record-breaking investment. I hope we can agree across the House that investing in home upgrades is a way to not just have more energy efficiency but cut people’s bills. We are committed to going as far and as fast as we can.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State share my concern, or dismay, perhaps, that at a time when families are concerned about the cost of energy and the price at the pumps, the Conservatives have become obsessed with oil and gas licensing and not taking any action at all to reduce bills?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The Conservatives come here month after month making the same argument about something that will not reduce bills by a single penny. It was they who said that during the last crisis and when they were in government. This Labour Government are about reducing people’s energy bills, which is the priority of the British people.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
This Government are taxing people up the wazoo and piling cost after cost on to their energy bills. People on £30,000 or £40,000 a year, who are not well off, are being hammered to pay for welfare when they are already working all hours to support their own families. Now we hear that the Government are about to go back to the taxpayer again to subsidise those on welfare, but their first port of call should be to adopt our cheap power plan. It would cut electricity bills by 20% for everybody by cutting green taxes and levies, and it would not cost the taxpayer a penny. Why will they not do that?
Ed Miliband
The Conservatives’ plan is totally incredible, and the shadow Secretary of State knows it. Their plan on renewables is just to tear up the contracts. They had 14 years to do it, and they did not do it. Why? Because they know that they cannot. I have to say, it is quite extraordinary that her position is now to abolish the windfall tax, which has raised £12 billion since it was introduced in 2022. The difference between us and them is that we are willing to tax the oil and gas companies to help ordinary families.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Despite solar and wind being freely available, only 15% of renewables are subject to contracts for difference, which effectively control prices. Given that the conflict in the middle east is set to add up to £300 to bills, is it not time that the Government addressed this Trump tax by transferring all renewables on to contracts for difference, as part of the Liberal Democrat’s plan to halve energy bills?
Ed Miliband
We are driving forward with contracts for difference, and we are looking at that proposal. On the hon. Gentleman’s more general point, though, he is absolutely right that rolling out renewables at speed—solar, wind, all types of renewables—is the best way to insulate ourselves from global economic shocks. That is a point that we have consistently made, which sadly is being borne out by the events we see around the world.
Gideon Amos
As a former member of the zero carbon homes task force, I well remember the Conservatives cancelling the zero carbon homes programme—presumably they want homes to be colder, more difficult to heat and more expensive. The Liberal Democrats welcome the enactment today of the requirement for solar panels on all new homes, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). My constituents Jan and Jeanette of the Campaign to Protect Rural England Somerset have pointed out that were that extended to car parks and commercial buildings, that would generate as much electricity as 15 Hinkley Point power stations. Will the Secretary of State extend the solar panels requirement to car parks and commercial buildings?
Ed Miliband
First, I accept the hon. Member’s congratulations on our announcement of the future homes standards today, which are a really important measure—they should never have been abolished by the last Conservative Government. On warehouses and car parks—particularly on the warehouse question—we are looking at how we can roll that out more swiftly. There is so much unused space that could be used to help cut bills right across the country.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)
Fusion energy really is the energy of the future. Our fusion strategy, with a fusion prospectus to follow, has a strong focus on inward investment, very much ensuring that Britain is the world-leading place to invest in fusion energy.
Jo White
Last December, Donald Trump’s media and technology group purchased a Californian-based fusion energy company, putting his son Donald Jr. on the board in a $6 billion deal. The race is on for fusion energy production at scale. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the appointment of ILIOS consortium, led by Kier and Nuvia, to construct a fusion power plant in north Nottinghamshire? I am sure he agrees that will mean jobs and new skills and training for my constituency and beyond.
Chris McDonald
I do indeed welcome the £200 million design and build contract for ILIOS with, as my hon. Friend mentioned, Kier and firms like Turner & Townsend who can be relied on to deliver. We have allocated £1.3 billion over the spending review period for fusion. Britain has been firmly in the lead for research in this area; we need to be in the lead in its application, too.
I know that my hon. Friend’s constituents will benefit, but right now it would be difficult for constituents in Scotland to benefit, because the SNP cannot decide whether fusion energy is nuclear energy. I can tell SNP Members that it is, and they should be supporting nuclear energy across the whole country.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Treasury Bench would be particularly disappointed if I did not once again showcase what we have at Dounreay: a licensed site, a skilled workforce and a population who would greatly support playing a role in the development of fusion for the future. May I suggest that the Scottish Enterprise network might put its hand in its pocket to bring that forward, if that is helpful to His Majesty’s Government?
Chris McDonald
I share the hon. Member’s affection for Dounreay—I have family based in Reay and Thurso and have enjoyed many a holiday on the north coast of Scotland. As he said, it has a talented and experienced nuclear workforce, and I very much hope that they will play a part in Britain’s nuclear future.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
The Government know that energy bills in Scotland remain too high. That is why we are fighting the consumer’s corner. The action we took at the Budget will ensure that from April the price cap will fall by 7%, or £117, which is fixed until the end of June. That is in addition to support offered to vulnerable heating oil customers in Scotland and the expansion of the warm home discount, which means £92 million in annual funding for Scottish consumers.
Stephen Gethins
Scotland is one of the most energy-rich countries in Europe, and the Treasury and the UK Government have benefited to the tune of hundreds of billions as revenues have flowed in over the years, yet bill payers in Scotland pay among the highest prices in Europe. Labour promised that bills would be hundreds of pounds lower than they are now, yet two years in they follow the failure of successive Westminster Governments in terms of resilience and bills. Would Scotland not be better off looking after its own energy resource?
Martin McCluskey
Bills are going down by 7% from next week. We do not need to imagine a future with independence and what would happen with the SNP in power. Let us look at the record. The hon. Member’s party promised a publicly owned energy company six years ago; we delivered Great British Energy within 18 months. His party scrapped fuel poverty targets; we are lifting 1 million households out of fuel poverty by the end of this Parliament. While his party in government in Scotland abandoned the heat in buildings Bill, this Government are making the biggest ever upgrade to home efficiency through the warm homes plan, with £15 billion of spending.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree one reason we need to see lower energy bills in Scotland—and that has been blocked—is the SNP’s ideological objection to nuclear power? I recently received a written answer from the Minister for Energy regarding a study by GB Energy to assess Scotland’s full potential for nuclear power. Will the Minister work with his colleagues to ensure that that analysis is published as quickly as possible so that the people of Scotland can see exactly how much we are missing out on thanks to the SNP’s ideological objection to nuclear power, and how much people are suffering as a result?
Martin McCluskey
My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. I know that he is an advocate for nuclear in Scotland, as am I. We are missing out on the opportunities of nuclear, and it is a disgrace that 1,300 Scottish nuclear workers have to move south every week just to get employment in the nuclear industry. I hope that the Scottish National party reverses its ideological ban on nuclear power as soon as possible.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Methane harvested from landfill sites enables the generation of around 2.5 TWh a year, which is around 1% of the UK’s electricity. Many of those assets receive a subsidy through the renewables obligation, which expires in 2027. That generation has a supportive, but limited, effect on energy security. Given the high impact of methane, my Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are considering long-term solutions to landfill gas methane capture and appropriate transitional arrangements.
Sarah Hall
At a time when families are already under pressure from high energy bills, what assessment has the Minister made of the risk that, without action before April 2027, declining landfill gas generation will undermine energy security and increase costs for consumers?
Michael Shanks
I reiterate that although methane harvested from such sites and used to generate electricity plays a role in electricity generation, it is less than 1% overall, so it is not an issue for our energy security. As the sites age, the amount of methane they omit reduces, and that reduction has been factored into our plans. We are looking at what transitional arrangements are needed to deal with both the methane issue and the electricity that is generated from it, and we will consult in due course.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister, as always, for his answers. It is important that we all get the advantages of the level of methane harvested from landfill sites. In Northern Ireland we also have landfill sites, with a lot of rubbish and therefore a lot of methane possibilities. I know that the Minister visits Northern Ireland regularly, so what discussions has he had with the relevant Minister there to ensure that we can get the advantages that he mentioned in his reply to the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall)?
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. My visits to Northern Ireland are important to me, and at the very first meeting of the reconstituted inter-ministerial working group we had a conversation on that exact question: how can we support the reduction of methane across the UK, and how can we support that through the electricity system? Clearly, that is a transferred matter in Northern Ireland, but I continue to have those conversations with colleagues in the Executive.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
The nationally significant infrastructure project regime provides a clear consenting route for nationally significant electricity lines, but processes have been too slow and we are determined to change that. Our reforms support the faster delivery of infrastructure, essential for strengthening our energy security in periods of global instability, while maintaining a robust and proportionate consenting process.
Helen Morgan
Green GEN Cymru, which is a sister company of Bute Energy, is in the latter stages of a very controversial process to secure planning consent for power lines for the Vyrnwy Frankton connection. The problem is that there is no substation at Lower Frankton in North Shropshire with which to connect those lines. We expect that proposal to come through later this year, but given Bute Energy’s widely reported links to the Labour party and National Grid’s obligation to connect new infrastructure to the grid, how can the Minister reassure my constituents that the whole process is not predetermined?
Michael Shanks
First, obviously I cannot comment from the Dispatch Box on a live application process. I have met a number of MPs to talk about this issue, and we are looking at all the available information. Ofgem has a role in regulating the individual energy companies that are part of this mix. I am not sure what the hon. Lady’s final point has to do with this particular planning application, but I am happy to write to her on that.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
The UK benefits from a strong and diverse energy supply, with only 1% of our crude oil and gas coming from the Gulf, but the essential lesson of this conflict is that while we are dependent on fossil fuel markets, we are exposed as a country, because prices for oil and gas, wherever it comes from, are set on the international market, affecting families and businesses. For our energy security, the answer must be to go further and faster towards home-grown clean power that we control.
Chris Murray
Our energy security is so exposed to events in the middle east because we have relied on oil and gas for too long. Not only do fossil fuels cause climate change, but we buy them on the open market, so no further drilling in the North sea would help to mitigate prices. The only true path to energy security is through renewables and nuclear, so can the Secretary of State set out how this country will do that, so that in future energy crises our country’s security is less exposed?
Ed Miliband
The North sea will continue to play an important role in our energy mix for decades to come, which is why we said in our manifesto that we will keep existing oil and gas fields open for their lifetime, including, as we announced last autumn, the use of so-called tiebacks. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in the wider point he makes. That is why we have the largest nuclear building programme in half a century, it is why we have had two record-breaking renewables auctions, and it is why we recently announced that we will bring forward our next renewables auction to July, because we need to get away from our dependence on fossil fuel markets as soon as possible.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Given the recent jump in the price of oil, would it not be good for the UK economy, jobs and the Government’s tax receipts to maximise drilling for North sea oil, as Norway does, rather than phasing it out and closing those sites down because of this Government’s, and in particular the Secretary of State’s, left-wing dogma?
Ed Miliband
I disagree with the right hon. Lady on that one. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), we are going to use existing North sea oil and gas fields for their lifetime. I think the right hon. Lady is referring to the question of exploration licences. What everybody says is that exploration licences make no material difference to production levels. On the tax question, I hope she will carry on supporting the windfall tax and will tell her Front Benchers that this would be the wrong time to abolish it.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I do not think I have ever been called an extreme left winger, but there is always a first time. In rural and coastal Britain there is deep worry among families about the effect of the conflict in the middle east on oil prices. We welcome the £53 million that has been announced to support them, but does the Secretary of State agree that those calling for an expansion of our reliance on oil and gas wholesale prices offer absolutely no long-term solution to energy security?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is right. Those people offer no short-term or long-term solution to the problems of energy security, and they want to fly in the face of all the evidence. As I have said before, it was the last Government who said that more UK production of North sea oil and gas would make no difference to the global price of gas, and it is important that the House understands that.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Secretary of State has just misled the House—inadvertently, I am sure. Can he explain why the price of gas in the United States is about a third of the price of gas in the UK? It is because the Americans use it domestically, is it not?
Ed Miliband
No, it is not. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his own opinions, but he is not entitled to alternative facts. What the last Government said, what this Government said and what every sensible economist says about more production is that his idea of more drilling—“drill every last drop,” or “drill, baby, drill”— would be precisely the wrong thing for our country because it will make no difference to the price. The answer is home-grown clean renewables that we control.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
“In the face of further geopolitical turmoil, now is the time to alter our approach to energy… Drilling in the North Sea and scrapping carbon taxes on British manufacturing would kickstart economic growth, tackle unemployment…as well as prevent further deindustrialisation.”
Does the Secretary of State agree with those comments from the Labour Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell)?
Ed Miliband
This party and this Government are taking a pragmatic approach to these issues. We are using existing oil and gas fields for their lifetime, including with tiebacks, which is welcomed by industry, but we are not going to fly in the face of the evidence. The answer to a fossil fuels crisis is not to double down on fossil fuels, but to double down on clean home-grown power that we control. The Conservatives used to believe that, before they jumped on another bandwagon.
Andrew Bowie
This is extraordinary—mad, even. No other country on Earth would deprive itself of the vast natural resource we are lucky enough to have at our disposal underneath the North sea. The Jackdaw field alone could provide 250 million barrels of oil equivalent in natural gas to the UK, and it could be up and running by Christmas, but because of the Secretary of State it is stuck in limbo. It is utter insanity. His inaction is an act of national economic self-harm. When will he make a decision and act in the national interest?
Ed Miliband
Before the hon. Gentleman self-combusts, let me tell him that, as a result of the court decision, those projects are proceeding at risk. I will tell him the way we will make a decision. I am not going to comment on a live planning issue, but I will say in general that we will make a decision that is legally watertight. The last Government made a series of decisions that were found—[Interruption.] Conservative Members say “No, no”, but they do not care about the rule of law. We saw that when they said that we should rush headlong into a war with no regard for the impacts on our constituents.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
We are taking a strategic approach to planning grid capacity and halving transmission build times through reforms to consenting, regulation and supply chains. We are working with the National Energy System Operator and Ofgem to deliver on radical connections reform, prioritising those projects that are ready to connect and strategically aligned, and to speed up access to the grid nationwide.
Sarah Gibson
The grid connections reform process was intended to improve investor confidence by removing zombie projects and prioritising shovel-ready projects, but repeated delays from NESO mean that many developers are still waiting for their gate 2 connection offers, even for projects that are due to connect in 2026 and 2027. This is extremely damaging for investor confidence. Given the importance of the connection reform to the Government’s clean power 2030 ambitions, will the Minister tell us how the Government are ensuring that NESO and the network companies are working at pace to issue those gate 2 connections as soon as possible?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady asks an incredibly important question, and I share her frustration. I have reflected that frustration to all those involved in this process. It is worth remembering that we had more than 600 GW in a queue, and that this process has cleared out 300 GW. That was incredibly complex, and it is the first time that any country in the world has sought to do it. It is the first time that we have done it. Clearly we have learned a lot of lessons, but the process needs to proceed much faster than it has to date. There is a clear timeline to that happening, and the first gate 2 offers are going out now. I will continue to be closely involved in ensuring that happens. It is now a partnership between NESO and the transmission owners to get those offers out the door, and I will be doing everything I can to ensure that happens.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)
After a lot of hullabaloo about the oil and gas industry, we now get to turn to the areas where we are doubling down—namely, on our vast natural resource in clean energy industries and offshore wind, where we managed to attract £90 billion-worth of private sector investment in 2024, in collaboration with the sector councils. Whereas the Conservative Government were happy for those associated jobs to be in Denmark and the Netherlands, we are reindustrialising Blyth, the Tyne and the Tees.
Mary Glindon
Allocation round 7 was a resounding vote of confidence from developers, and our supply chains will welcome that. At a roundtable I hosted last year, the Secretary of State set out the innovative principles behind the clean industry bonus. However, competing against lower-cost regions, such as the middle east, remains a pressing concern for fabricators in the future. Will the Minister ensure that the CIB is as robust and creative as possible so that developers buy from British yards?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right that the allocation round was incredibly successful. Of course, the Conservatives wanted to cancel it, given their opposition to clean industry jobs across the UK. In the north-east, where my hon. Friend is from, we are forecasting an increase of 20,000 jobs. I know that the Smulders yard in her constituency will seek to benefit from that because, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, it matters to this Government where things are made. We want those supply chain jobs here in the UK—jobs the Reform party would take away from constituents like hers and mine, with its anti-net zero ideology.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that major hydrogen projects in the Humber area, including those led by National Gas, are ready to go. They are vital to our region, which has £18 billion of value-add and 360,000 jobs, but without certainty from Government, investors cannot commit. When will the Government open the allocation rounds for the hydrogen transport and storage business models so that this investment can actually move forward?
Chris McDonald
I appreciate the right hon. Member’s concerns, having spoken to the hydrogen industry myself, and the representation he has made to me and to the Energy Minister on this issue. I can assure him that the hydrogen strategy will be out soon.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
We understand that many households, particularly in rural and off-gas grid areas, rely on heating oil as their primary source of heat. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced £53 million of support for those who heat their homes with heating oil, and £4.6 million will be delivered by the Scottish Government. Obviously, we continue to monitor the situation closely and will keep measures under review.
Mr MacDonald
In the remote highlands and islands, where mains gas is not available, where we have the highest level of fuel poverty in Britain, where local households and businesses rely on heating oil and electricity, and where much of Britain’s renewable energy is generated, but to minimal local benefit, does the Minister accept the unfairness of a highlander having to pay a multiple of what those in cities pay for energy?
Martin McCluskey
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I visited the Western Isles last week to speak directly to people who have been affected by the energy crisis, and I heard about the pressures people there are under. It is why we have welcomed the Competition and Markets Authority’s investigation into heating oil. On his point about people benefiting from local infrastructure, this morning we announced a trial for free wind power for people living near that infrastructure—he will be able to find the details in the Vote Office.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I welcome the UK Government’s support for heating oil customers in my constituency and the follow-up support from the Scottish Government, but I am slightly baffled that the Scottish Government have chosen to centralise support through Advice Direct Scotland, instead of entrusting local authorities. Will the Minister urge the Scottish Government to use local expertise, such as Tighean Innse Gall, which he met last week, and Point and Sandwick Trust, which have that local knowledge to find hard-to-reach customers, because we know that in rural areas people are reluctant to come forward for support?
Martin McCluskey
I was pleased to join my hon. Friend in Stornoway last week to meet those organisations. It is absolutely crucial—whether it is through the local government schemes that we are running in England or through the centralised scheme that the Scottish Government are running—that we take advantage of local knowledge to ensure that the support reaches the people who need it.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
In Aviemore it will be snowing tomorrow—in fact, in quite a lot of north Scotland it will be snowing to a pretty low level. People in those areas are suffering hugely from massive energy prices for electricity, heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas for tanks. In Aviemore, a 2,500-litre tank, which was filled in November for £1,400, now costs £3,400 to fill. That is the differential that people are having to pay. Does the Minister agree that £35 per household is frankly a drop in the ocean?
Martin McCluskey
I think the hon. Member should be careful not to sow fear about these issues among his constituents, which is precisely what his remarks do. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor provided £4.6 million to the Scottish Government, who have increased the fund to £10 million. It is absolutely imperative that the Scottish Government tell hon. Members and constituents how to access the funding. They are delivering that £10 million scheme, which they have told us will be available from 1 April, so it is up to them to set out how it will get to people.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
About 30% of households in the Braes villages use alternative heating sources such as heating oil—that is far above the district, constituency or Scottish nationwide average. The Scottish Government’s decision to deliver the scheme nationally rather than locally is creating anxiety in those communities that they may be forgotten by Holyrood. What assurances have Ministers received from their Holyrood counterparts that Scottish heating oil support will be available and proportionate for communities such as the Braes villages?
Martin McCluskey
I welcome my hon. Friend’s advocacy for his constituents. It is essential that the Scottish Government scheme, which is running to support people with heating oil costs, finds its way to the people who need it. I am disappointed that the Scottish Government have chosen to centralise the funding rather than work alongside local government, but it is for them to set out how they will ensure that everyone is reached.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I declare an interest: my home is off the gas grid and my boiler is fuelled by domestic heating oil. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers, and there have been significant gaps—there has been no mention of liquefied petroleum gas, for example. Although it is always right to support the most vulnerable in our society, I am not sure that he has fully understood that there are many households on modest incomes across rural communities that do not receive benefits and simply do not have £500, £600 or £700 lying around to meet a bill that they have not budgeted for.
Perhaps the Minister could answer a specific question on certainty. While the CMA investigation goes on, customers continue to place orders without knowing how much they will be charged when the oil is delivered. He could implement an interim measure before a wider set of changes to stop that practice. Will he do so?
Martin McCluskey
I think I need to start by correcting some of what the hon. Gentleman said. In my statement last week, I confirmed that LPG was part of the support—perhaps he did not hear that. Our priority, all the way through this crisis, has been to ensure that funding reaches people at speed. That is why we have delivered support in two weeks, not 200 days. On his point about means-testing, the funding is discretionary, so local authorities can decide how to provide it to people. I think he also called for a CMA investigation. We will look and study the results of the investigation to see what needs to happen to regulate the industry, but, as I said from the Dispatch Box a number of times last week, it is clear that the market is not functioning properly.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
Since conflict broke out in the middle east, we have acted to prevent price-gouging, help those who rely on heating oil, and ensure that businesses get a fair deal on their bills. The energy price cap will fall by £117 next week, with savings locked in until the end of June. We have also sped up work to take control of Britain’s energy, accelerating our next renewables auction and our warm homes plan. We will do whatever it takes to fight people’s corner and learn the right lessons from the crisis.
Dr Savage
To go back to heating oil, 20% of households in my South Cotswolds constituency rely on heating oil—that figure is four times the national average—and many of them face high up-front costs. Will the Secretary of State consider supporting more flexible payment or credit schemes, and pooled purchasing models, which would enable villages to combine orders, secure bulk discounts and spread costs over time?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady raises an important issue, and I am sure that many Members will empathise as our constituents face difficult times. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), tells me that the Competition and Markets Authority is considering all those issues. If Members encounter practices relating to heating and other things, they should bring them to the attention of my hon. Friend, because we want to work as speedily as possible with the CMA to stamp them out.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)
My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of finishing companies. I know that some spinning and weaving businesses are included in the supercharger, but finishing is often not, even though it is done in the same factory. Clearly, whether they are waterproofing sou’westers or fireproofing mattresses, these businesses are important. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the upcoming supercharger review and what options there may be for those businesses.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State be honest and tell the country why he is ideologically obsessed with shutting down the North sea? Is it because he does not think we need the £25 billion of tax revenue it would generate? Is it because he prefers to import gas with higher emissions, or is it because he has never bothered to speak to the thousands of workers who are losing their jobs right now because of his policies?
Ed Miliband
I am not. As I said earlier, we are using existing oil and gas fields in the North sea for their lifetime, and we have introduced tiebacks for existing fields. While the right. hon Lady comes here month after month with proposals that will do nothing to cut energy bills for people, this Government are actually taking action: reducing the energy price cap next week; making plug-in solar available to all families; the warm homes plan to drive down bills; and crucially, a renewable power auction, which she said that we should cancel, to help 12 million homes.
Claire Coutinho
RenewableUK, the unions, Tony Blair and the Secretary of State’s own handpicked chair of Great British Energy—the biggest advocates for an energy transition—have said that he has got this wrong. Is his ideology so rigid that he is incapable of admitting when he has got things wrong and that he will put us on a pathway to higher emissions and fewer British jobs?
Let us try again. Can the Secretary of State be clear with the House? He knows that we will need gas for decades to come, so why does he prefer to import dirtier gas from abroad than to use the gas that we have in the North sea?
Ed Miliband
I do not. We continue to use the North sea, and ours is a pragmatic position. But there is a wider lesson that the House has to focus on. Is the lesson of this crisis—a fossil fuels crisis—to double down on fossil fuels, or is it to drive forward with clean energy? We believe clean, home-grown power that we control is the answer.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. We are taking three additional measures. We are expanding and extending the warm home discount to 2031. We have supported heating oil customers with the £53 million-worth of support that was announced last week, and our £15 billion warm homes plan is the biggest home upgrade plan in British history. All of that is wrapped up in our clean energy mission—clean power 2030—which will ultimately give us control of our energy.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
Martin McCluskey
We moved swiftly to introduce funding to support people. The £53 million-worth of support, which is being disbursed through the crisis and resilience fund in England and Wales, will provide support for people through this immediate period. We will keep other measures under review, but if hon. Members have examples of unfair pricing practices, it is important that they report them to the CMA so that it can consider them as part of its review.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I congratulate all those in my hon. Friend’s constituency on what sounds like a fantastic project, and it is an example of what we want to see all across the country. The local power plan unlocks £1 billion of investment, with the ambition that communities right across the UK should be able to own and operate their own energy infrastructure, and the profits from that should flow into local communities.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Michael Shanks
We do work very well together, actually, contrary to what it might appear from the hon. Member’s contribution. He suggests, quite wrongly—twice now—that Scotland is generating all this electricity by itself. Of course, those projects are funded by bill payers across the UK investing in that infrastructure. His plan seems to be to take a third off energy bills with independence, with absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Martin McCluskey
We heard in the responses to our 2024 consultation the concerns about the continued risk to consumers arising from some of these TPIs. The Government plan to bring in new regulation of TPIs and will appoint Ofgem as the regulator, which will be empowered to put in place rules to protect small and medium-sized enterprises and other TPI customers.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Martin McCluskey
The support on offer is not means-tested; it is at the discretion of local authorities to decide the criteria for those applications. That is the first point. The second point is that the CMA is investigating this in detail. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, if there are any examples, please bring them to my attention and to the CMA’s attention, so that they can be considered as part of that review.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Terminally ill people often have additional energy needs and energy costs. What steps is the Department taking to support those people who are terminally ill with increased energy costs?
Martin McCluskey
I welcome my hon. Friend’s advocacy for those people. No one with a terminal illness should have to face concerns about their energy bills. I will soon be meeting the Minister for Health Innovation and Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), to discuss how Government can better share data in order to target support at vulnerable people and those with health conditions.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Ed Miliband
The Chancellor will have heard the hon. Member’s question, because she is in the room. My right hon. Friend is providing support for people but on a platform of fiscal stability, which the Conservative party would do well to understand.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
The Minister knows that Stafford residents are passionate about solar power, and they would like to see the Government go further, with a commitment to solar panels on all new car parks and industrial buildings, like they see in Europe and in France particularly. Does the Minister agree that this policy would help to reduce energy bills for homeowners, as well as protect our rural land, and will he meet me to discuss my campaign?
Michael Shanks
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend, so I will do that. She is right: we want to cover as many rooftops in the country as we can with solar panels. Just today we have announced that plug-in solar will be available in the UK in the summer, allowing renters and others across the world to go into a supermarket, buy some solar panels, plug them in and save money. That is part of what we want to do to bring down bills across the country.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
The green firms that innovate the most, and young firms, have been shown to be particularly credit constrained. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what measures the Government are taking to increase credit supply, raise research and development, and increase economic growth?
Chris McDonald
We now have record public sector investment in the development of this technology, with £86 billion to 2030. As a techno-optimist, I agree with the International Energy Agency that we can now solve 75% of these problems using technology, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter further.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
For as long as the UK depends on oil and gas, global conflicts will continue to drive price hikes for my constituents in Bedford and Kempston, who face soaring bills when the price cap ends in June. Does the Secretary of State agree that lower bills should come before company profits, and will he levy a windfall tax on the fossil fuel companies, which are making billions from this crisis?
Ed Miliband
As a result of decisions made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we are raising significant sums from the windfall tax. We do not agree with the Opposition parties that now is the time to abolish the windfall tax; we think that is really important revenue that can help many of our constituents.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
We keep hearing the argument that it will take five to 10 years for new oil and gas to flow, and that therefore there is not point to starting new drilling, but the operators of Jackdaw and Rosebank say that both could be producing by the end of the year—it only needs the Secretary of State to approve that. Why is he denying the UK that supply of domestic fuel?
Michael Shanks
Those projects are continuing at the moment at the developers’ own risk. They are subject to a process, which the Conservative party will understand because this matter ended up in the courts under the previous Government. We are dealing with that process. Ultimately, none of those projects would take a penny off bills—that is the argument we are making. The Conservatives have no plan for bringing down bills; we have.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Medway Maritime hospital in my constituency is benefiting from a £25.9 million investment to introduce heat pumps and other measures. Does the Minister agree that we could invest in public sector provision to reduce bills in schools, hospitals and other buildings across the country?
Ed Miliband
I congratulate my hon. Friend’s local hospital. He rightly shows the way that cheap, clean, renewable power can cut bills not just for families, but for our public services, as GB Energy is doing, so that we can transfer money to frontline patient care.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the very high dependence in Northern Ireland on home heating oil. Although the Government have offered some help in the past 10 days, has consideration been given to what happens beyond the summer period if the crisis in the middle east continues over the next few months?
Martin McCluskey
We have supplied £17 million to the Northern Ireland Executive, and I had a constructive conversation last week with Minister Archibald about how that is deployed. We will keep other measures under review as the situation develops.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his focus on securing UK private investment in critical minerals—it is fantastic to see. I know the Secretary of State agrees that Cornwall is vital for future UK energy security. One test and demo model in the Celtic sea has come forward in auction round 7, but I want to ask the Secretary of State about the timing of AR8, and whether he will look again at test and demo models in the Celtic sea, so that we can really use that energy base.
Ed Miliband
We all love Cornwall and its incredible clean energy potential. I can confirm that we will be opening the new renewables auction in July. We see an incredibly bright future for floating wind, and we see Cornwall absolutely at the centre of that.
Middle East: Economic Update
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Chancellor to make her statement, let me just say that we would not normally have statements on an Opposition day, but this statement is so important. I will not run it for long, though, so please help each other when we get to the Back Benchers.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting me permission to make this statement to the House about the Government’s continued response to the war in the middle east.
Let me start by paying tribute to our armed forces; my thoughts and the thoughts of the whole House remain with them and with those whose lives have been disrupted by this conflict.
Since I last addressed the House, the costs of oil and gas have remained high, and last week the Bank of England estimated that inflation could be between 3% and 3.5% in the next few quarters. The full economic impact of the war remains uncertain, but it makes our economic plan even more important: to build prosperity that is secure and resilient and to bear down on the cost of living and protect the public finances, with delivery through our iron-clad fiscal rules. Today, I will set out further action that I am taking.
First, on global collaboration, last week the Prime Minister authorised the US to use UK military bases to defend the strait of Hormuz. It remains the case that the best way to protect families and businesses is rapid de-escalation of this conflict. To strengthen our collective security, I have announced that we will explore a new defence financing and procurement mechanism with the Netherlands, Finland and other EU and NATO partners. I welcome the International Energy Agency’s decision to authorise a co-ordinated release of our collective oil reserves to alleviate the immediate pressure on supply, and the UK has now begun the release of our share of 13.5 million barrels of oil.
Secondly, on our energy security, the last Government’s failure to invest in energy was a failure to protect our country, but through determined action, this Government are taking control of our own energy supply: we are investing in renewables, lifting the ban on onshore wind and streamlining grid connections; we ran the biggest offshore wind auction in European history last year, and we are bringing the next renewables auction forward to this July; and we are driving forward negotiations on the UK’s participation in the EU internal electricity market. We must guarantee that our domestic oil and gas industry can also play a role in our energy system for decades to come, so I can confirm that we are encouraging investment in tiebacks to make the most of our existing production facilities.
We are rewriting the story on nuclear, too. We have construction on Sizewell C, have agreed an extension to Sizewell B, and are due to sign the contracts on the UK’s first small modular reactors in Anglesey, in partnership with Rolls-Royce. I will not tolerate red tape and vested interests holding back our energy security, so our new planning rules will unblock the pipeline of critical infrastructure projects. I can announce today that we will legislate to implement the Fingleton review in the next Session, and I recently wrote to industry and regulators to get them to set out their plans to fast-track that implementation in full.
To the Opposition parties, which like to talk big about energy security but then vote against the very infrastructure to build it, let me say this: it is time to put our country first. I can confirm today that we are developing options to back critical energy projects with indemnities if their planning consent is challenged, so that we do not waste a single moment in protecting our energy security, because energy security is national security.
Thirdly, on households and businesses, I know that when prices rise and incomes are squeezed, people look to the Government and ask, “What are you doing to help?” That is why, since the election, we have delivered and funded 30 hours of free childcare to working parents, with wages rising faster than prices for every month that I have been the Chancellor and free breakfast clubs being rolled out at primary schools. From next week, this is what will see: the two-child limit—gone; day one sick pay—in; another rise in the national living wage; prescription charges—frozen; train fares—frozen; fuel duty—frozen; and the state pension increasing by £575. For businesses, there is £4.3 billion in business rates support; the regulation action plan, which will cut admin costs; and the supercharger discount, which will be followed next year by the British industrial competitiveness scheme to take money off business energy bills. But I know that there is more to do.
On trade, I can confirm to the House that we are aiming to conclude negotiations with the EU this year on the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which will directly impact food prices in our shops. I have also asked officials to look at where targeted reductions to agrifood tariffs can help bring down food prices, balancing this against the implications for domestic producers and food security. Later this week, I will be holding meetings with supermarkets and banks to discuss how they can further support their customers.
We have a world-class competition and consumer protection regime. Since my last statement, the Competition and Markets Authority has stepped up its statutory monitoring of fuel prices, and I will update on fuel pricing within the next month. The CMA is working with Government to monitor the cost of household essentials for both price rises and disruption, and has launched a market study into heating oil. Today, I can announce that we are going further to make sure that the Competition and Markets Authority has the powers it needs—powers that were denied to it by the previous Government—to detect and crack down on price gouging, bringing in a new anti-profiteering framework and considering time-limited, targeted powers for the CMA and other regulators. This week, the Business Secretary and I will convene the regulators’ council to discuss its work to protect consumers, because—let me say it again—this Government will not tolerate any company exploiting this crisis at consumers’ expense.
Finally, I want to update the House on how I am preparing for this conflict as it goes on. I know that families and businesses are worried about the impact of rising prices. I have said that we will be responsive to a changing world and responsible in the national interest, and today I want to set out in more detail what that means.
First, we will be responsive. We do not yet know what the full impact of this conflict will be, so we must be agile in responding appropriately at each moment. We extended the 5p fuel duty cut and have pushed out the cheaper fuel finder, empowering people to avoid rip-off prices, and chasing down the last few filling stations to reach 100% compliance. When wholesale kerosene prices more than doubled overnight, we stepped in within a matter of days with £53 million of support for those who needed it most. From next week, households will benefit from £150 off their energy bills thanks to the action that I took in my Budget, with the price cap giving households certainty on their bills until July, ahead of the winter months, when people use 78% of their gas.
Secondly, we will be responsible. The spring forecast showed that the Government have the right economic plan, restoring stability to our country’s finances and family finances. I will not put that stability at risk. As we respond to this crisis, we must learn from the mistakes of the past. The previous Government pushed up borrowing, interest rates, inflation and mortgage costs with an unfunded, untargeted package of support under Liz Truss. That gave the most support to the wealthiest households: between 2022 and 2024 under the last Government, households in the top income decile received an average of £1,350 of direct energy bill support. That left us with high levels of national debt—a cheque written then for a bill that is still being paid today. I can confirm to the House that contingency planning is taking place for every eventuality, so that we can keep costs down for everyone and provide support for those who need it most, acting within our iron-clad fiscal rules to keep inflation and interest rates as low as possible.
This is not a war that we started, nor is it a war that we joined—notwithstanding the advice of the Opposition parties—but it is a war that will have an impact on our country. The challenges may be significant, but I promise to do what is right and fair, being responsive in a changing world and responsible in the national interest. I commend this statement to the House.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement.
The right hon. Lady comes to the House with an economy in tatters. She would have us believe that she has delivered the stability and resilience that can weather the storm ahead, but she has done nothing of the kind. When she came to office, she ramped up borrowing and spending and hiked taxes to record levels. She was warned at the time, by the Office for Budget Responsibility and others, that her policies would mean higher inflation, higher borrowing costs and higher interest rates, and that she would destroy jobs. All of that has come to pass. Her mismanagement and foolish choices have given us the highest inflation in the G7, the highest borrowing costs in any major advanced economy—with gilt yields higher than those of Greece and Morocco—fragile fiscal headroom, the highest unemployment since the pandemic and rising, and GDP per capita falling. Under this Government we are getting poorer, and our economy is increasingly fragile and far from secure and resilient.
Despite what the right hon. Lady has said about tiebacks, nothing exemplifies this Government’s economic folly more than their approach to oil and gas. The utterly misguided net zero obsessions of the Energy Secretary have led to the absurdity of reduced extraction, while we see jobs destroyed, tax revenues forgone, and energy security smashed. The greatest tragedy of all is that in Jackdaw and Rosebank we have fields ready to go. In just months, they could be pumping vital relief to millions. Jackdaw alone has enough gas to supply more than 1.5 million homes, yet the right hon. Lady has nothing to say on that matter. Less oil and gas extraction means greater dependency and less security: this road leads to ruin. On energy, on the cost of living, on jobs, on growth, on public finances, on every measure that matters, the Chancellor has left us weak, weak, weak, and in the face of this energy shock, millions are about to suffer as a result.
With respect to her statement, may I ask the right hon. Lady the following questions? How many fuel retailers have yet to engage with the new fuel finder service, and can she comment on the widespread reports of technical glitches and out-of-date price information? She mentioned the small modular reactor planned for Wylfa, but given the need, can she explain why she has chosen not to go ahead with the large-scale nuclear site that was signed off by the last Conservative Government? On the specific subject of energy cost support, may I ask what fiscal capacity she believes she has to support those in need, and what plan she has to ensure that any targeted approach truly reaches all of them?
In her statement, the Chancellor criticised the last Conservative Government’s support package for not being targeted, but what she failed to mention was the fact that the present Prime Minister was then urging for support to be universal. Indeed, he said at that time that Labour’s approach would ensure
“that no household would pay a penny more on their bills.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 404.]
We have had no consistency from the right hon. Lady. How is she going to ensure that support for people depending on heating oil reaches those who need it most? Of course, that support, under this Government, will be funded through the taxes of hard-working people. Indeed, the reduction to energy bills this April is simply being taken from bills and dumped on to the shoulders of hard-pressed taxpayers.
It does not need to be this way. Is not the critical question this: where is the control of public spending? Where is the renewed resolve to grasp the welfare bill to get people off benefits and into work? I will tell you, Mr Speaker: it is nowhere, because the right hon. Lady is a captive of her own Back Benchers and has brought our economy one step from its knees. She knows it, the country knows it, and now we must all brace ourselves for what is to come—not from a position of strength, as the right hon. Lady is so desperate to have us believe, but from a position of weakness of her own making.
Rachel Reeves
That statement revealed only that the shadow Chancellor is utterly out of his depth. In the past 20 months, we have had six cuts in interest rates. We have more than doubled the fiscal headroom compared with the headroom that I inherited from the Conservative party. For the first time in six years, our deficit is less than 5% of GDP, and wages have increased by more than inflation in every single month that I have been Chancellor of the Exchequer. Compare that with the record of the previous Conservative Government, who oversaw the only Parliament on record in which people were poorer at the end of it than they were at the beginning. I prefer my record to their record any day of the week.
The shadow Chancellor says that we should act. Well, we have acted, but what he fails to mention is that his party supported our being involved in this conflict. Whereas we have called for de-escalation, the Leader of the Opposition said that we should be a participant in this conflict. The damage that that would have done to our economy would have been immense, yet the Conservatives make no apology for that.
The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday about the Prime Minister:
“If he’s creating a support package, that’s going to be done with taxpayers’ money.”
She thinks that we should be doing things that are not going to cost taxpayers money. The shadow Chancellor says that we should do more and put in more money, but the Leader of the Opposition says that we should not do anything. Where does the Conservative party now sit on the £53 million of support that we gave on heating oil? That was using taxpayers’ money to support those who needed it most. It was the right thing to do, but now the Leader of the Opposition seems to suggest that it was the wrong thing to do.
The shadow Chancellor asked a few specific questions. On the cheaper fuel finder that we have introduced, more than 90% of retailers have signed up to it, and of that 90%, all of them are updating their prices regularly. Along with the Competition and Markets Authority, we are chasing down the final few that have not submitted their prices.
On small modular reactors, the Conservatives say they supported it. They had 14 years, and they put not a single penny into it. The same is true of Sizewell C. They cannot say that we should spend less money and at the same time say that we should support Sizewell C and small modular reactors, because everything has to be paid for.
On fiscal capacity, we have more than doubled the headroom compared with what I inherited from the Conservatives. It was less than £10 billion when I became Chancellor of the Exchequer; it is now nearly £24 billion because of the actions that I have taken. The shadow Chancellor says that we have not built contingency, but the exact opposite is the case.
The shadow Chancellor asks about Rosebank and Jackdaw. It was because of the failure to do the work properly that they were challenged in the courts. One month after the previous Government left office—because they were kicked out—the courts came back and said that we had to reconsider scope 3 emissions. The energy companies Shell and Equinor resubmitted their plans at the end of last year. [Interruption.] The regulators—
Mr Speaker
Order. Members can go and have a discussion outside if they cannot be quiet here.
Rachel Reeves
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The energy companies came back at the end of last year with their revised plans, and the regulators are now considering those. Ahead of the autumn, my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary will to decide whether it is legal to go ahead with them, but we made a commitment in our manifesto to honour existing licences. It is only because of the failure of the previous Government to consult that we are in this position in the first place.
The shadow Chancellor says that if we cut the welfare bill we will be able to help people. Well, I am afraid the Conservatives had 14 years in office and he was the Welfare Secretary when the bill ballooned. Frankly, we will take no lessons from the Conservative party. It is only the Labour Government who can be responsive to the immediate challenges, because we have been responsible with the public finances. We are committed to our long-term energy security, and committed to making the right decisions in the national interest.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we have no idea how long this conflict will be and he is not assuming that it will be over quickly. We live in troubled times, and it is quite right that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making serious contingency plans as we move through spring and summer and into autumn and winter. As she well knows, one of the challenges of targeting support is the availability of data. What is she doing to make sure that the data is available—not just across Whitehall, but in local government and in the energy companies themselves—to target support at those who need it most?
Rachel Reeves
That is a really important point. The previous Government had not done the contingency planning, so when the energy price shock came along, they said, “We are not going to provide any support.” In the end, they had a choice between doing nothing or providing blanket support. It was that blanket support that cost £78 billion. We have been working with the Department for Work and Pensions, local Government and others to ensure that we will be able to target support at those who need it most, but that is in addition to taking £150 off everyone’s energy bills already. We are doing the work. The prices come down in April for the following three months, and we are a long way off the winter, when 78% of gas is used by households.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement. Our thoughts are with our brave armed forces at this time.
I agree that the last Government’s failure to invest in energy was a failure to protect our country. Today we face the stark reality that we cannot guarantee our national security, our energy security or our food security. When the Liberal Democrats were in government, we launched the auction for onshore wind and established the Green Investment Bank, helping to drive down costs and quadruple renewable energy. The Conservatives’ decision to scrap the Green Investment Bank has left our energy system more exposed, and should be worn as a badge of shame.
To shore up our energy security and to tackle the energy crisis, we Liberal Democrats have consistently argued for a three-pronged approach: first, to reduce energy demand by incentivising households and businesses to invest in energy efficiency, without the tax penalties built into the business rates system or prohibitive up-front costs; secondly, to fix the broken energy market that is unfairly inflating prices, especially for small businesses on our high streets; and thirdly, to provide targeted support for the most vulnerable and for those with the highest energy needs. I urge the Chancellor to consider our proposals to create an energy security bank that can offer low-interest loans for energy-saving improvements for households and small businesses, to reverse the cuts to home insulation programmes, and to exempt business investment in energy efficiency from business rates calculations.
Although the action from the Competition and Markets Authority is welcome, it is not enough. Small businesses have been blocked from the best energy deals for years—well before Donald Trump started bombing Iran—yet there has still been no CMA investigation into suppliers blocking access to those fair deals. I ask the Chancellor again: will she please instruct the CMA to do that investigation without delay?
On targeted support, families are fearful. Will the Chancellor consider zero-rating VAT on heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas and introducing a price cap mechanism for off-grid fuels? Will she commit to halving energy bills over the next decade by reforming pricing structures? If bills rise to more than £400 a year, as some are warning, will the Chancellor commit to coming back to this House and outlining a broader support package so that many struggling households do not face a crippling hit of that scale?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Nick Clegg once said that it would take 10 years to get nuclear power up and running so there was no point in doing it, as it would come on stream only in the 2020s. Imagine if that Deputy Prime Minister had not blocked investment in nuclear energy then—we would have the benefits of it today. The Liberal Democrats had a chance when they were in government, and they did absolutely nothing. The Conservatives opposed onshore wind, which is also helping to bring down bills.
In terms of supporting investment in renewables and energy security, we have created the National Wealth Fund, which is prioritising investment in defence and energy security, including in critical minerals in Cornwall, carbon capture and storage and the roll-out of chargers for electric vehicles. We have also put £14 billion into the warm homes plan to subsidise and support people to make energy improvements in their homes in order to reduce their energy consumption and therefore their bills, alongside doubling the number of people eligible for the warm home discount. We are looking at improvement relief through the business rates consultation to ensure that if people do make improvements, including on energy efficiency, they will not then be whacked with higher business rates.
The hon. Lady said that we should cut VAT on heating oil. When the Liberal Democrats were in government, they increased VAT on everything, so it is a bit rich to say that they want to cut it now. We have asked the Competition and Markets Authority to do a review into heating oil, which I set out today, in addition to the £53 million of support we have put in.
There seems to be a slight contradiction in what the hon. Lady is saying—does she want targeted support or blanket support? I argue that the progressive, universal approach that we are taking is the right one. It means £150 off everyone’s energy bills, but also targeted support for those who need it most. We cannot repeat what happened when Liz Truss was Prime Minister—we are still paying the price for the cheque that was written then with higher interest rates, inflation and taxes than we would otherwise have had.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor coming to the House as soon as possible to make a statement. On profiteering in the fuel sector, the last time there was a problem with oil prices was after the war began in the east, when the then Government, following their laissez-faire market policies, allowed prices to rip to an extraordinary extent. The consequence, as we saw, was outrageous profiteering in the energy sector. Will the Chancellor indicate that we will not follow the Conservatives’ failed laissez-faire ideology, and that we will instead intervene directly in the market to prevent outrageous profiteering from occurring on this occasion?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. That is why we have the energy profits levy and the electricity generator levy—so that we can claw back any excess profits. It is also why we believe in an active and strategic state, including through empowering our regulators, like the Competition and Markets Authority, to ensure that the price gouging we have seen in the past cannot happen after the conflict in the middle east.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In an attempt to get some consensus here, I commend one part of the Chancellor’s statement, where she said:
“We must guarantee that our domestic oil and gas industry can…play a role in our energy system for decades to come”.
Is there not a sensible, middle-of-the-way approach here? We should by all means proceed with green energy—such as offshore wind, in which we lead the world, in the North sea off the Lincolnshire coast—but we should also keep an open mind about new extraction from the North sea. I was listening carefully to what she said to the shadow Chancellor. Will the Chancellor confirm today that the Energy Secretary will keep an open mind when he considers these licences, so that we can guarantee our resilience in the future?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his approach and for his question. The oil and gas industry plays an important role in our energy system and will do so for decades to come. We very much welcome the jobs that it creates, the tax revenue that it provides and, most importantly, the energy security that it offers. In my Budget, I set out the new North sea oil and gas strategy, which includes allowing the use of tiebacks or infills on existing sites. For the reasons I have explained, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero now has to take a quasi-judicial decision on Rosebank and Jackdaw. He will, of course, approach that decision with an open mind because this Government recognise the importance of our oil and gas sector.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essential truth is that the Government have introduced a package of measures to make the poorest families in Glasgow and across the United Kingdom better off, whereas the Conservatives propose plunging those families back into extreme poverty? They left us with ridiculous levels of debt and the weakest defence since the 1930s—their record is absolutely shameful.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is right, but I would say it is worse than that in Scotland, where there is the legacy of two awful Governments: the Conservatives made people poorer, while the SNP Government fail to back our nuclear sector, which could deliver cheaper bills for people in Scotland.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
Could I gently ask the Chancellor to be less partisan at a time of crisis? If she brings before the House difficult measures that are right for the country, she will have the support of the whole House, but if she is partisan, she will not. I actually rise to support her basic instinct, which is for targeted rather than universal support. Four years ago, energy bills were heading to £4,000. We are at nothing like that now, and we do not know what the oil price will be next week, let alone this winter. Although we gave support to households and families last time by increasing borrowing, with her support, we cannot react to every single economic shock by further increasing our national debt. Will she confirm that when she comes to the House to announce targeted support, it will be fully funded in her Budget and not funded by increasing our national debt yet again?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. When he became Chancellor, it was on the back of lots of promises that there would be no support for energy bills. He and others recognised that that position was not sustainable, but work had not been done on how to introduce a targeted system, so the choice was a binary one between blanket support or no support. The right hon. Gentleman took the right approach then by ensuring that people’s energy bills did not go through the roof; however, a targeted approach would be more appropriate, because under the previous approach, the top third of families got more than a third of the benefit. That is not right or sensible—all it does is drive up inflation, interest rates and taxes in the future. It is not the fault of the former Chancellor that that approach was taken, but we are using this period, when energy prices are actually falling because of the approach I took in the Budget, to ensure that we are in a position to take a targeted approach in the autumn.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Chancellor for her statement, and in particular for setting out the long list of interventions this Government have made on the cost of living, which stands in stark contrast to the record of the Conservatives, who left behind the worst legacy on living standards in a generation. Can the Chancellor confirm that in the weeks and months to come, as she takes decisions on encouraging regulators to take action and in contingency planning, she will keep in mind the need to protect our constituents’ living standards while ensuring economic stability?
Rachel Reeves
That is why what we did in the Budget last year was so important. In other countries, domestic energy bills are now going up, but because of the measures that I took in my Budget last November, energy bills will fall from 1 April, despite everything that is happening in the middle east. However, what would have the biggest impact on bills is an escalation in this conflict, which is what the Conservative party initially wanted to happen.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Shetland is home to one of the largest onshore wind farms in the country, the operators of which are paid millions not to generate electricity because of grid constraints. As a result, the announcement this morning of a trial of discounted energy rates for communities such as ours will be met—possibly—with some excitement. When will we hear the details of how that will work and what it will mean in terms of reductions to the bills of my constituents?
Rachel Reeves
On the point about national grid infrastructure and why we end up paying for energy that cannot be used, we have to speed up those connections. That is why I spoke about consulting on indemnities for building out infrastructure, even in the case of judicial review. We must act in the national interest and get this infrastructure built. At the same time, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero will set out in more detail the specific ways in which we can bring down prices for communities, including those of the right hon. Member.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
My constituents are appalled by supermarkets and other petrol retailers that are price gouging and profiteering from global instability and a middle east war that was backed by both the Tories and Reform. Let us make no mistake: if they were in government, our country would be right in the middle of it. Will the Chancellor set out the action that she is taking to clamp down on price gouging? I thank her for the £9 million announced yesterday to help my constituents in Cowdenbeath and elsewhere affected by the changes at Mossmorran.
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for those questions and for her campaigning work on Mossmorran to ensure that we can properly support her community, which we are also doing with our growth mission fund. We have introduced the cheaper fuel finder to ensure that price gouging does not happen, as it provides greater transparency on the prices offered by different fuel retailers. This is something that the previous Government could have done in their 14 years in power. France already has a cheaper fuel finder available on a number of apps, which can be used when people are travelling. We are introducing that system here because we want to ensure that our constituents pay the lowest price possible when they fill up their tanks.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Given the current crisis, does the Chancellor regret in her first Budget increasing unfunded borrowing by £150 billion over this Parliament, which the Office for Budget Responsibility said at the time was
“one of the largest fiscal loosenings of any fiscal event in recent decades”?
Rachel Reeves
The Conservative party once believed in fiscal discipline, but that has gradually eroded over time. It is because of the fiscal rules that I introduced that we have been able to invest in Sizewell C and in small modular reactors. That was not possible under the fiscal rules of the previous Government. I would also say that borrowing fell in the last year. That did not happen in the last few years of the previous Conservative Government.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement. I am sure she will agree that our biggest concern is the intersection between poverty and food and energy price hikes for our constituents. As she looks ahead, will she consider a warm homes prescription to protect people’s health by keeping their homes warm, which would also save money, and will she ensure sufficiency in the crisis and resilience fund, so that local authorities can invest in those in the greatest need?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. From next month, families with children will benefit from the abolition of the two-child cap in the universal credit system. We have also doubled the number of recipients of the warm home discount and put £14 billion into upgrading people’s homes through the warm homes plan. Of course, as we look at targeted support, we will consider vulnerabilities within that.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Chancellor has mentioned several times that households will benefit from £150 off their energy bills, but I had a constituent on the phone this morning who has been told that his energy bills are still rising and will not see the savings that the Chancellor is talking about. What conversations is she having with energy companies to make sure that people do actually benefit from the fall in bills that she is so keen to talk about?
Rachel Reeves
I would be very happy to see the particular details of that constituent, because energy companies—through both fixed and variable tariffs—are passing on that £150 reduction that I introduced in the Budget by getting rid of the energy company obligation levy entirely and by moving other levies from bills on to general taxation. I am happy to look at the particular circumstances of that individual, but people should be getting, on average, a £117 cut in their energy bills from 1 April.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement. As she says, we have made good progress on stabilising our fiscal and economic situation since the 2024 election. Most notably, we have increased the headroom available on our public finances, but as a result of the previous Government failing to invest in sustainable energy and nuclear, we are much more exposed to price shocks than we could be. Does she agree that it is vital that we do all we can to protect the most vulnerable in our community, including those among my constituents in Dartford, from the energy price hikes will result from this middle east war?
Rachel Reeves
For my hon. Friend’s constituents in Dartford and for people around the country, there have been six interest rate cuts since the general election. The more than doubling of the headroom means that we have a bit more room for manoeuvre in the face of shocks. However, gas has set the price for energy at a third less than it was just four years ago, because of this Government’s investment in renewables.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the targeted nature of these measures, but three weeks ago it looked like inflation was going to return to the level that the right hon. Lady inherited when she took office in July 2024. That is no longer going to happen, but we are now seeing it the cost of borrowing. Given that we are spending well over £100 billion a year on debt interest, what assessment has the Chancellor made of the implications for the public finances of higher inflation and higher borrowing costs?
Rachel Reeves
It is because of those concerns and not wanting to put any upward pressure on borrowing costs or inflation that we are looking at what targeted support can be offered, rather than the blanket support we saw the previous time energy bills went up. The Bank of England offered its assessment on the potential impacts on inflation, but as the Governor of the Bank of England has also said, the upward pressure on inflation because of the conflict in the middle east is tempered somewhat by the action that I took in my Budget last year, which reduces inflation by between 0.4 and 0.5 percentage points, taking off some of that upward pressure on inflation.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement. May I ask her to do something for a specific group of people? Constituents who have to rent their home in the private rented market, especially those in more deprived communities like mine, will see their energy bills go up, but their biggest outgoing each month will still be their rent, which all too often is exploitative in areas like mine. We had rent controls in this country from the first world war up until the dying days of Margaret Thatcher’s Government. What can she do, thinking outside the box, to tackle this issue?
Rachel Reeves
I recognise that in my hon. Friend’s constituency, like in mine and many others, more people are in private rented accommodation than own their own home. One reason for introducing the Renters Rights Act 2025, which was opposed by the Conservative party, is to give people greater certainty, to enable them to challenge increases in their rents, and to give them greater rights over eviction, which was done to help his and all of our constituents.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Just three weeks ago at the spring statement, I cautioned the Chancellor that significant fiscal intervention would be required to protect businesses and households in the face of the war in the middle east. She said at that time that, thanks to her actions, the finances of the UK were in robust condition. Now she prevaricates in order to protect those self-same public finances. Those two things cannot be true at the same time. Some 13% of my constituents are reliant on oil; in Scotland the figure is 5%, in England 2%, and in Leeds West and Pudsey it is 0%. Perhaps that is why she provided just £53 million to support oil users, which will not even touch the sides.
Rachel Reeves
It took 200 days for the previous Government to act on heating oil, and it took us under two weeks. We have put in £53 million, and that money is allocated based on heating oil usage in different parts of the country. None of the £53 million will go to help my constituents in Leeds West and Pudsey because we do not use heating oil, but there will be support for Scottish and Northern Irish constituencies and many others, because it is the right thing to do.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is expected that food inflation will hit 4%. That means that a typical family’s annual grocery bill will increase by approximately £240. In Scotland, approximately 1 million people experienced food insecurity in the last year, and food insecurity is closely linked to access to and consumption of fruit and vegetables. The Chancellor said that she will meet with supermarkets, but what will the asks and demands be so that people can access nutritious and affordable food?
Rachel Reeves
The two-child limit for universal credit will be lifted from next week, and food banks have said that that will reduce reliance on them from families with children. That is a very good thing, but there is more that the Government could do to try to bring down food inflation, including getting a sanitary and phytosanitary deal with the EU, which would bring down prices in the shops. We are committed to achieving that this year. It is opposed by the Conservatives and Reform because of their ideological dislike of the European Union, but it is the right thing to do to reduce food inflation for all our constituents.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The sad truth is that the Chancellor weakened the UK economy with her tax-busting Budgets and jobs tax, and that has been exposed by this middle east crisis. The Energy Secretary’s actions are making things worse: he has just refused to maximise drilling in the North sea and issue new licences, which would provide much-needed energy security and affordability. Will she now see sense and overrule the Energy Secretary’s decisions?
Rachel Reeves
Since I became Chancellor, we have had six cuts in interest rates, and for every month that I have been Chancellor, wages have risen faster than prices. Compare that with the previous Parliament, where people were worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. If the right hon. Lady believed in energy security so much, why was she part of the Government who refused to fund small modular reactors or Sizewell C and opposed onshore wind, which is the cheapest form of energy? If she believes in energy security, she should back it.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
My constituents are being exploited by unscrupulous petrol retailers who are not letting a crisis go to waste. At BP in Winsford unleaded is 10p more per litre than the cheapest price in the area, and at Shell in Middlewich it is 15p more per litre. Does the Competition and Markets Authority have the powers that it needs to clamp down on this unscrupulous behaviour?
Rachel Reeves
We have introduced the cheaper fuel finder to ensure that my hon. Friend and, most crucially, his constituents have that information. People in France can already see the different prices of petrol at different filling stations on a map via an app or their sat-nav. That is where we will be in just a few weeks’ time once we have the technology working with those companies. The previous Government had 14 years to introduce something like that, and other countries have already done so while we went without. Having the fuel finder tool means that all our constituents can fill up at the cheapest cost.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I thank the Chancellor for recognising the disproportionate reliance on home heating oil in Northern Ireland, but the £17 million made available for half a million homes reliant on oil equates to £34 per household, and there is no data to target that support. There is £81 million available from the renewables obligation for electricity. We were told by the Prime Minister and the Northern Ireland Secretary that that could be targeted, yet Treasury officials are blocking that, so I ask her to look at that again.
The Chancellor has made a commitment not to restore the 5p duty on fuel, but could she also look at the rebate for red diesel to help support construction, transport, haulage and energy regeneration in our country to stimulate the parts of our economy that have a disproportionate reliance on it and have lost the support that they gravely need?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about heating oil. Obviously, a disproportionate amount of support has gone to Northern Ireland, given its greater reliance on heating oil, and we encourage local authorities to target the money at those who need it most. At the same time, to ensure that everybody is supported, the Competition and Markets Authority is doing an urgent review to make sure that price gouging is not going on. We acted in a matter of days on heating oil, because that was the right thing to do.
When we froze fuel duty, we also took action on red diesel, but I am happy to ensure that the relevant Minister meets with the right hon. Gentleman to talk further about what needs to be done.
Several hon. Members rose—
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
The Chancellor will be aware that we have a strong manufacturing sector in Huddersfield and in Yorkshire, including the defence businesses and small and medium-sized enterprises that are feeling the pressure of rising costs. The middle east war has seen import prices go up and disrupted supply chains, so how is she supporting manufacturers in particular?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is right about the importance of manufacturing in Huddersfield and more widely across Yorkshire. We are introducing the supercharger from the beginning of April, which will take £420 million off the energy bills of the most energy-intensive industries. The British industrial competitiveness scheme will also help over 5,000 businesses when it comes in next year.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The fuel price shock caused by Trump’s reckless war highlights just how risky it is for the UK to be locked into the global fossil fuel markets. The Climate Change Committee recently pointed out that the cost of achieving net zero by 2050 is less than the cost of a single fossil fuel price spike, reinforcing the point that we need to invest in clean, green technologies and get ourselves off being hooked on fossil fuels.
The key problem in the UK is that gas is coupled to electricity prices, so decoupling is crucial. Will the Chancellor look at the report last week from Common Wealth, which points out that decoupling could be achieved right now and would save households at least £200 each year?
Rachel Reeves
I agree that de-escalation is the best way to reduce bills for families and businesses. I gently say to the hon. Lady that we want investment in renewables, and we introduced the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to make it easier to build them, but her party voted against that—a vote which would have kept people’s bills higher than they need to be. We have had a one-third reduction in gas imports, and gas is setting the price of our energy at something like a third less than it was just four years ago. The electricity generator levy and the energy profits levy are ensuring that excess profits are taxed, and we can use that money to support the public finances and public services.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
The consumer-focused, pragmatic approach being taken by this Government is in such contrast with the rhetoric of some on the Opposition Benches, who would only see military action escalate—and be in no doubt that our constituents would be paying the price for that.
I welcome the CMA’s report this morning about action to tackle rip-off vet fees, but that report took several years. The Chancellor spoke of new powers for the CMA to tackle price gouging, but can she confirm that it will be able to act swiftly, nimbly and in real time to tackle companies seeking to exploit this particular crisis?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Conservative party’s gung-ho approach would have made the crisis worse, not better. Our approach diplomatically has been to de-escalate the crisis at every stage, in part because we do not want that cost of living impact on families. As he knows, we met the Competition and Markets Authority a couple of weeks ago to talk through what more can be done, including on rolling out fuel finder for cheaper fuel and investigating the impact on heating oil. The CMA will be coming back to us in the next few weeks following that investigation, and looking more widely at how to keep prices down for all our constituents.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The £474,000 awarded to Dorset council last week as part of the Chancellor’s announcement is welcome, but I must tell her that it really will not touch the sides; more will need to be done to support rural communities. Unwillingly and unwittingly, the Government will be profiteering through a massive hike in VAT and duty take. May I urge the Chancellor to ringfence, either in whole or in great part, the excess receipts that she will be receiving—this would not add to Government borrowing—to support rural communities across the country as they face this cost of living crisis?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about heating oil. As well as the direct support for his local authority and many others, the CMA’s work is crucial to stop businesses exploiting the crisis to increase their profits. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), the CMA will report on that shortly. On ringfencing certain tax revenues, it is clear that a prolonged conflict will reduce other tax revenues and push up borrowing costs, so it is not possible to ringfence a particular tax for a particular use, because other tax revenues will be coming down. But the whole reason for the energy profits levy and the electricity generator levy is to have some stabilisation in the system to bring in money to support the Government and our constituents when that is most needed. Of course, we will be using it to do that.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the serious approach she has taken to the conflict, unlike the hokey-cokey approach we have seen from the Conservative party. Peterborough is willing to play its part in developing our energy infrastructure, and we have already had £1 billion-worth of private investment to upgrade the gas networks based out of Peterborough, but my constituents know that the price hike is not just about what is happening now in the middle east; it is about that decade when we did not build the energy infrastructure the country needs. Will she reassure me that her plan will speed up new nuclear, speed up investment in renewables and get the country building the energy infrastructure we need if we are to tackle this challenge for the long term?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is great to see that investment in the gas networks coming into Peterborough, supported by him. That is in stark contrast to the Conservatives, who got rid of our gas storage facilities, stalled on nuclear and stalled on renewables. As a result, they left us more vulnerable to an energy price shock.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
What contingency planning is taking place to support non-domestic energy bills, especially in rural areas such as mine where a great number of small businesses and community organisations rely on heating oil and LPG?
Rachel Reeves
I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that the best thing we can do to support households and businesses is to de-escalate the crisis and bring it to an end as quickly as possible. But, as I set out in my statement, I will not tolerate businesses price gouging and earning excessive profits because of the conflict in the middle east. The CMA therefore has new powers to ensure that does not happen, and we are targeting support at those who most need it.
Points of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After the financial crash in 2009, a banker called Tom Hayes was wrongly sent to prison. Last July the Supreme Court overturned his conviction, and in January it instructed the Government to pay him just shy of £300,000. He has still not been paid—not because the Government dispute the sum, but because they cannot agree among themselves which Department should make the payment. He cannot get an answer about what will happen, and I cannot get an answer—I do not even know which Minister to approach because of the wrangling inside the Government. I wrote to the Lord Chancellor, and his Department told me that I will not get an answer until at least the middle of next month. How can I establish which Department is responsible so that this House can get a proper answer on how this injustice will be resolved?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. In the first instance, he may wish to consult the Clerks in the Table Office for advice on how he can best elicit a response. He might also like to raise the issue at business questions with the Leader of the House, who will then ensure that the question is directed to the correct Government Department.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury and to voice my concern about the news that 287 patients in a hospital in Northampton are to be relocated across the country. NHS England has told local health bosses that the hospital is not fit for purpose and so they must relocate those patients, many of whom are brain injured. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) is also very concerned, as many of the patients are his constituents. Given that you have probably not had notice of a statement from the Government, how may I draw it to the House’s attention beyond this point of order? How can Ministers be asked to come here to explain what they will do about this woeful situation?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. He is quite right: I have had no notice of a statement on this issue. He can raise it at Health questions and with the Leader of the House. He has certainly done an excellent job of highlighting this matter, as he has done in debates that I have listened to. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard him.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Tomorrow is the UN’s international day of remembrance of the victims of slavery and the transatlantic slave trade. The Ghanaian Government’s resolution declaring the transatlantic slave trade a crime against humanity, which is backed by the African Union, the Caribbean Community and a growing global coalition, will be debated. Given our nation’s central role in the trafficking and enslavement of African peoples, a vote against that resolution would be a betrayal of every life it consumed. The House has never debated this. How can we be certain that our UN vote reflects the will of this Parliament and, more importantly, the will of this country? How can we ensure that decisions of such magnitude taken in our name receive the democratic consideration they deserve before a vote is cast?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. As she will know, the Government conduct diplomatic relations at the United Nations under Crown prerogative. Nevertheless, she has placed her concerns on the record, and those on the Front Bench will have heard them. As the House has not debated the issue, she might do well to apply for a Backbench Business debate or a Westminster Hall debate, or raise it with the Leader of the House at business questions.
Personal Protective Equipment (Inclusive Standards)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that personal protective equipment procured and provided by public sector and associated bodies must comply with Standard BS 30417:2025, or an equivalent specified standard; and for connected purposes.
I bring the Bill to the House as a proud member of the GMB union. We all know the importance of personal protective equipment, which is the final defence against unavoidable risks in the workplace, but what is not always appreciated is that employees across the UK are routinely working without fit-to-form PPE, compromising safety and hindering their productivity. BS 30417, developed by the British Standards Institution, is guidance that puts fit-to-form PPE as a consideration at every stage of purchasing, supply and use. Our workforce is not homogenous: employees are not all male, 5 feet 9 and 85 kg—and even then, PPE is often designed for a taller man. Too many are given inadequate PPE whether they are preparing food, handling chemicals, building houses, healing patients or fighting fires—boots so big that they become trip hazards, gloves so large that they cannot grip properly, or high-vis jackets so cumbersome that they restrict movement.
Although some employers offer inclusive PPE, it is time for us to put our money where our mouth is. Enshrining the BSI’s new PPE standard or the industry equivalent in public procurement sends a clear message to employers and manufacturers that the future of work and PPE is inclusive. Over the past year and a half, I have met women across industries—health services, the fire service, police, armed services and engineering—and they are exasperated at poor-fit PPE and, often, the ridicule that comes with it.
Take something as simple as sizing. The smallest glove size available on the market is still too large for 86% of female hands. That is not just inconvenient and cumbersome; it is unsafe. Many women doing training drills on ladders, or handling hoses and ropes, find them impossible as the gloves are simply too big to allow for a secure grip. Running into a burning building is something that few of us would ever want to face, but our firefighters do that daily. In an attack, running towards danger is something few of us would do, but our police officers do that daily. Handling soiled linen and cleaning up bodily waste is something most of us avoid where possible, but our carers, nurses and medical professionals do that daily. One Scottish firefighter came to me with her experience of running into burning buildings, but the service did not have any female-fit fire boots. That is intolerable, and a dangerous trip hazard in a perilous situation. In basic frontline protection, we are failing women who are putting their lives on the line.
The horror stories go on. Stab vests, predominantly designed to fit men, are simply inadequate to fit the body shape of female police officers. Ordinarily, they are too big and too loose. When running, the stab vest slides up and down, hitting against their neck and chin, in an encumbrance that slows them down in moments of danger. In one case, a knife slipped under a police officer’s garment and she was hospitalised with severe stab wounds. Alternatively, officers are forced to tie them so tight that it impairs their breathing.
Others spoke of needing to alter their PPE just to make it fit, which completely compromises their safety and makes the worker legally liable for accidents on site because they are wearing their PPE incorrectly. And that is before we even begin to talk about the lack of well-fitting protective clothing for people with disabilities, religious and cultural requirements, and men who do not fit the average size. Women in war zones have reported their oversized body armour cutting their thighs when sat in vehicles traversing rocky terrain, or of helmets falling over their eyes. We should not expect our service personnel to enter combat zones if we cannot deliver the body armour and fitted head protection that can save lives.
Although such examples are not limited to public services, the purchasing power of the state represents a sizeable portion of the market, through the purchase of PPE for our council care workers, firefighters, armed services and police. This Bill will put people at the forefront of PPE procurement, ensuring true fit-to-form protection from sparks and burns, waste and disease, machinery and chemicals.
I give special thanks to the people who put so much work into the new BSI standard and helped me learn all things PPE. The subject was not my forte, but it soon became a passion project. I thank the BSI drafting panel, superbly led by Sara Gibbs and Natalie Wilson. I am also grateful for the inspiration of Rowshi Hussain for challenging PPE straight from graduation into various construction sites; Robbie McGregor for all his help; and the GMB team, Mel and Lynsey, for bringing their campaign for inclusive PPE to employers and to the workplace. I also place on record my thanks to my parliamentary assistant, Angus Walker-Stewart, who diligently followed me down this rabbit hole. I also take this opportunity to wish the British Standards Institution a very happy birthday—it is a big one—marking 125 years of standardising our rail gauges, plug sockets and now PPE.
I conclude my proposal of this Bill by bringing it back to where I live and where I come from politically. International Workers’ Memorial Day falls on 28 April every year. In Bathgate, where I live, we gather in Balbardie Park, which is most beautiful in the springtime, with the cherry blossoms welcoming visitors. Now designated a park of peace, this old colliery site saw at least 23 fatalities during its operation. International Workers’ Memorial Day’s motto is “Remember the dead, fight for the living”. This new inclusive PPE standard allows us to do just that and help ensure that those who go to work return home once again. With an ambitious plan to upgrade infrastructure and build 1.5 million new homes, this Labour Government can lead by example and enshrine BS 30417, or equivalent, at the heart of public sector procurement.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Kirsteen Sullivan, Patricia Ferguson, Mike Reader, Susan Murray, Chris Kane, Douglas McAllister, Johanna Baxter, Tracy Gilbert, Elaine Stewart and Lillian Jones present the Bill.
Kirsteen Sullivan accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 April, and to be printed (Bill 404).
Opposition Day
Oil and Gas
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 108 / Noes: 297 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I inform the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to remove the Energy Profits Levy, end the ban on new oil and gas licences and approve the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields to increase secure domestic energy supply; recognises that the North Sea provides half of the UK’s gas supply, supports 200,000 skilled jobs across the UK and generates billions of pounds in tax revenue; further recognises that three quarters of the UK’s energy needs are met by oil and gas, that the UK will continue to use oil and gas for decades, and that the North Sea is the UK’s most secure and lowest-carbon source of oil and gas; notes that without action to make the sector more investable, the UK risks importing 82% of its gas by 2035 at higher cost and with higher emissions; and further notes that independent analysis by Stifel shows that the Energy Profits Levy will cost the Treasury more than it raises and that reforming it would generate an additional £25 billion in tax revenues within 10 years.
What do RenewableUK, Scottish Renewables, Greg Jackson from Octopus, the chair of Great British Energy, the unions and the Tony Blair Institute all have in common? They all think that the Labour party has got this wrong; they all think that we should make the most of our oil and gas in the North sea. They are some of the most powerful advocates for clean energy in this country, they are the great and the good of the Labour left, and they all get that shutting down the North sea is an act of economic self-harm—an unforgivable own goal when it comes to Britain’s energy security. The question is: why does the Labour party not get that? Let us go through the arguments, one by one.
First, the Secretary of State has argued that the North sea does not help our energy security because all the oil and gas gets sold abroad. That is rubbish. We use all the gas that we drill in the North sea. It makes up about half our supply. If we do not use our own North sea gas, by 2035, we will be three times more reliant on foreign imports of liquefied natural gas. That is much dirtier foreign gas. Why would we use that when we could use our own? The argument that it does not affect our energy security is pure misinformation from the Secretary of State, and MPs in the House today would be unwise to repeat it. Even the Climate Change Committee acknowledges that we will still need oil and gas for decades to come. If we are going to need them, we should get as much as possible from Britain. That is just common sense.
Secondly, Labour says that maximising our own resources in the North sea makes us more reliant on fossil fuels. That is total rubbish. Producing our own oil and gas has no connection with our consumption of oil and gas. The biggest barrier to electrification is not our oil and gas industry; it is the Labour party, making electricity more and more expensive by piling levies and taxes on to people’s bills. Using electricity to heat our homes or drive our cars can help make us resilient during a price spike, but the problem is that our electricity is too expensive. The Secretary of State, by piling cost after cost on to people’s electricity bills, is making the problem worse.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that the simple thing to do to bring down bills is to scrap net stupid zero, so that we can scrap all the carbon taxes and all the green levies, and all our consumers and households would be better off?
Claire Coutinho
We do need to take some of the green taxes and levies off electricity bills. The problem is that if the Government keep making electricity more expensive, no one will want to use it. That is why our policy is the opposite of theirs. We believe that we should make electricity cheap by taking off green taxes and levies, and that has nothing to do with the North sea. Drilling in the North sea does not stop anyone buying an electric car. It does not stop us building nuclear, of which I am a strong advocate, and nor does it stop us building wind or solar for that matter. The Government say that drilling in the North sea leaves us tied to fossil fuels, but why? They need only look to Norway to see that that is not true. It makes the most of its own oil and gas resources, but lots of people drive electric vehicles there. Let us hear none of that argument today.
Thirdly, the Government say that drilling will not help reduce costs for ordinary people. That is economically illiterate rubbish. We are paying tens of billions of pounds to import oil and gas from Norway from the exact same basin we could be drilling ourselves. Destroying our oil and gas industry means some £25 billion in lost tax revenue for the public finances over the next decade. The Government say they are taxing the wealthy. Are they in the real world? They are taxing anybody with a pulse: pensioners, middle earners, small businesses, farmers, drivers—if they breathe, the Government are taxing them, and people are suffering. The Government could instead be getting that tax revenue from a thriving industry.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Is it not true that the number of jobs in the North sea oil industry halved in the last decade when the shadow Secretary of State’s party was in government?
Claire Coutinho
The hon. Lady might like to know that oil and gas jobs have been stable for the past six years, but we are losing 1,000 jobs a month because of the Government’s policies. I know that because I have been to Aberdeen; perhaps she would like to do the same.
We also saw yesterday that the markets are charging us 5% for our borrowing. That is because they think we borrow too much and earn too little. There is an easy way for the country to earn some more money: we can make the most of our own resources and back the North sea, which would drive down costs for everyone. It is unfashionable at the moment to talk about balance of payments, but if we keep sending billions of pounds abroad and rack up the credit card bill, that causes costs for everybody.
Fourthly, on climate, Labour will say that drilling our own oil and gas in the North sea is “climate vandalism”—I am quoting the Secretary of State—but that is patent rubbish. Every drop of gas that we do not drill ourselves, we import from abroad instead. The liquified natural gas that we import has four times the emissions of gas that we could get from the North sea. LNG, for those who do not know, has to be frozen to minus 150ºC, shipped in diesel-chugging tankers, then heated up here. That is why it has much higher emissions overall. The Labour party says that it cares about that and that climate change is the biggest threat to our national security—its words, not mine—but it has a choice today: we can be three times more reliant on that dirtier LNG shipped across the Atlantic or shipped in from the middle east, or we could use our own gas with four times fewer emissions. Do the Government prefer virtue signalling and higher emissions under the Secretary of State, or more jobs and lower emissions under our plans to back the North sea?
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend, like me, feel sorry not only for all the consumers up and down the country who see billions of taxes that could be paid if we just produced more oil and gas here—that could be used to lower their taxes when they fill up their cars and travel to work—but for the two Ministers on the Front Bench, the hon. Members for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) and for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks)? Neither of them is an idiot, but they have been captured by an ideological Secretary of State who is literally making them swear that black is white.
Claire Coutinho
The two Ministers are Scottish MPs. They have been to industry, and they know what people in those areas are saying. They know the jobs that are being lost. It is so blindingly obvious that we should use things that we make in this country, rather than using dirtier imports from abroad. The question they need to ask themselves is, why is it that their Secretary of State cannot see the truth?
Fifthly, the Government say that new fields will take too long to get up and running. That is dangerous, short-termist rubbish. Jackdaw and Rosebank could be up and running by Christmas. They have been sat on the Secretary of State’s desk gathering dust. The Government are hiding behind the process. I was part of the process, and it is in the Secretary of State’s gift—it is up to him to make the assessment. We are in an energy crisis, and he could speed things up if he chose to do so. Jackdaw alone could produce enough gas to heat more than 1.5 million homes. Labour’s Chancellor commended Norway and Canada for drilling more—[Interruption.] That is what she said last week. She said that
“every country has got to play their part”
by generating more oil and gas. Government Members should ask themselves why their party position seems to be to support the oil and gas industry anywhere but Britain.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Lady agree with her shadow Energy Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), when he said:
“Look, nobody’s saying that net zero was a mistake. Net zero in the round was the eminently sensible thing to do. We need to decarbonise and we need to have an ambitious target to aim for”?
Claire Coutinho
I would thank the hon. Lady, but I do not think it takes much effort to read out a Whip’s question. The question she needs to answer is why she is supporting a policy that will increase British emissions. She is supporting a policy that means we are importing goods with higher emissions.
I have laid out five bad arguments that have been thoroughly disproved by people outside this Chamber whom the Government supposedly respect. Those five bad arguments spun by the Secretary of State should be consigned to history. What the North sea can give us is what it has been doing all along: stronger energy security, a stronger environment and a stronger economy. Are those not things that we want the next generation to have? The question that the Government need to answer is this: what reason do RenewableUK or their very own chair of Great British Energy have to back the North sea if it does not give us those very things? Maybe—just maybe—it is time for the Government to admit that their Secretary of State has approached his role with a dangerous, blinkered ideology, rather than being interested in the national interest. Perhaps even they realise that they are once more being marched up the hill on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of public opinion, when we all know that there will be an inevitable U-turn from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in a few weeks’ time.
It is mad at the best of times not to want to make the most of our own resources. The idea that one should ban industry if it does not change prices in this country is, let us be clear, an argument to shut down all business in this country. There are benefits to making things in Britain: jobs, tax revenue and self-reliance. The Labour party used to understand that.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
On that point about security and growing energy at home, I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my concern that in the push for renewables, we are entirely reliant on the processing being done in China on the other side of the world. The Government talk about not being reliant on petrochemical dictators, but they seem perfectly happy to be reliant on renewable dictators.
Claire Coutinho
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In the trade wars that we saw last year, China limited the export of several rare earth minerals that are critical components in the renewable supply chain. An energy system that is dominated by renewables is one that is completely reliant on China, and that is why we think it is the wrong approach. It is mad at the best of times not to want to make the most of our own resources, but in the middle of a supply crisis, it is completely unforgivable. Yet that is exactly what Labour MPs will vote for today. They are on the wrong side of history on this one. They should put their disastrous Secretary of State’s zealotry to one side, fast-track Rosebank and Jackdaw, reverse their disastrous bans and taxes, and put our energy resilience over their narrow political interests by backing the North sea.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the shadow Minister and the Conservative party for bringing this subject forward. My constituents tell me very clearly, “If we have oil, let’s dig it, let’s drill it and let’s make sure that we get the opportunity from it.” Is it not ludicrous for the Labour party to let Norway get all the assets from the drilling and let us get nothing, when it is coming from the same bed? For the Labour party to have that policy is ludicrous. It goes against the will of the people and against the will of us those of us on the Opposition Benches of this Parliament. I think the Minister should take a review of this decision.
Claire Coutinho
I think those are the strongest words I have heard from the hon. Member in my entire time in Parliament, and the Government would be wise to heed them. At the moment, we share the same basin with Norway. Last year, Norway drilled 46 new wells and made 21 new discoveries, while we drilled zero wells for the first time since 1964. This is exactly the same basin. There is not a geological difference; it is a political line drawn down the middle. It is quite clear that it is the approach of Labour and the Secretary of State that is driving the industry into the ground.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
One reason that Norway is so successful is the certainty that is applied to its tax regime in respect of oil and gas drilling. The Conservatives’ motion, as I read it, seeks to remove the energy profits levy. As a point of clarity, can the right hon. Lady be clear with the House as to whether she would want that to be replaced by the oil and gas price mechanism, as suggested by so many in the industry in Aberdeen?
Claire Coutinho
I know that the right hon. Gentleman’s party has a chequered past in backing the North sea, but I would be happy to work with anyone to look at how we can support the industry.
My position is clear. At the moment, we are taxing companies at a marginal rate of 100%, we are banning new licences—the only country in the world to do so—and we are making ourselves more reliant on dirtier gas from abroad, when we could be using our own resources and taking in £25 billion of tax receipts. That is why I urge the Labour party—the party that used to be the party of workers, the party of industry and the party that understood aspiration in this country—to put itself on the right side of history and vote for the motion today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“welcomes the Government’s approach to the future of the North Sea, which maintains existing oil and gas fields for their lifetime, as well as introducing Transitional Energy Certificates while accelerating the transition to clean energy; notes that new licences to explore new fields would take many years to come online and would make no difference to energy bills; recognises that oil and gas prices are set on international markets; and further welcomes the measures announced by the Government to go further and faster on national energy security by reducing reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets and expanding secure, home grown clean energy.”
As I have said many times in this House, the North sea oil and gas sector is one of our great industrial success stories. We are proud of the role that the North sea’s workers and communities have played in helping to power our country and the world for decades, and we recognise the role that oil and gas will play in our energy mix for decades to come, as well as the vast skills and experience of our offshore workforce. However, as a Government we also have a duty to be honest about the challenges we face, and the reality is that more domestic oil and gas production will not make us more energy secure and will not take a penny off bills. There is a lot of debate when it comes to this issue, so it is important to focus on the facts.
Martin McCluskey
And on that point—about facts—I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Richard Tice
Earlier today, the Secretary of State refused to answer my question about why the price of gas in the United States is between a third and a quarter of the price of gas here in the UK. Perhaps the Minister could help us all and help the British people with that question, which goes to the heart of the price of gas and the size and cost of our bills.
Martin McCluskey
As the hon. Member will know, the price of gas and oil is set on an international market and, as I have said, extracting more from the North sea would not make a penny’s difference to the price in this country.
The North sea is a super-mature basin that accounts for around 0.7% of global oil and gas production. Production has been naturally falling for more than 20 years, which means that our North sea no longer has the reserves available to support domestic energy demand. Crucially, any new licences now would not make any difference to people’s energy bills because, regardless of where it comes from, oil and gas is sold on international markets, where we are price takers, not price makers.
Graham Stuart
If we were to accept the argument that it would make no difference to the international price—notwithstanding the fact that there are global markets and that supply and demand leads to much lower prices in some places than in others—we are still talking about billions of pounds in forgone taxes, which could be used to reduce prices, to reduce VAT and to reduce all sorts of impositions on the British people, saving not pennies but many pounds on ordinary people’s bills. That is true, isn’t it, Minister?
Martin McCluskey
The Conservatives want us to remove a tax that is contributing £12 billion to the Exchequer, funding our public services and allowing us to invest in our schools, hospitals and other public services. If they oppose that funding, they need to come forward with their own proposals. The only route to energy security and lower bills is to get off our dependence on fossil fuel markets over which we have no control, and on to clean home-grown power over which we do.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
There seems to be a complete failure to understand how the gas market works. It works on piped gas, on local markets and on an integrated supply and consumption system, yet the Minister is addressing it as though it involves shipped oil. It is not the same market, yet he is dealing with it as though it is. Could he please begin to address the fact that this is a very different market?
Martin McCluskey
We have been importers of gas since 2004, and the Conservatives will know—because they presided over the period of decline—that it has been declining for some time.
Recent events in the middle east are yet another reminder of the need to speed up the transition and protect British people from price shocks. Thanks to our mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower, we have already seen £90 billion of investment announced for clean British energy, but we are now determined to go even further and faster in pursuit of national energy security.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I accept the Minister’s point about having more home-grown energy, and renewables can be good for insulating ourselves from economic shocks, but he will know that great swathes of our industrial base are gas dependent, not least the ceramics industry. What message does he send to them? The current price per therm is twice what it was three weeks ago. Those business are renewing their contracts. This is going to kill industry in certain parts of our foundational sector that we need to meet our mission, so what is the Government’s message to those industries?
Martin McCluskey
My hon. Friend is a real advocate for the industries in his constituency. The Minister for Industry is looking in detail at this and coming forward with proposals for industry to take us through this moment, as we deal with the situation in the middle east.
We are bringing forward the next renewables auction months after our most successful auction ever secured enough power for the equivalent of 16 million homes. Just today, we set out plans to make plug-in solar available in supermarkets so that more people can put a panel on their balcony or outdoor space and begin saving energy. We are also ensuring that heat pumps and solar panels will be standard in new-build homes.
The energy profits levy has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members across the House. Since its introduction in 2022, the levy has raised around £12 billion. As I said earlier, this revenue supports vital public services. As the Chancellor noted at the recent spring forecast, the energy profits levy will be replaced by the new oil and gas price mechanism in 2030, or sooner if average oil and gas prices over six months fall below the thresholds of the energy security investment mechanism. The Chancellor recognises industry’s calls for the EPL to be replaced by the mechanism, and wants to work with industry to provide certainty on the future fiscal regime while taxing the windfall profits of energy companies.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
On the energy profits levy, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast last year downgraded the expected income from oil and gas by 40% between March and November, and by another 20% between November and March this year. By 2030, we are now expecting only £100 million from a sector that used to bring home billions. That is because of the EPL and the ban on licences. That is the impact that Labour is having on the oil and gas sector.
Martin McCluskey
The hon. Lady will know that this is a windfall tax on windfall profits. If there are no windfall profits, there will not be a windfall tax.
The motion calls for an end to the ban on oil and gas licensing. The Government have been clear that we will support the management of existing fields for their lifespan. That is why we have committed to introducing transitional energy certificates, which will enable some offshore oil and gas production in areas adjacent to already licensed fields linked via a tieback or in areas that are already part of an existing field. New licences to explore new fields would make no material difference to overall production and would run contrary to the science on tackling the climate crisis.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Why does the Minister think the strategy of this Government is so different from that of Norway? Nobody doubts the commitment that Norway has to the environment and net zero, and yet it is pumping more oil and gas than it has done for a very long time, notwithstanding its longer-term commitment to net zero.
Martin McCluskey
Norway has managed its fields in a very different way from the way this country has over the course of 40 or 50 years. Every country will take its own decisions on how best to secure its own energy supply, and many other countries are taking a similar approach to the United Kingdom.
Let me turn to Jackdaw and Rosebank, which are addressed in the Opposition motion. At the outset, I should say that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the merits of individual cases because doing so could prejudice the decision-making process. As with planning decisions, which are comparable in nature, offshore oil and gas projects are subject to a robust and legally-grounded regulatory framework under which information submitted by developers must be carefully assessed. In both the Jackdaw and Rosebank cases, the Secretary of State will make a decision on whether to agree to these being consented in due course. It is imperative that all relevant material is properly considered so that decisions are sound, defensible and robust. When reaching a view, the Secretary of State will assess the overall balance between any potential significant environmental effects and the wider benefits to the interests of the country. As Members would expect, that assessment will involve considering a range of factors, which may include energy security, alongside environmental considerations.
Some have asked why the decisions are taking time. The answer is straightforward: these are planning-type decisions that must be taken in full knowledge of the facts. The guidance on the assessment of scope 3 emissions, published last year in response to the Supreme Court’s judgment, is the first of its kind, and it is therefore crucial that we take the time to apply it properly. [Interruption.] It serves no one’s interest for decisions to be rushed—it certainly does not serve the industry or the constituents of the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who is chuntering from a sedentary position—only for it to be overturned later by the courts, which was the mess that the previous Government got into.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned energy security. Of course, that is fundamentally the most important issue facing us as a country at the moment, not only because of the conflict in the middle east, but wider conflicts, including that in Ukraine. Is it not the case that we must stop taking short-term decisions and instead look to the long-term future of our energy so that we can get nationally controlled energy security, which is good for our national security, too?
Martin McCluskey
My hon. Friend makes an important point that gets to the heart of this debate. We are not going to learn the wrong lessons from the current situation in the middle east. We will not make ourselves more reliant on fossil fuels, at a time when we can see playing out day after day in all our constituencies the effect—rising prices—of being overly reliant and exposed to gas and fossil fuels.
We are incredibly fortunate to have the North sea on our doorstep. For almost half a century, the oil and gas buried there has fuelled development and charged our economy. But for too long, Governments have ignored the transition happening before their eyes. We owe it to the North sea’s workers and communities, which have done so much for our country, to set out a proper plan for their future and to seize the immense potential in clean energy.
Stephen Flynn
The workers who the Minister is referring to have a very different take from his own on his Government’s approach to the North sea. Indeed, I think they would be incredulous at the arguments he is making today and that his Government have made over many months, because it is costing them their jobs. He knows that moving from the energy profits levy to the oil and gas price mechanism as quickly as possible will give those workers some hope and will help assist with energy security. Is he or his Department currently in discussions with the Treasury about making that happen?
Martin McCluskey
The Chancellor has had discussions with industry and will continue to do so, and that is the right and appropriate way to conduct these decisions. I was pleased to be in Aberdeen a couple of weeks ago talking to the same workers that the right hon. Member mentions. Of course, we need to do as much as possible to ensure that oil and gas workers are properly protected through this transition, but we must not lose sight of the great potential, for example, in floating offshore wind, which will also provide a significant future for his constituents and people across Scotland.
As I was saying, the transition that is under way is the only way to get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels and build a more secure energy system. Following a consultation with businesses and communities last autumn, we set out the steps we are taking to unleash the North sea’s clean energy future. That plan recognises our world-class energy workers and supply chains and the importance of supporting them through that transition.
Graham Stuart
The Minister has been most generous in giving way. He will know that Harbour Energy was the single largest producer in the North sea—it is leaving. He will know that it has been devastating for so many workers in the industry. He will also know that, by all projections, in 2050 this country will still be dependent on oil and gas in all scenarios. Yet, by not doing new licences, we will by definition be more dependent on foreign supply, much of it having to come through the strait of Hormuz. How can that make any sense? I do not think the Minister thinks it does, but I suppose he is forced to stand on his feet and repeat the nonsense that comes out of the mouth of his Secretary of State.
Martin McCluskey
I am more than capable of forming my own conclusions, and what is in this speech are my own conclusions. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to listen to what I have had to say throughout this speech. Harbour Energy is continuing to operate. He talks about dependence. The dependence that we see at the moment is dependence on fossil fuels and on oil and gas, which has left every single one of our constituents across this House exposed to volatile oil and gas prices and to higher prices. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), the only way out of that is to get off this rollercoaster of fossil fuels and on to home-grown energy where we can control the price. That is a responsible action from a Government who are focused on the long term and not the short term.
Dr Murrison
Offshore Energies UK does not agree. It said that at the current rate of the Government crashing the North sea industry, we will be three times more reliant on gas by 2035 than we are at the moment. Is the Minister right or is Offshore Energies UK right?
Martin McCluskey
I will say to the right hon. Gentleman what I said to his Front Benchers last week: the Conservatives need to stop talking down the North sea. With 1.1 million barrels a day being extracted, that is not an industry being shut down; that is an industry continuing to produce.
Just last week, the Minister for Energy met our North Sea future board in Aberdeen with representatives from industry, unions and local groups to discuss how we can drive a fair, orderly and prosperous transition. Net zero is the economic opportunity of the century—
Martin McCluskey
That is despite what the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) might say. This Government will ensure that our oil and gas workers can take advantage of that opportunity while driving for energy sovereignty and abundance with clean home-grown power.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I alert Members to the fact that there will be a four-minute time limit on speeches, which of course does not apply to the Front Benchers.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
We need to be clear that this energy crisis is, in effect, an oil and gas crisis and shows us yet again just how dangerous our overdependence on fossil fuels is. Just as with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the middle east conflict shows how a single geopolitical escalation can send energy prices soaring, leaving households and businesses here in the UK exposed to shocks beyond their control. History is now in danger of repeating itself: families struggling with higher gas, petrol and food prices while energy companies’ profits surge. Forecasts from Cornwall Insight suggest that, if the conflict continues, energy bills could rise by £332 this July—a £332 Trump war tax on our energy bills.
Yet what do we see in the Conservative response? More drilling, more dependence, more of the rollercoaster of volatile fossil fuel prices. Alongside Reform UK, the Conservatives who are here today to mislead the public on the need to “Drill, baby, drill” are the same ones who were gung-ho in urging the Prime Minister to join Trump in the illegal war that caused this very crisis.
Claire Coutinho
Can the hon. Lady explain why the production of oil and gas makes us more reliant on the consumption of oil and gas? Will she consider the example of Norway, which, despite exporting oil and gas, and getting tax revenue from it, has high electric vehicle penetration? Why does she conflate these issues?
Pippa Heylings
I believe that the Minister answered that question. Norway has a very different system, and it made different decisions about consumption, based on the faster and greater adoption of techniques and heat pumps. The dither and delay under the previous Conservative Government meant that we did not move forward and reduce consumption.
The truth is that expanding oil and gas production in the North sea—a mature basin from which we have already extracted 93% of resource—would do nothing to cut people’s energy bills, because any oil and gas extracted is sold on international markets to the highest bidder. Nor would it influence global prices, given that the UK can contribute only a tiny fraction of the global supply, even if new licences were granted. It would neither cut bills nor increase the security of supply.
Research by Uplift shows that fields licensed by the previous Conservative Government over 14 years have produced just over a month’s worth of gas to date. Energy security is national security; as long as we rely on fossil fuels, we rely on foreign dictators and petrostates. Trump’s national security report was clear: he will use his gas to project power, turning it on and off at will. The Conservatives and Reform have shown that when Trump says “jump”, they ask, “How high?” That is not energy security; it is energy surrender.
Harriet Cross
Just to confirm, is the Liberal Democrats’ position that they do not want new licences in the North sea?
Pippa Heylings
I can confirm that the Liberal Democrat position is not to support new fields for exploration in the North sea. Rather, we should accelerate our own home-grown clean energy, the price of which we control. Otherwise, our constituents will forever be at the mercy of a deteriorating world order.
Pippa Heylings
Let me turn to jobs, which matter deeply. Those working in the North sea are skilled workers. They have kept our lights on, and must be at the heart of any transition. A just transition recognises that, although we will need oil and gas for decades to come, the North sea is a mature basin, and oil and gas workers, as well as supply chains, need support to transition. Even though the Conservatives supported new North sea drilling, the number of jobs in the oil and gas industry fell by 70,000 when they were in government, but without this level of outcry or support.
I grew up in Hull—a city that knew the devastation of unmanaged transition. I saw, through my father’s work as a GP, the human cost of industries collapsing without a plan. Dockers, trawlermen and entire communities were left behind and lost pride. We must not repeat those mistakes. Yet in Hull today, we also see what success can look like. With investment in offshore wind, companies such as Siemens are creating skilled, well-paid jobs for the future building wind turbine blades—that means jobs and pride.
Pippa Heylings
Let me turn to climate change. Although fossil fuels are driving skyrocketing costs, they also drive the costs of the unabated climate change that is already hitting our farmers and our communities, through crippling flooding and droughts. Approving Rosebank alone would add nearly 250 million tonnes of emissions, pushing us beyond our climate targets and further out of line with the Paris agreement, which aims to protect us all. Opening new fields would worsen the climate crisis without cutting bills or improving energy security. It would exacerbate climate breakdown, which is a national security threat that drives instability, displacement and economic shocks.
Richard Tice
The hon. Lady criticises us for trying to extract oil and gas, so does she also criticise Norway’s successful and excellent programme of drilling 49 new wells last year? We drilled none.
Pippa Heylings
We have been taking out less gas for decades now, and those decisions were taken by successive Governments. We have seen the assessment on the security of gas supply: Norway’s geological situation shows that it has more left, while our basin has less and the supply is dwindling. Expanding North sea drilling is not pragmatic; it is reckless and incompatible with the UK’s climate commitments.
There is another path, however. The Liberal Democrats have been clear that we must break our overdependence on fossil fuels and decouple gas and electricity prices so that households benefit from cheap, clean power. The more we expand renewable clean energy through contracts for difference—provision introduced by the Liberal Democrats—the less gas sets the price, so families and businesses could have fixed renewable energy prices. We would go further in taking policy costs off energy bills, so that households feel in their pockets that the wind and the sun are cheaper than gas. We must also make homes cheaper to heat in the winter, and cool in the summer, with a more ambitious warm homes plan and a 10-year emergency home upgrade programme.
We should build on the Liberal Democrat success by getting the Government to commit today to putting rooftop solar on all new builds. Rejoining the EU’s internal energy market would reduce wholesale costs, make the trade of energy more efficient, and avoid higher costs. More drilling means more volatility, more insecurity and higher bills. The Liberal Democrats offer a different path: decoupled gas and electricity prices, and the lower bills that families and businesses deserve.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I have found this debate quite fascinating. What nonsense from the Conservatives! We are watching a party rip itself up as it worries about more defections to Reform, and Conservative Back Benchers parrot the lines of their Front Benchers. We know from media coverage that the Conservatives are promoting people to the Front Bench based on their social media clout, so I look forward to many more one-liners and AI-generated speeches as they all try to get to the front. We have heard arguments that sound less like a plan for Britain and much more like they are straight from the Reform playbook, talking down our country and creating more uncertainty and worry for families across the UK.
To be clear, I fiercely oppose further oil and gas exploration in the North sea. Expanding new drilling would not address the pressures that families face right now, and it would not give our country long-term energy security and sovereignty. In fact, it would exacerbate the problem. There is a claim that we can simply turn the drilling on, that billions of pounds are available right now without any Government subsidy, and that, all of a sudden, we will get more oil. That is a fairytale—it is nonsense. Drilling and expansion is expensive. The best supplies are already tapped out. Profiteering drillers and exploiters are honest about this. There are other places around the world where they would much prefer to drill, to make much bigger profits for their stakeholders. Drilling is not a magical solution that will benefit British families.
Even if North sea fields were opened today, as the motion proposes, the UK would still depend on imported gas by 2050, but it would make up 94% rather than 97% of the total. It would make almost zero impact on our long-term energy security. Let us consider the two projects mentioned in the motion. Jackdaw would reduce import dependence by roughly 2%, with the UK continuing to be heavily reliant on international supplies. Rosebank would reduce oil dependence by around 1%, and all that oil would be destined for exports, not for the pumps.
Richard Tice
Is the hon. Member aware that there is about a decade’s worth of wonderful shale gas in the great county of Lincolnshire that can power this great nation?
Mike Reader
The discussion on fracking is perhaps one for another day.
We have heard claims that there are billions of pounds to be invested, but in reality, when it comes to development, it is the public who pay the price. In some cases, taxpayers foot around 80% of the development bill. Modelling on Rosebank and ending the energy profits levy shows that there could be a net loss of about £250 million to the Treasury, while operators would receive about £1.5 billion in profits. That should give us pause for thought. Who are we here to represent—our neighbours who are facing high prices at the pumps and high fuel bills, or multimillionaire shareholders?
There is also the fundamental question of whether the Government will keep their promise to future generations on the climate crisis. International bodies, including the International Energy Agency, have set out that new exploration licences are not compatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C. Last year was the first time in history that global temperatures exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
We have a legal obligation, but, more importantly, we have a duty to act in the best interests of our country and our people in the long term. If we expand fossil fuel extraction in full knowledge of the consequences, we are choosing to delay that responsibility and we will feel the effects. We are already feeling the effects in food prices. The No. 1 issue that our farmers are facing is climate change. We will feel the impact of extreme heat and air quality on health, and we will see the effects in global instability, which feeds straight back into costs here at home.
The task ahead of us is to make sure that we stick with the plan, focus on doubling down on renewables, say no to oil and gas, and, ultimately, make sure that we deliver a clean future for our country.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I am almost a little shocked to have to follow that, but I will do my best. It explains exactly why I do not understand Labour’s oil and gas policy. The unions do not understand its policy. The Tony Blair Institute does not understand its policy. The industry does not understand its policy. The renewables industry does not understand its policy. That is not because we cannot understand something; it is because the policy is absolutely crazy.
We have just heard that we will be using oil and gas for decades. We have just heard that that oil and gas has to come from overseas, but much less of it will need to come from overseas if we open up drilling in the North sea, if we get rid of the EPL and if we make the North sea a basin that companies can and want to invest in and drill from.
Jackdaw and Rosebank are prime examples that could be producing by the end of the year. Jackdaw could be powering 1.6 million homes, but the Government do not want it to. They would prefer to import from abroad, because then they can say that we are a country progressing towards net zero. They can say that their renewables ambition is kicking ahead. It does not matter about the jobs they are kicking or the tax being lost in the meantime. It does not matter about the £50 billion of investment or the £165 billion of economic activity that will be lost. The Government and the Secretary of State will have their headline. He will go down as the Secretary of State who managed to shut down the North sea and who got us off oil and gas. But it is a fantasy. It is never going to happen—it cannot happen.
Seventy per cent of the UK’s energy—not electricity, but energy—comes from oil and gas, and it will for many, many years. No matter how much the Government wish that we were not reliant on oil and gas, we are, and no matter how much the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) wishes that we did not need our own oil and gas, we do. We need our own oil and gas and we need oil and gas from abroad, and we will for a long time yet.
I care about the workers in the oil and gas sector, because those workers are my constituents. They are my friends and neighbours. They are the people who hold our communities together. However, this is not just about north-east Scotland. Every single Member of this House has constituents who work in the oil and gas sector and who will be listening to the debate today, worrying about their jobs and wondering why the Government are so determined to sacrifice their livelihoods in order to import more from abroad. When we meet workers in north-east Scotland, they do not talk about their jobs in the future; they talk about their jobs now. They worry about how their jobs are going to be protected and why the Government do not want to protect them. The apparent “Labour” Government—the Government who are meant to protect jobs—do not value oil and gas jobs.
Richard Tice
This is a critical question. Who is more dangerous to the British economy—the Secretary of State for Energy or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Harriet Cross
I do not want to pick between the two, but as a double act they are dreadful for the UK economy.
From now and into the years ahead, the transition, which the Government are so dedicated to, will see the industry move away from Aberdeen, because the supply chain, which they know is so important to the transition, is sustained by the oil and gas sector. Production from the North sea decreased by 40% last year. That is not because of geology; it is because of the energy profits levy and the ban on licences.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that UK production in the North sea can never put us in a position like Norway, because Margaret Thatcher gave away our oil industry to private companies and we have no sovereign fund?
Harriet Cross
We need to import more than we produce, so why would we not produce to the full extent that we can from the North sea? I am sure that the hon. Lady, as a Scottish Member of Parliament, appreciates just how important the industry is to our constituents. As for the Scottish Labour Members of Parliament, I wonder whether they are sitting there wondering just what the Government are doing to their constituents.
Dr Arthur
As ever, the hon. Lady speaks with great passion on this issue. She started by talking about Jackdaw. She must recognise that her party made a complete mess of that, which is why it is completely shrouded in uncertainty just now. She blames the Government and suggests that Labour is to blame, but it was her party, was it not? Is it not a quasi-judicial decision rather than a decision for the Minister?
Harriet Cross
The Government removed their support for Jackdaw and Rosebank, and that is why they are now held up. If the Government wanted Jackdaw and Rosebank, or Cambo and Tornado down the line—there are many others in the pipeline as well—they could approve them. It is in their gift. Apparently, they wanted to be in power for a long time because they wanted to be able to make these decisions. The only decision they are making for north-east Scotland, no matter what they say to the contrary, is the decision to close down the North sea, and to see redundancies going up, investment going abroad and tax intake reducing.
The skilled workforce of north-east Scotland should be something that the whole of the UK treasures. It is a vital asset, as is the North sea. Any other country in the world would give anything to have the workers, skills and geology that we have off our east coast, but the Government are not interested. They would much prefer to hit their renewables targets and clean power targets than to support one of our most crucial industries. That is why I am delighted that the Opposition have secured this debate today. I am delighted that we will be voting to support our oil and gas sector, its workers and our industry. I really hope that Members across the House will support us.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I will start by thanking the North sea oil workers now and in the past. I recently read the book “Black Eden” by Richard T. Kelly—perhaps others have read it, too. On just about every single page, I was reminded of people I know, or people I knew in my childhood in Aberdeenshire—the incredible innovators, the divers who risked their lives every single time they entered the water, and the workers on the rigs spending weeks away from their families. They deserve our thanks and recognition. What they do not deserve is histrionics, slogans rather than a plan and to not be taken seriously. They have not been taken seriously by the Opposition motion today.
The Opposition motion misrepresents the industry that North sea oil workers are in. It fails to set out a path towards sustainable employment for them and for their kids and grandkids—and, by the way, they do care about their children’s employment in Aberdeen. It also ignores the need to get energy bills down, let alone to tackle the climate emergency. The claims made in the motion that these measures would somehow boost employment and reduce bills are farcical.
Claire Coutinho
Since I went to Aberdeen recently to talk to workers and to grandparents and their children, I would like to ask the right hon. Lady, when was the last time she spoke to workers in Aberdeen?
Anneliese Dodds
Well, I can answer that very quickly, because many of them are in my family and among my friends. The shadow Secretary of State said before that she had visited Aberdeen. I found it extraordinary that when the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), mentioned the fact that jobs in oil and gas extraction fell by a third between 2014 and 2023, she would not even acknowledge it—she looked stunned. Well, I can tell her that for workers in that area, those job losses were painful. Every bust has been painful, and she should acknowledge that, rather than pretending it did not even happen. People who are working in that industry deserve a proper strategy for their future, not magical thinking and empty sloganeering.
Anneliese Dodds
I will make some progress, then I would be happy to take the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
The long-term trend very clearly is for the growth of low-carbon offshore industries. That has not been the case for North sea oil and gas. Research at Robert Gordon University—just to let the shadow Secretary of State know, that is based in Aberdeen, the city that she visited—has shown that nine in 10 of the UK workforce in oil and gas have medium to high skills transferability and are well positioned to work in the adjacent energy sector. Hydrogen, carbon capture, wind and other renewables are critical to sustaining high-skilled jobs in both engineering and manufacturing. We urgently need to boost those technologies with an active labour market strategy. That is what will secure the future of those high-technology, safety-critical jobs.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who is being very generous in giving way. She is nearly making the right point, which is that the people who work in oil and gas need the transition. This Government are pulling the rug from under them. Hydrogen, carbon capture, floating offshore wind and other developing technologies—even tidal—are not growing quickly enough and fast enough to give those people jobs. That is the point. The Government are destroying the very engineering capability we need for the transition and putting up emissions while doing so, by having imports instead of domestic production. It is mad.
Anneliese Dodds
I could not disagree more with the right hon. Gentleman. I have a lot of respect for him, but surely he will have seen the figures on the relative growth of the renewables industry in the UK compared with other industries. Those people see that there is now a long-term plan for that industry from this Government. That was not the case before—there was not that certainty there before. I want to see renewed, deepened engagement, particularly with the workforce and the trade unions representing them, and a move towards the active labour market strategy that we need, but to suggest that we are not on the right trajectory now after so many years of neglect is, frankly, laughable.
I want to end on this point. Even setting aside the lengthy lead-in time for new drilling, expanding it would not shield our country from oil and gas price shocks, because the price is set internationally. The shadow Secretary of State did not even acknowledge that. She spoke about imports, but she did not talk about prices, because she knows the reality. We need to stop distant conflicts impacting household bills in the UK. We need to get bills down, not keep them artificially high. We need cheap green tech and scaled-up clean power. We do not need the kind of cheap political posturing represented by the Opposition motion.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Net zero is a socialist dream, because it epitomises centralised control, Government interference in daily life and redistribution. When an idea becomes immune to scrutiny, it is precisely then that scrutiny is most needed. That definitely applies in the case of Britain’s rush to net zero, because in our haste, we risk undermining our economy, our energy security and, ultimately, the resilience we will need to face the future. Caring for the environment is necessary, reducing pollution is noble, and innovation in energy is essential, but pursuing an inflexible target at any cost without regard for the consequences is madness.
First, take the economic reality. The UK is attempting one of the most rapid energy transitions ever undertaken by an advanced economy. Entire industries are being reshaped or phased out, and energy systems built over decades are being dismantled in a matter of years. And who bears the cost? It is not abstract. It is households facing rising energy bills, businesses struggling with higher operating costs, and manufacturers deciding whether to stay in Britain or to relocate to countries with cheaper, more reliable energy.
Harriet Cross
The GMB Scotland secretary recently described Labour’s policies as “industrial calamity”. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?
Bradley Thomas
We only have to speak to businesses across our constituencies, and they will tell us about the reality of the economic calamity caused by decisions taken by this Government and the costs bearing down on them.
The reality is that choices made by this Government continue to hollow out our industrial base, not because we lack skill or ambition but because energy, which is the lifeblood of industry, has become prohibitively costly. Energy security is not a theoretical concept; it is the difference between stability and vulnerability. It is the ability to heat our homes, power hospitals and keep the economy running, no matter what is happening anywhere else in the world. Yet at this moment, when we should be strengthening our domestic energy supply, we are choosing to restrict it.
That brings us perfectly to the North sea, which is one of the UK’s greatest strategic assets. Beneath those waters lie opportunity—reserves of natural gas that could provide reliable domestic energy for years to come—yet the Government are choosing to turn away from it. The argument often made is that extracting more gas contradicts our climate commitments and locks us into the past, but that overlooks a crucial fact: the UK will continue to be dependent on fossil fuels for decades to come.
That is where the comparison with Norway becomes so instructive. Norway is often held up as a leader in environmental responsibility, and it has chosen not to turn its back on North sea resources. It has done the opposite: it has increased gas extraction, recognising both the economic value and the strategic importance of domestic supply. Norway understands something that we would do well to remember: energy independence is not at odds with environmental ambition; it underpins it. The UK risks increasing its dependence on imports, even as domestic resources remain available.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I agree with the hon. Member about the need for energy security, and certainly we do not want a supply chain that depends on the People’s Republic of China, which could lead to economic coercion. Does he share my view that the deduction is that we need home-grown manufacturing for renewable energy infrastructure?
Bradley Thomas
We are increasingly dependent on China because of decisions taken by this Government. The pursuit of renewables-based future energy infrastructure is increasingly dependent on countries that are adversarial to us and pose a risk to our long-term energy security. The hon. Member is right on that point.
This is not just about energy; it is also about jobs and public finances—something the Government know only too well, following their economic choices. The North sea has long been a vital source of revenue for the Treasury, creating billions of pounds that support public services and infrastructure. Analysis by Offshore Energies UK shows that there is £165 billion of estimated economic value in the North sea, should the Government muster the political will to seize it.
Bradley Thomas
I will not give way any further.
To accelerate the decline of that sector without a fully viable replacement is not just economically risky but fiscally short-sighted. At the same time, we must consider the livelihoods tied to the industry, as colleagues across the House have stressed. Tens of thousands of skilled workers depend directly or indirectly on oil and gas. These are not abstract numbers; they are engineers, technicians, supply chain workers, families and, more importantly, whole communities. If we move too quickly without a realistic transition plan, we do not simply phase out an industry; we create unemployment, lose expertise and weaken entire regions.
That is happening right now. This is not just a theoretical concern; it is raised by those who are closest to the issue. Trade union leaders have been clear. The general secretary of the GMB has described the Government’s stance on oil and gas as “madness”. Unite the union has warned plainly that such policies will put jobs at risk. Even Juergen Maier said that extracting more gas and oil from the North sea would boost jobs and tax revenues. Those are not voices that the Government usually say are opposed to progress; they are voices that represent working people, so why on earth are the Government choosing to ignore them?
We have to consider the global context. The UK accounts for a relatively small share of global emissions. Even if we were to reach net zero tomorrow, the impact on global temperatures would be limited. Meanwhile, major economies that compete with us continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels as they balance growth, development and transition. That is why we have to get the balance right. True leadership from the Government lies not in symbolic gestures but in practical solutions that can be adopted globally. The pursuit of net zero, as currently framed, risks becoming an exercise in self-imposed constraint—one that weakens our economy, compromises our energy security, threatens jobs, reduces vital tax revenues and lowers living standards for all, while delivering limited benefit.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I welcome this debate. As we have heard, oil and gas are likely to remain part of our energy mix for years to come, but recent global instability underscores a fundamental point: true energy security comes from reliable domestic and renewable sources, not from continued exposure to volatile international fossil fuel markets. Even if production were to increase, it would not shield the UK from global price fluctuations. Oil and gas extracted from the North sea is sold on international markets at global prices. While that may increase profits for fossil fuel companies—no doubt welcomed by the Opposition—it does little to reduce bills for our constituents. Moreover, new licences do not translate into immediate supply, and it can take many years, often well over a decade, from licensing to production. In reality, UK oil and gas production represents only a small share of the global market, and even a significant increase in output would not meaningfully influence global prices or reduce domestic energy bills.
Private companies operating in the North sea are under no obligation to prioritise UK consumers—the Norwegian example is interesting—so I return to the central question of how additional North sea production will reduce bills today. The only way that could plausibly happen would be through significant market interventions, such as restricting exports or imposing below-market price caps on domestically produced energy. Some Labour Members may agree with that, but I am not sure Opposition Members would. Such measures would represent a profound shift in policy, so if that is what the Opposition are proposing, they should be clear about it. If not, they should be honest with the public: expanding North sea oil extraction is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on energy bills in the short, medium, or even long term.
There is, however, an alternative that is not tied to global fossil fuel markets: renewable energy. I will take solar power as an example, but geothermal energy also has great potential. I recognise the criticism raised about the use of critical minerals, including in the remarks by the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), as well as concerns about reliance on the supply chain in China and labour standards in global supply chains. Those are legitimate issues, but there is also a significant opportunity for domestic innovation and manufacturing.
In my constituency, Power Roll is pioneering the next generation of solar technology. Its lightweight, flexible solar films use microgroove structures, and it does not rely on rare earth minerals. It has the potential for low-cost, scalable production here in the United Kingdom. The Government have already engaged with this technology, but it is now time to go further and support commercialisation, scale up production and invest in the infrastructure needed to bring British-made solar to market at scale.
By diversifying our energy mix and reducing reliance on volatile international fossil fuel markets, we can strengthen energy security and reduce exposure to external shocks. I say to the Government that this is the time to back British business, back innovation, and back domestic manufacturing, because that is how we will deliver energy security, economic growth, jobs—
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I will start with some facts: energy security is national security, global instability is rife, and our closest ally is now, at best, hugely unpredictable, and it is questionable whether it is reliable. When the UK Government should be protecting energy supply, they are instead sacrificing North sea jobs and communities on the altar of ideology. Job losses continue month on month, and the loss of skills is rife. “Just transition” are mere words for the communities affected. For me, this is a repeat of what Thatcher did to Scotland’s mining communities and the steel industry in Motherwell in the ’80s, destroying an industry without proper future planning and transition arrangements. Scottish Labour MPs—indeed, all Labour MPs—should be ashamed of their Government’s actions in that regard. It is utterly shameful.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, which is generous of him. I have been very critical of my Government in relation to the closure of Grangemouth refinery, but I will give you the opportunity of being critical of your Government’s inaction on the issue.
Graham Leadbitter
I think I am here to scrutinise what your Government are doing—that is the job of MPs in the House of Commons. I would also say that Conservative Members are no better on this. Government Members have an ideology of driving towards net zero and clean power, but it appears with no regard for the North sea; Conservative Members have an ideology of protecting oil and gas in the North sea, while getting rid of climate change targets. The industry does not like either of those positions—not the oil and gas sector, and not the renewables sector—and everybody in the Chamber knows that. Those sectors need each other to survive, and they need the skills to transition from one to the other. If we lose skills in the oil and gas sector, we will not develop the renewables sector as quickly as we need to, and those are the facts of the situation. If those skills and jobs are lost, or disappear into other places around the world, such as the Caspian sea or the Gulf of Mexico, they will not easily be brought back.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the North sea industry and ideology. What were his views when his Government were in coalition with the Green party, which wilfully wanted to destroy those jobs immediately overnight because of ideology? Did he support that Government coalition?
Graham Leadbitter
I supported the coalition at the time because we were gaining plenty of other benefits from it, but I concede that I was not 100% supportive of its position on oil and gas. I suggest that under the current SNP leadership, there is a balanced view of the North sea, and a pragmatic approach to protecting jobs in its oil and gas sectors, while still driving towards renewable jobs and the reindustrialisation of Scotland through the diversification into renewables that we need, recognising that oil and gas will be needed for decades to come.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
There is some confusion about current SNP policy on oil and gas. Is it, or is it not, still SNP policy to be against new oil and gas in the North sea?
Graham Leadbitter
Current SNP policy on oil and gas is that there should be a proper assessment of each individual application. That is the normal licensing process. I would think most Members of the House would recognise that if a process is put in place, it should be applied rigorously and consistently.
Graham Leadbitter
No, I will not give way again because I do not have much time.
There are many reasons why we need to support oil and gas, not least protecting the workforce and not losing the skills. There are also numerous other areas where the Government are not making decisions quickly enough. On the transmission network’s use of system charges, Government policy has taken 18 to 20 months to come through, and it will be several more months before it is in place. That will be after the start of allocation round 8, which is being accelerated, and many companies in the North sea are saying that they will hold on and wait for AR9 before making an investment decision, because they want certainty. That lack of certainty, pace and pragmatism is preventing those jobs from being created and preventing a just transition.
I can apply the same point to Ardersier, which is in my constituency, and the proposal by a Chinese company, Ming Yang, which wants to invest there. I understand that the Government have reasons and things that they need to consider in this matter, but it has been on their desk for 18 months. A decision is needed to either move on to other investors or decide that there is a risk, so that we can mitigate the risk, let them get on with it, create supply chain jobs and have serious, high-skilled, high-paid jobs that will provide a just transition and a serious opportunity for North sea workers. That decision needs to be made sooner rather than later. We experienced an excessive delay in the run-up to decisions on carbon capture, usage and storage; it took forever to get there, and jobs have been lost because of that lost time.
Let me turn very quickly to consumer pricing. The Government have been waxing lyrical about price gouging by energy companies at the moment. The Government and previous Governments have been responsible for state-sponsored price gouging in the energy market, with the highest prices for electricity in Scotland. With that, I urge Members to—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order.
There was a particularly unedifying exchange between Members in which the use of “you” and “your” was very liberal indeed; I assume that it was addressed directly to me. Can we all try to do a little better? While I am on my feet, I will say that after the next speaker, the time limit will have to be reduced to three minutes in order to get all Members in.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
We know that we will be using North sea oil and gas for some time to come. I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement about short-term and medium-term measures to address the crisis in the middle east and the inevitable impact on our energy costs, as well as her quick action on heating oil.
The motion is, however, about not just the immediate crisis but a long-term strategic approach to energy security. The position of the Conservatives and Reform on increasing our reliance on oil and gas is based on false assumptions, not on the facts of the situation that we find ourselves in. This could be an ideological discussion—clearly, they are trying to turn it into another nonsense culture war—but does not need to be, because it is easy to overturn the Opposition argument with evidence and a number of facts.
First, gas and oil prices are inherently volatile and often under the control of malign international actors. Oil and gas prices are set internationally, and gas and oil from the North sea are traded internationally, so unless the Opposition are suggesting that we nationalise the North sea and seize its products, their suggestion that it would somehow help with pricing is absolute nonsense. The more that we rely on gas and oil, the longer that gas will set the price of electricity. Of course, oil sets the price of all sorts of things, from transport to food and energy.
Gas setting the price of electricity is bad, because it makes electricity cost more. Conversely, the higher the level of wind, solar, nuclear and storage, the less gas will set the price of electricity, and the cheaper that electricity can become. The more that we move away from technology that is reliant on gas and oil, whether it is at home, in transport or in industry, the less we are subject to geopolitical storms, such as the invasion of Ukraine or the current crisis in the middle east.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that the central claim of this motion simply does not withstand scrutiny? Even if new fields are approved, the oil and gas will still be sold at international prices and will do nothing to shield British consumers from future shocks. The economic case is already clear that renewables are cheaper to generate.
Lizzi Collinge
The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. The central premise of the motion simply does not stand up to any scrutiny.
Secondly, the Opposition want to talk about levies to pay for the cost of new clean energy infrastructure, but they conveniently forget that all energy infrastructure needs to be renewed and replaced. Wind, solar and nuclear are cheaper than new gas and oil infrastructure. We also need to improve our grid, and that has to be paid for somehow. Whichever way we cut it, we need to build that infrastructure and pay for it, but the Conservatives and Reform simply do not have an answer on how they would do that.
To be really clear, and to build on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the skills of North sea gas and oil workers are absolutely vital in building and operating that new infrastructure. They have fantastic skills, and they need to be part of the clean energy transition.
Last week, I met a Ukrainian delegation as part of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. It described in very brutal and frank terms how Putin has used energy as a weapon of war and the severe impact that has had on the people of Ukraine. Ukraine’s previous reliance on gas had left it exposed to Putin using energy in this way, and its message was clear: the only way to get energy security and keep the lights on domestically is with home-grown clean energy, with distributed generation and storage, providing protection against Putin’s attacks and the wider geopolitical instability that we have seen.
The economic case for clean energy has been very clearly made. The arguments made by the Opposition in favour of continuing our reliance on oil and gas are nonsense. Let us not forget—
Lizzi Collinge
I would like to finish.
Finally, climate change in and of itself is a huge threat to our economic security, our physical health, the entirety of our wellbeing and the ability to feed ourselves. The Opposition say, “If we transition to clean energy, it will not make much of an impact”, but actually it will, because we are being global leaders. Every half a degree that we prevent in heating will save hundreds of thousands of lives every year.
We must do something; we cannot sit on our hands and do nothing, as the Opposition would like us to do. This Government are meeting the challenge of climate change, not with hair shirts or by trying to do without, but by building a better world. We are improving our quality of life, with cleaner air—we are not killing tens of thousands of people with dirty air every year—warmer homes and good clean energy jobs.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who follows in a tradition of Government Back Benchers standing up and trying to make the case for the utterly insane, the truly crazy and the utterly groundless. I feel more sorry for the hon. Lady than I do for the Ministers on the Front Bench, because we know that this impossible position cannot be maintained.
I do not know whether the Government are on U-turn No. 13, 14, 15 or 16—who can count them?—but I guarantee that it is impossible to maintain the current position; it rests on a number of fallacies. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said it as passionately as any of the Government Members, did she not? They say, “Oh, it is outrageous! The Conservatives are suggesting that our producing more oil and gas in the North sea will change the global price.” Well, I went back to the motion, and nowhere does it say that. That is the case of the “crazies” on the Government Benches—I do not know if that is parliamentary or not—and I include the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), in that. This is lunacy made flesh.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
On the subject of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), it was a shame that she did not take my intervention, because she may have been able to answer this question. She was very keen to talk about what happened under the Conservative Government and how we need to have renewables, but does my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) find it incredulous that at no moment did the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire mention that it was Nick Clegg who cancelled all the nuclear power stations? He said that he was not going to invest in something that would not come along until 2022.
Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend is right. I was incredulous when listening to the incredible things that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said.
Let me go back to this big, passionate attack. That production will not change the global oil price, but it will help to employ 200,000 people in this country, with all the engineering expertise and the deep supply chain in this country, in oil and gas. It will help to provide gas, nearly all of which—practically 100% of the gas produced in the North sea—comes into the UK grid. Nearly all of it is consumed here. Some of it goes through interconnectors in either direction the other way, but the idea that it does not directly contribute to our energy security is for the birds.
I return to the point about price, because Labour colleagues put so much effort into saying, “How dare they suggest that it will change the price?” There are localised prices, so it is also not true to say that oil and gas have a global price and we have to take that price regardless. As the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) interjected earlier, in the United States, the price of gas is between a third and a quarter of the price that it is here. Getting supply and demand in the right balance does make a difference. Relying on LNG means that we have to liquefy it, gasify it, ship it with specialist ships and put it into specialist infrastructure to bring it into the UK gas grid, which all costs money. It is even more ironic, given the attitudes of Labour Members, that according to the North Sea Transition Authority, that gas comes with four times the embedded emissions. It is environmentally insane as well as economically insane.
Bradley Thomas
Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the comments made by Greg Jackson, the founder of Octopus Energy, who said that importing LNG has a greater carbon footprint than extraction from the North sea? Does he also agree that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are now acknowledging that the renewables market is itself not competitive?
Graham Stuart
For the purposes of today, I will leave aside the renewables market, but I notice that RenewableUK agrees with the chief executive of Octopus Energy that it is crazy, along with the heads of the unions responsible. They all agree that this is crazy.
There is going to be a U-turn, and we are going to have the comic sight of the poor Minister on the Front Bench—a very likeable and very competent Minister—coming to this House to explain why the exact opposite of what he is arguing today is now the truth. That is going to happen, and it has to happen, because if the Government do not U-turn, we will lose jobs, tax revenue and energy security. I notice that those are the three qualities that are in the motion, because they are the vital things that we are missing by not drilling for oil and gas in the North sea while we continue to import it. We are importing more, with higher emissions than if we produced it here, and the net result is that we do not consume or burn a single drop less of oil or gas. The Labour party’s position is untenable.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I will start with the things that we all agree on. I think that across the House, we all acknowledge that the international energy prices we face in this country are too high. As the Minister is on record as saying, there is a rollercoaster effect when it comes to the price of gas. Today, it is 149p per therm; it was 120p per therm in February 2025, and it was 38p per therm in February 2021. We have to acknowledge the fact that oil and gas prices are going up around the world, particularly gas prices, and the impact can be felt not just in the jobs that the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) rightly spoke about, but in jobs in those industries that are gas-dependent.
The thing that I find difficult to stomach is when we talk about energy in the round, as if there is only one type of energy and everything will eventually run off it. Energy is a diverse group of ways of powering things. It can be electrical or nuclear, but in most of our foundational industries, it is gas. We acknowledge that gas will be here for a very long time—we will have to use it to power the kilns that make the bricks to build the houses we want to build. We will need gas to power the furnaces in the foundries that make the metal and steel for our defence development and manufacturing. If we want to make paper, glass, cement or lime in this country, we need gas. So many parts of the economic powerhouse that is the United Kingdom are dependent on gas, and while I agree with my Labour colleagues that we should move at pace to transition to electricity where that is possible, there are sectors in this country where that transition simply is not possible.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an outstanding case. Does he also agree that gas is an important feed stock in a number of critical industries, such as the production of ammonia, which is essential in the agricultural sector?
Gareth Snell
Absolutely. If we want to make fertiliser or other industrial gases in this country, we need natural gas to power those processes. There is no other way—the chemistry simply does not exist to create the gases we need without using natural gas. As such, although I absolutely support transitioning towards net zero and towards electricity, we have to recognise that great swathes of our industries simply cannot do so, and if they can, they do not have the capital to make the research and development investments that are necessary. We cannot yet fire a kiln with hydrogen in this country. We cannot get a stable supply of electricity to kilns in this country, not least because in the places where those factories are, such as Stoke-on-Trent, the grid capacity to do the hook-up simply does not exist and will not exist for generations to come.
When we talk about the transition towards net zero and more electrical generation, what are we going to say to the places that cannot do it? When we say, “It’s all going to be done through renewable energy”, what message do we send to workers in Stoke-on-Trent and in Denby in Derbyshire whose sector simply cannot transition away from gas? I want there to be more renewable energy. I want that technology to exist, but it is not there yet, and every time we forget that, we are talking about writing off jobs and livelihoods in the places that need them most.
Graham Stuart
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we also need to see the hydrogen storage and transport model issued by the Government as quickly as possible?
Gareth Snell
Hydrogen has to be part of the future mix. Some very interesting tests are being done in Germany, where hydrogen is being mixed with gas to power some kilns and energy-intensive processes. That technology is very expensive, though, and most companies in the UK cannot afford it—only a handful can—so, yes, we need that investment strategy.
Lizzi Collinge
My hon. Friend is making some really good points. There are certain industries that do need gas, so does he agree that we need to shepherd that limited resource carefully, and that the transition in other areas of energy will support us to keep that gas and oil where we cannot replace it?
Gareth Snell
We can shepherd, yes, but the Government have to get to grips with how much we pay for importing that gas. That is where we are dependent on international markets. For electricity generation, the Government enter into contracts for difference, which are very lucrative for suppliers. Why are we not looking at such contracts for gas production? At a point when we expect there to be a transition away from gas—and therefore demand for production and the price of gas will fall away—why are we not saying that there will be some kind of Government-backed contract for difference for suppliers, so that those energy-intensive industries that require gas can get a stable price point for generations to come and we can protect jobs?
I am sure that when the Minister responds, he will turn to the tab in his file about the British industrial competitiveness scheme and the supercharger. I just want to reiterate—because it seems like no one in Government is listening—that those schemes do not apply to gas-intensive industries. As the Chancellor said today, and as Ministers have said from the Dispatch Box in the past, they are for electricity-intensive industries. If we are going to support energy-intensive industries in this country, it cannot be through those schemes alone.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
There is simply no case for opening new oil and gas wells in the North sea, for approving Rosebank and Jackdaw, or for removing the windfall tax from oil and gas companies. It is inaccurate, irresponsible and immoral for the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), to suggest otherwise in her motion. Expanding North sea drilling will do nothing to support UK energy security or jobs, as the Lib Dem spokesperson—the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings)—and the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) laid out very clearly in their speeches.
Carla Denyer
Those Members answered the challenges from the shadow Secretary of State, so I will move on, given the limit on time.
Given that the measures proposed in the motion will not secure our energy supply, protect jobs or bring down bills, what will drilling more oil and gas from the North sea do? It will undo so much progress we have made in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. We are proud to have ended polluting coal power in the UK—indeed, I thought the shadow Secretary of State was proud of that—but allowing Rosebank would be the equivalent of running 56 coal-fired power stations for a year, undoing all that good work. Drilling more oil and gas from the North sea will also make some people a lot of money, including those on the Reform and Conservative Benches who take dirty money from fossil fuel donors.
Carla Denyer
No, I will not, thank you—I will carry on. [Interruption.] Fine, I will give way.
Claire Coutinho
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Could she explain why the biggest advocates for climate transition in this country—RenewableUK, Greg Jackson from Octopus and the chair of Great British Energy—say that she is wrong?
Carla Denyer
I beg the right hon. Lady’s pardon, but they say I am wrong about what?
Claire Coutinho
They say that the hon. Lady’s position on the North sea is wrong, and that we should keep drilling there.
Carla Denyer
My reliance is on the evidence, which shows that 93% of recoverable oil and gas in the British parts of the North sea has already been extracted. Whatever does remain will be sold on the international market to the highest bidder, as many Members have already pointed out. If the proposals in the shadow Secretary of State’s motion were implemented, they would do nothing for energy security and nothing for jobs.
Carla Denyer
No, I will not. I will continue for now.
What the shadow Secretary of State’s motion would achieve is the raising of a lot of money. When war inflates oil and gas prices, fossil fuel bosses cash in. Just five companies made nearly half a trillion dollars in the years after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Of course, those obscene profits should be taxed through the energy profits levy, because nobody should be cashing in on conflict. Again, I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the attention of those who may be watching from home, to the proportion of donations from fossil fuel donors that go to certain politicians in this Chamber. The Chancellor said earlier today that she would crack down on price-gouging and profiteering, so I hope that this work will maintain the principles of the windfall tax in whatever shape it comes.
The Government have done good work in driving forward clean energy and banning new oil and gas licences, and I desperately urge them not to backtrack by approving Rosebank, although I understand that they will not be able to comment on that today. I am also deeply concerned about the fact that, despite officially banning new oil and gas licences, the Government are creating a whopping loophole by introducing the transitional energy certificates, aka tiebacks. This is allowing new drilling at a new site on a technicality, because it involves drilling a new well but, rather than installing a new rig on top of it, attaching it to an existing rig with a very long hose, so it is technically not “new”. Opening up new oil and gas wells now is indefensible when we know that every drop of oil and gas burned puts our future further at risk, so I cannot support a Government amendment that “welcomes” these tiebacks. I ask Ministers to assure me that, at the very least, scope 3 emissions will be considered when the Government are deciding whether to grant the transitional energy certificates.
Committing to renewable energy means change, and change can be unsettling, but if it is done right, the Government can ensure that it pays off for everyone. I have been campaigning for an energy jobs guarantee to support workers who are currently employed in the oil and gas sector to move into jobs in the green sectors. That could be done by ending the £2.7 billion a year in subsidies that the Chancellor hands the fossil fuel industry in tax breaks, and using that valuable public money to back workers rather than propping up an industry that is in terminal decline. Our dependence on oil and gas is making us poorer—that much is clear—and it is making oil companies richer. There is no future in fossil fuels, so I hope that the Ministers will give no ground to the reckless statements put forward today.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Some of the broad themes of the topics that we are discussing today are very important. How do we drive down bills at a time when all our constituents will be worried about the cost of living? How do we provide energy security for our country at a time when the volatility of oil and gas around the world is driving real concerns—not just for our communities, but for some of the big businesses and industrial bases on which we have relied for generations? And, crucially, how do we ensure that when we go back to our constituencies and look not just the current generations but future generations in the eye, we know we have done everything we can to finally take the existential threat of climate change seriously, having done far too little over the last decade to ensure that we are on the right track when it comes to living up to our environmental commitments? It is against that backdrop that I am disappointed by our focus on such a distracting topic today.
There are big, big questions to be asked about how we can drive forward the energy transition in the best and most just way possible, but I am afraid that focusing on immaterial discussions about very small—fractional—differences in the amount of oil and gas that we end up extracting from the North sea is a wrongheaded and at best distracting way in which to lead this debate. However, I understand why such a distraction is attractive to the Opposition.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Does the hon. Member think that this is a minuscule, distracting issue for the tens of thousands of workers who have lost their jobs because of the policies of this Government on this very subject?
Alistair Strathern
Not at all. I think that that is why the last Government’s shameful failure to invest in the transition—their failure, in fact, to do much to create a better offer for the 50% of North sea oil and gas workers who lost their jobs over the last decade—is so shocking. It is why we have to do better; it is why investing in the reshoring of manufacturing around green energy supply chains is so important; it is about thinking creatively about how we can be more activist as a state in shaping the job opportunities of the future; and, yes, it is about ensuring that support packages are in place at the right times. But if we are talking about a just transition for North sea oil and gas, I do not think the record of the hon. Gentleman’s Government is anything that we should be looking to learn from.
Alistair Strathern
I am going to make some progress.
I can see, though, why distractions are so attractive to the Conservatives, because facing up to reality would mean facing up to the failure to deliver more on renewables, which we know would have reduced prices by about a third last year.
Graham Stuart
Does the hon. Gentleman realise—he may not, because I know that some of the stuff he is fed by those on the Government Front Bench may not help him—that whereas only 6.5% of electricity came from renewables in 2010, the proportion was over 50% when we left power? He can criticise the Conservative Government all he likes, but suggesting that one of the greatest transformations and moves to renewables by any country in the history of the world was some kind of non-event is to mislead the House, and I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is an honourable man, would never seek to do that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The right hon. Member is very experienced. He should say “inadvertently mislead the House”. We do not accuse colleagues of misleading the House. Would the right hon. Member like to correct the record?
Graham Stuart
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I said anything to that effect, I withdraw it.
Alistair Strathern
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his confirmation that his party used to believe in the future once, but when it comes to clean energy, I think the fact that we have been able to make so much further progress so quickly shows that there clearly were things that the last Government could have done but did not. Whether we are talking about a failure to crack on with new nuclear at speed and remove those regulatory barriers, about a failure to consider the levy reforms that we have already introduced to deliver tangible reductions in people’s bills this April, or about a failure to think about creative ways in which we can drive down energy demand for households across the UK through a proper warm homes plan rather than exploitative rip-offs delivered by con merchants under their eco-schemes, I think we have far better answers of which we can be proud.
It is disappointing that we have not had a more sincere debate on this issue today, because I think there are important questions, which are worthy of challenge, about how we can deliver this transition in a way that truly delivers on our climate and energy communities and for all those who paying bills at the moment. The Fingleton review points to some important principles showing how we can do far better when it comes to big energy projects. I would welcome further scrutiny from the Opposition on that, and on how we can deliver it at pace to make really impactful changes in a nuclear landscape that was left stalled and in stasis under their policies.
As we look to drive forward the green transition, it is right that, over time, we remove the role of gas in setting the price of power, and there are regulatory reforms that we could be making now to try and improve the position. There is some interesting analysis from Stonehaven showing how bringing gas power plants into the regulated asset base could do a far better job of stabilising prices, and would produce a better result for consumers and, crucially, businesses and industrial users. There is also more work to be done to continue the Secretary of State’s leadership on auction innovation. In the last auction, innovations that we introduced after years of lack of reform meant that we were able to lean in at an opportune moment to expand the amount of power that we were able to purchase when prices were lower than market expectations.
I know the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey, thinks that that insurance policy was not valid, which I think is a particularly challenging position to take at a time when we are seeing the cost of inaction shooting up under oil and gas. [Interruption.] I would welcome further challenges from the right hon. Lady about how we could innovate further. I know that the last Government’s record did not do a very good job of bringing out the best value when it came to auction design, but this is exactly the type of area in which cross-party challenge should be welcomed to ensure we can continue to do better. Instead, we are focusing on distractions that will do nothing for our constituents and that, sadly, do not prompt the very important questions, such as those posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), on how we can better ensure that where we need to continue to rely on gas power, we direct it towards sectors that this country has long depended on.
It is a sad truth that this debate has not lived up to the importance of the topic that we are discussing today. The Conservatives used to believe in the future. It is sad that they do not any more.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Time and again, we hear this Labour Government’s rhetoric about being pro-growth, pro-jobs and pro-economy. Despite these claims, they have continued to do the very opposite, as has been reiterated by Conservative Members. That is why I absolutely support the motion before us, in the name of the official Opposition.
It would be remiss of me to come to this debate on oil and gas and not speak about the impact that the war in the middle east is having on our business community, our manufacturers and our engineers. They are all experiencing a rise in energy costs, which are soaring, including our farmers and those in our rural communities. The price of red diesel is going up exponentially, and there is a huge amount of nervousness about supply and further increases in costs. To put this in context, the cost of red diesel was 67p a litre in February but has risen to about 135p a litre this month, impacting many in our farming community. I spoke to many of those farmers yesterday, and they made the point that we simply cannot talk about food security without talking about energy security. The two rely on each other and go hand in hand, and they need to be treated together, not as separate entities.
Mr Snowden
On Sunday, my son and I watched as the first fertiliser of the season started to be spread on the fields. It reminded me of the importance of the orders that are being placed now in the farming industry, the uncertainty that is being created—from fertiliser to diesel and so on—and the impact that it could have on the profitability of such businesses going forward.
Robbie Moore
That is absolutely right, and my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There is an additional cash-flow pressure on many food producers, which is why it is absolutely crucial that we have an energy strategy, alongside a food security strategy, under this Government.
I will pick up on the point about the green transition that has been made by Labour Members, and refer specifically to a live example that is happening in my constituency: the Calderdale wind farm, which is going to be the largest wind farm development in England. It was initially proposed that 65 wind turbines would be built on Walshaw Moor, which neighbours my constituency.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having the largest wind farm in Europe in his constituency.
Robbie Moore
Well, it has not been built yet. The proposal will come before the Energy Secretary, because he removed the onshore wind farm moratorium that the Conservative Government put in place. This is a development that I am staunchly opposed to. Why? It is because it is due to be built on precious peatland, which in a good year has a millimetre of growth. Despite that, the application coming before us is for a wind farm development, with deep foundations, on protected peatland. Road infrastructure is going to be built, wiring infrastructure is going to be built, and there will be consequences for flooding in neighbouring constituencies. I am staunchly against the project, which is why I cannot for the life of me understand why this Labour Government, alongside the Green party, are determined to roll out renewable energy schemes that have a hugely detrimental impact on our environment.
The Calderdale wind farm will have a hugely negative impact not only on our environment, our biodiversity and our precious peatland, but on the historic landscape in which it will be built. I do not know whether you have watched “Wuthering Heights” yet, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the proposed wind farm will be built on Brontë country. The Labour Government churn out this narrative of the green transition, but communities and environments such as those neighbouring my constituency are going to be negatively impacted.
Alistair Strathern
I understand that the wind farm that the hon. Gentleman is talking about would generate about a quarter of a million houses’ worth of energy every year. Given that his party is currently saying that the failure to approve an oil site, which would deliver power for 1.5 million homes throughout the entirety of its lifespan, is an existential risk for this country’s energy security, can he not see the slight inconsistency in the argument he is advancing?
Robbie Moore
The narrative that continues to come from those on the Government Benches is that we must have a roll-out of more renewable energy, without necessarily looking at the negative consequences on the environment. A development of the size that is being proposed on the outskirts of my constituency will not be carbon neutral, given the amount of energy that is needed to build the wind turbines and the negative impact on the carbon sequestration of the peatland. That is why I am firmly opposed to the Calderdale wind farm, and I 100% back the motion before this House.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I would like to draw the House’s attention to my membership of Unite the union.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds): the framing of this debate is somewhat misleading. The Conservatives and Reform have no real desire to lower people’s bills; nor are they interested in saving jobs or the prosperity of working-class communities. We can see that from looking at history. Let us look at the coalmines: right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative and Reform Benches would have been on the side of Thatcher, MacGregor, Ridley, Walker and Heseltine. This debate is really about Tory and Reform Members revelling in the free market. The only extraction they really care about is that of corporate profit and shareholder dividends.
I am ideologically opposed to the Conservatives and Reform UK, but what really pains me is being at odds with my own party. I have been clear that there should be no ban without a plan, and there really must be a plan, because the danger is that oil and gas workers will become the modern-day coalminers. Thousands of workers are nervous about what the future holds, and they are right to be—they have seen billionaire Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos and the Chinese state company PetroChina close the Grangemouth oil refinery, ending 100 years of Scottish industrial history. The Conservative Government did not want to know about the issue, and the SNP Government refused to engage with Ratcliffe, the Chinese and the trade unions that represent the workers even, though they knew about the planned closure for three years. The SNP abandoned the workers in the Grangemouth community.
Some £434.5 million has been committed for Grangemouth’s industrial future from this Labour Government—I have had to fight tooth and nail for it. The excellent news is that 500 jobs in the chemical industry have been saved, and that Project Willow is starting to deliver new jobs through the MiAlgae and Celtic Renewables announcements. However, I say to the Minister that the Government must match their ambitions with much more action. That means providing thousands of good, well-paid jobs and getting the new industries we need into Grangemouth and other industrial towns like it. There is still more than £190 million available in the National Wealth Fund for my constituency—we should start using it.
I also say to the Government that it is common sense to take at least some form of ownership in these new clean, green industries. They should break the cycle of reliance on private capital, foreign ownership and volatile fossil fuel markets and do more of what a Labour Government should.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Gregory Stafford.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman); it is like a greatest hits of the 1970s.
At a time when the war in Ukraine continues and instability spreads across the middle east, energy is not simply an economic question but a matter of national security. Yet under this Labour Government, Britain is making itself more dependent, not less. The irony is that even Labour Back Benchers know this—they are in the papers every day telling us that offshoring emissions while importing energy from abroad does nothing for climate change and weakens our resilience.
The reality is stark: Britain is not reducing demand for oil and gas; we are simply choosing to import it. In 2024 alone, we imported more than $11 billion-worth of crude from Norway. At the same time, liquefied natural gas shipped from abroad can carry up to four times the emissions of gas produced here at home. This is not environmental leadership, but carbon outsourcing with a higher bill attached—a bill that is being paid by British businesses and families, who are facing some of the highest energy costs in Europe.
Labour’s central argument this afternoon simply does not stand up. Labour Members claim that producing more gas in the North sea will not reduce prices because there is a so-called world price, but that misses the fundamental point that our own home-grown gas and oil produces hundreds of thousands of jobs. If we do not use it, we will miss out on billions in tax revenues that could be used to reduce energy prices for the consumer.
Alistair Strathern
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his party is also proposing a big tax cut for oil and gas companies in the removal of the EPL. He will have seen research from Oxford University suggesting that even if every new licence were taxed and that revenue was invested straight into energy subsidies, it could reduce bills by as little as £16 a year for households. Is that really the Tories’ ambition at the moment?
Gregory Stafford
I understand that the figure is £25 billion, which is a significant injection into the Treasury however we look at it. The simple truth is this: if we increase domestic supply, we can ease pressure on prices, reduce reliance on expensive imported LNG and cut costs. That is not ideology—it is basic economics.
The idea that new licences would take too long does not survive scrutiny either. Much of the North sea’s infrastructure already exists. Pipelines and platforms have spare capacity. New fields can be tied into existing systems, accelerating production and reducing cost. What Labour presents as inevitability is in fact a political choice. In the non-statement the Chancellor made earlier today, she talked about cutting red tape. Perhaps she should think about cutting Red Ed first of all, because this choice has consequences.
The ban on new licences risks leaving 2.9 billion barrels of oil and gas in the ground and puts at risk 200,000 jobs. Those are not abstract numbers. They are skilled, well-paid jobs that have powered communities for generations. This is not transition; it is industrial retreat.
Sarah Coombes
Is it not the case that Britain’s renewable economy is growing three times faster than the rest of the economy? If we were to retract our commitments to renewable energy and net zero, the investor confidence would reduce, which would be really bad for our European economy and the brilliant jobs that have been created in this industry, yet that is exactly what the Conservatives are proposing today.
Gregory Stafford
If I were being generous, I would say merely that the hon. Member has not listened to my speech or read the motion in front of us. I have not mentioned anywhere that we will be cutting back on renewable energy.
If Labour’s position is misguided, the Liberal Democrats’ position is outright reckless. They would pile further taxes on the North sea through an expanded energy profits levy, despite clear evidence that such measures deter investment and ultimately reduce tax revenues. Some analyses suggest that scrapping the EPL could deliver an additional £25 billion to the Treasury over the next decade. At the same time, the Liberal Democrats would smother the sector in layers of environmental, social and governance reporting and regulation, slowing down investment, increasing costs and driving production overseas. And for what? They would do so to meet accelerated net zero targets that are divorced from the reality of how Britain actually uses its energy.
Here is the fundamental point: electricity accounts for only around a fifth of our total energy use. The rest still comes from oil and gas for heating, transport and industry. We are not about to replace that overnight; nor are there credible plans to do so from this Government. The choice is not between oil and gas or renewables. We need both. The real choice is whether we produce that energy here under our own environmental standards, supporting British jobs and British revenues, or whether we import it from abroad at a higher cost and with higher carbon. The British public understand this. Around three quarters say that we should produce our own oil and gas rather than rely on imports, and they are right. Our plan recognises that. It backs domestic production, cuts unnecessary net zero taxes and delivers cheaper energy while maintaining our environmental commitments. I say to Ministers: stop outsourcing our energy; stop exporting our jobs; and stop pretending that dependence is a virtue.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Let me start by agreeing with fellow Aberdonian the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) in paying tribute to all the energy workers, who, over decades, have worked in incredibly dangerous conditions. Some gave their lives to ensuring that the lights stayed on and industry continued to function in this country. Many of them came from my constituency.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for his outstanding contribution. He brought to the House’s attention the dependence of so many industries in this country to gas, and the de-industrialisation that we are seeing across so many aspects of our industry right now.
With war raging in the middle east and in Europe, Labour is a party being held captive by extremists who refuse to act in our national interest, who are content to see jobs lost in their thousands and who will not take advantage of our greatest asset lying untapped and unexplored under our own waters.
Laurence Turner
The hon. Member talks of the national interest, but does he agree that it was disgraceful that Gazprom was allowed to acquire an interest in the North sea in the years after 2011, without a word of protest from his party when it was in government?
Andrew Bowie
We welcomed investment from around the world, but, obviously, we divested ourselves of any Russian investment in the North sea as soon as we could after Putin’s actions in Ukraine, as I am sure the hon. Member would have expected us to do as a responsible Government. On days like this we have to wonder whose side this Government are on, because unlike the Conservative Government, who acted in the national interest, they are not on the side of Britain or of the British people.
We have witnessed for four years now how Putin’s armies have weaponised energy not only to starve the people of Ukraine, but to weaken our continent. The Energy Secretary, if he were here, would tell us that that proves why we should double down on his plans to ditch oil and gas, except even under his ridiculously ambitious and unrealistic plans, Great Britain would still need gas to meet around 50% of its energy demand. The National Energy System Operator has highlighted that gas will be the UK’s energy of last resort for the next 10 to 20 years, and that we will require a diverse and resilient supply.
But Labour MPs—the enablers of this absurdity—would rather see us reliant on others for gas, such as Qatar or Norway, than on our own British industry. They would rather we get gas from other countries at a higher cost and with 15 times the emissions of our own supply, leaving us more exposed to price spikes.
To be absolutely clear, 100% of all British North sea gas goes directly into the British gas grid. I do wonder if Labour Members understand this, so let me explain: by choosing to use less from British waters, we have to import more and we become more insecure as a country. The real human tragedy at the centre of this blatant disregard for our national interest is playing out on rigs, in offices and in homes across the north-east of Scotland right now, and it is happening thanks to the Labour party, enabled by the Liberal Democrats.
While we are talking about the Liberal Democrats, we heard today from their spokeswoman, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), that they do not support any new oil and gas licences. I think she might want to explain that to their candidate for the upcoming parliamentary election in Shetland, who warned of the impact if the Clair oilfield was not expanded, or their candidate for North East Scotland who said:
“We are going to need oil and gas for the foreseeable future and it is better to support production here than rely on imports of LNG from abroad which are more polluting.”
Which is it? What is the Liberal Democrats’ plan, and why do they always say one thing in this place and another thing everywhere else? Once again, we cannot trust a word that the Liberal Democrats say, but they are enabling the Labour party and choosing to see 1,000 jobs lost in the North sea every single month.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I am a fan of his work, but I do have to ask this question. The Conservatives and Reform would have joined the American-led war of choice without any questioning of the reasons for it, and the Conservatives and Reform want to leave the UK reliant on fossil fuels and overly exposed to energy price shocks. Can he please tell me what the difference is between the Conservatives and Reform?
Andrew Bowie
I am equally a fan of the hon. Member’s work, but I would like to make this very clear: it is not that we would have joined the war ongoing in the middle east; it is that we would not have left British bases and British assets undefended in the way that this Government shamefully did by removing assets from the region when we knew very well what was coming round the corner.
One thousand high-skilled, high-paid jobs are being lost every single month, and this is personal. I have the immense privilege of living in and representing the north-east of Scotland. To me, these jobs are not figures on a spreadsheet, as they are to Labour MPs. They are my constituents, neighbours, friends and family. The callousness and disregard with which the Labour party is treating that region and these people at the minute will not be forgotten.
The Labour party refuses to acknowledge it, but it is real and it is happening—and at frightening speed. People are, right now, having to make a terrible choice: either they hang around in the north-east of Scotland awaiting the long-promised yet never-delivered renewable jobs boom, which always seems to be just around the corner and which pays far less, or they leave their homes, communities and families and move overseas. Many, indeed most, are choosing the latter. They are leaving the country altogether, taking their families and, crucially, their skills out of the United Kingdom to countries that have Governments who are awake to the reality and who support their domestic oil and gas industries—to places like Houston, Riyadh, Calgary or Stavanger.
In Stavanger they are drilling right now in the very same sea that we could be drilling in, only to sell it back to us. It is utterly perverse. Workers in Aberdeen are going to any country with an oil and gas industry in which the eco-extremism that the Secretary of State is so enthralled by is not found in government. That, by the way, is every other country in the world where there is a domestic oil and gas industry.
It used to be said that in every country in the world where there is oil and gas, you can find an Aberdonian accent. It turns out that soon, the only place where you will not be able to find an Aberdonian oil worker is, in fact, Aberdeen. There has been a steady beat of job losses every single month since Labour entered government—from BP, Hunting, Harbour Energy, Chevron, Well-Safe, Petrofac, and Ithaca Energy.
Labour MPs talk about what we did in government, but during the 2014-15 energy price shock, when jobs were sadly lost in the north-east of Scotland, we commissioned Ian Wood to produce a review into the future of the North sea. We implemented a policy of maximum economic recovery from the North sea. We reduced taxes on our domestic oil and gas industry, and we stabilised the workforce in our last six years. During our time in government, we made the North sea the most investable basin in the world. What are the Labour Government doing? The exact opposite. They are seeing job losses and investment turn away. They are surrendering this country to the whims of dictators overseas.
I could go on about the job losses. All the companies I mentioned have had operations in this country for many years, and when they are not cutting jobs they are consolidating their operations. I therefore welcome the recent intervention from the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) in calling for an end to the Government’s war on the North sea. We can add his name to the ever growing list of people and organisations calling on the Government to change course: the GMB, Unite, Tony Blair, Octopus’s Greg Jackson, Great British Energy’s own Juergen Maier, who was appointed by the Secretary of State, and RenewableUK. Why are all those people wrong and only the Secretary of State right?
Andrew Bowie
I will not because of time.
Notably, that list does not include one Scottish Labour MP. Indeed, some Scottish Labour MPs are actively campaigning to stop any production at all, with two of their number signing a letter asking the Secretary of State to block the Rosebank oilfield. For a moment, let us entertain the idea that clean power 2030 is not ridiculous and utterly undeliverable. Who does the Minister think will deliver it? The people with the skills needed for floating offshore wind are leaving in their thousands, and the assets to deploy those new technologies are moving overseas. Who does the Minister think will invest in the transition?
The Port of Aberdeen has recently invested in a new harbour to accommodate the long-promised boom in floating offshore wind, but there are no new turbines going out to sea today, the quayside has no blades waiting and the port is laying off staff because 60% of its revenue still comes from oil and gas; only 1% comes from renewables.
We could change course. I hope that Labour Members who represent Scottish constituents have paid close attention, and I hope they have thought about whose side they are on. Labour MPs have an opportunity to join us in the voting Lobby and demonstrate clearly whose side they are on. Are they on the side of British workers, our industry, our security and our economic success, or are they on the side of an increasingly isolated Secretary of State?
The Government could decide to vote to end the ban on new licences and unlock the 2.9 billion barrels of opportunity that lie below the sea. They could vote to scrap the energy profits levy and vote to approve the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields immediately, but it is clear that they will not. As ever, there is only one party with a plan to get Britain drilling again, to make Britain secure, to cut bills and to deliver a stronger economy and a stronger country. That is, and always will be, the Conservative and Unionist party.
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
This has been an interesting debate at times—at other times, perhaps it has not been—but it is a timely and important debate, as many people sitting at home will be watching the situation in the middle east concerned about the cost of living, our energy security and the impact that our energy policies have on their lives. Let me start, as the shadow Minister rightly did, with what I thought was an outstanding contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). She rightly centred the debate, as others should have done, on the workers who have powered the country for decades. I have had the great pleasure of meeting many of them in the 20 months I have had this job—not on one visit to Aberdeen, but on many. They have done the job that we have asked of them in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. They have risked their lives—indeed, many have lost their lives—in the pursuit of the energy that we have used for six decades.
I will never diminish the role that the North sea has played for six decades in powering the country. It has been a source of energy, a source of revenue and a source of good jobs not just in the north-east of Scotland but beyond that in the east and north-east of England and right across the country. Its workers are sought after around the world for their skills and experiences.
My right hon. Friend rightly challenged what we have heard from the Opposition in the debate. Slogans do not protect those jobs. Standing up with nothing but rhetoric and pretending that the 70,000 jobs lost on their watch were somehow irrelevant will not help, and it diminishes the scale of the challenge we face.
Slogans will not build the jobs of the future. The shadow Minister talked about a lack of turbines in Aberdeen harbour, yet his party would rip up the auction that delivers the contracts that will create those jobs—and he has the brass neck to say that that is a problem with our Government’s policy. It is his policy that caused the problem.
The shadow Minister talked about numbers on a spreadsheet, as if we do not care about the workers caught up in this. That is why we are building the transition and investing in the future, while they ignored it. When we started becoming a net importer—not in July 2024, as some Opposition Members would like to pretend, but in 2003—we should have been looking at the transition. I am willing to accept that the previous Labour Government should have done more on this. The Conservatives should accept that over 14 years, as they saw thousands of jobs disappear from the industry, they should have been doing everything in their power to build up what came next. They failed to do that.
We have heard a number of straw man arguments put forward today about the North sea being closed. The North sea, right now, continues to send gas into our gas network and it will continue to do so for decades to come. However, the transition is hugely important. It has been under way for decades and we have to acknowledge how important it is to invest in what comes next.
The events of recent weeks should concentrate minds. We should have learned the right lessons coming out of the invasion of Ukraine but we did not, and we must now learn the right lessons coming out of this present crisis. Doubling down on fossil fuels does not give us energy security; it makes us depend even more on the very volatility that has driven us into economic problems time after time. More than half the economic shocks that have faced this country have been caused by fossil fuels, and the Conservative party’s answer is to double down and have even more of it. That is not a plan for the future of this country.
Graham Stuart
The only doubling down being done is by the Minister, who insists that we import more from abroad. Where energy is produced makes no difference to how much we consume. It can either be produced abroad or it can be produced here, with jobs, tax and lower emissions. Why on earth would he choose for it to be done abroad?
Michael Shanks
I was going to come to the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution later. He is also very likeable—he kindly said that of me and I appreciated it. He talked about “lunacy made flesh”; in the past, he has remarked that his own party’s policy of cancelling auctions for renewables has been lunacy. The truth is that we need both: we need oil and gas for many years to come, but we also need to build what comes next. I am afraid that point is entirely lost on those on his party’s Front Bench.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the US earlier and said that the UK was a price taker, not a price maker. The difference is that the US is responsible for a quarter of the world’s gas; we are not. By all standards, we have a minuscule amount of gas in the international markets. I am not saying that we should not be hugely grateful to have that gas in the seas around our country, but it is a minuscule amount compared with the global gas take. Therefore, we will always be a price taker, not a price maker.
There were a number of contributions that I will not have time to come to, but I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). I think he quoted me to myself in saying that energy policy is not a theoretical exercise. I agree with him, and today’s motion states that we need to look at the reality of where we are as a country and how we deliver our energy security in an uncertain world. That means having a mix of energy and it means moving faster to deliver the clean, home-grown power that is the very thing that can protect households right now and allow us to take responsibility for our environmental impact.
Conservative Members used to be great champions of the need to tackle the existential challenge to this planet that is the climate crisis, and there was great consensus in this place and across our politics on that. They have rowed back from that in a desperate attempt to chase Reform down the cul-de-sac of being anti-net zero, but in doing so they are turning their backs on the tens of thousands of jobs that will be created in the future.
I spoke earlier about the importance of learning the right lessons from this crisis. As long as we are dependent on the volatile global fossil fuel market, we will always be vulnerable to the kind of price shocks that we are seeing today. When faced with events like that, the public rightly expect us to work out the pathway that reduces that exposure and protects their household bills long into the future. Today, we have heard no plan whatsoever for doing that from the Conservatives; indeed, we have just heard a plan to double down on the very exposure that households are paying the price for.
The alternative path is to invest in the clean energy transition and recognise that oil and gas will play an important part in that, but also to invest as quickly as we can in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen, and in decommissioning our offshore assets, which will produce many, many jobs for a long time to come. That is why we have attracted £90 billion of investment since we began this challenge. It is why we are tackling the gridlock in the national grid that has held back projects for so long. It is why we are creating thousands of jobs across the country. Every wind turbine that we switch on, every solar panel that we install and every bit of grid that we build that was neglected by the Conservatives for far too long helps us to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and helps us to protect bills.
There is an important debate at the heart of this issue, and I regret that the motion tabled by the Opposition does not help us to have it. It ultimately comes down to a choice: do we want to continue on the rollercoaster of fossil fuels, or do we want to take control of our energy future with secure, home-grown energy, creating jobs, cutting bills and strengthening our national resilience? At a moment like this, this Government are clear what path we are on. It is the right choice for the British public. I commend to the House the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Defence
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 98 / Noes: 306 - Question accordingly negatived.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House regrets that the Defence Investment Plan has still not been published despite the Government promising Parliament that the plan would be published in Autumn 2025; notes that the Government’s delay has frozen procurement and has stopped the UK from learning lessons from its long-standing support for Ukraine and left the UK vulnerable as the world becomes more dangerous; believes that the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025 should not be proceeded with because they are a threat to morale, and that the Diego Garcia Treaty should not be ratified to ensure that the UK continues to have sovereignty over its military base; calls on the Government to publish the Defence Investment Plan as soon as possible; and further calls on the Government to increase spending on the UK’s armed forces, specifically delivering 20,000 more troops over the next Parliament, paid for by restoring the two-child benefit cap, and redirecting net zero funding to defence, to ensure that the UK spends three per cent of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament.
It is a pleasure to open this Opposition day debate. I join the Liaison Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Defence Committee in asking the Government one simple question: when on earth will they publish the defence investment plan? Yesterday, the Prime Minister was unable to answer that simple question. It means that, at a time of war and conflict on multiple fronts, and amid the most dangerous time for our country since the cold war, instead of delivering rapid rearmament, Labour is presiding over a procurement freeze. Perhaps that should come as no surprise, given the Prime Minister’s constant habit of dither and delay.
Since 28 February, when the US and Israel started their campaign against Iran, the Conservative position has been that, had we been in government and the US had asked to use our bases, we would have granted permission. In contrast, the Prime Minister has not only dithered and delayed over sending the Royal Navy to the middle east, but constantly U-turned on whether to allow the US to use our bases. That is weak leadership when we need to stand strong in this dangerous world. Now, we are seeing the consequences of the Prime Minister’s weakness on the home front. As war wages around us, he is unable even to confirm whether the defence investment plan will be delivered this week. I urge the Minister to tell us at the outset of his remarks, but before he does, let us remind ourselves of what Labour Ministers have said before.
On coming into office, the Defence Secretary made a choice. He chose not to implement the munitions plan I had produced, which detailed comprehensively how we could rapidly replenish the vast amount of shells and missiles that we had given to Ukraine. Instead, he decided to launch a strategic defence review that would boil the ocean. In multiple written questions, we asked what Labour would do on specific capability, and the answer was always the same: “Wait for the SDR.” So we waited and waited—it was promised for the spring of 2025, and was delivered in the summer—but the SDR did not have any of the specific procurement choices that our entire defence industry is waiting for. After all the hype about the SDR, those decisions were punted into yet another review: the defence investment plan.
In June last year, the Secretary of State promised from the Dispatch Box that
“the work on a new defence investment plan will be completed and published in the autumn.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 72.]
But summer turned to autumn, autumn turned to winter, and still there is no DIP.
Dame Meg Hillier
I have to say, the hon. Gentleman has some chutzpah, given that one of his Government’s many defence reviews had more pictures than pages. I agree with him that we should be serious-minded on this matter—we need to be prepared for defence—but under his Government, projects were delayed and aircraft carriers were without aircraft, and the ongoing Ajax saga is still be resolved. He needs to take responsibility, too. Across the House, we all want to ensure that we are ready to defend our nation.
James Cartlidge
There was no question in that intervention, but I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees that the Government need to get on and deliver the defence investment plan. To be fair, MPs from across the House have said so, including the Chair of the Defence Committee. We all know that it is in the national interest for the DIP to be published.
After all, the defence investment plan being delayed has consequences, the most serious of which are for our military personnel, who we want to have the best equipment for their job. In taking the decision to pause urgent procurement and instead boil the ocean, the Defence Secretary walked into a Treasury trap. Procurement has been on hold ever since, and the Ministry of Defence has been forced to focus on in-year savings, including £2.6 billion for this year alone. Such penny-pinching explains why, until HMS Dragon finally arrived on the scene, we had no warships in the middle east for the first time in decades.
One of the most critical consequences of the delay to DIP is the Sea Viper Evolution procurement. The fact that a US destroyer intercepted at least one of the missiles that Iran fired at our sovereign territory on Diego Garcia underlines how important it is that our Type 45s are able defend against the most advanced threats. For the UK, that requires the Sea Viper Evolution upgrade for our Type 45 destroyers.
In my own SDR submission as shadow Defence Secretary, through numerous speeches in the House and in many written questions, I have repeatedly urged the Government to accelerate Sea Viper Evolution as a priority for our munitions plan. I am sure that members of the public who are watching this debate, worried about Iran’s attack on Diego Garcia, would expect such a capability to have been ordered as rapidly as possible. However, in a written answer this January, when I was once again chasing this critical upgrade, I received the inevitable response that continued progress on Sea Viper Evolution remains
“subject to the defence investment plan.”
That is the problem in a nutshell—the impact of Labour’s procurement freeze in real time. The reality is that Sea Viper Evolution is not due to reach full operating capability until late 2032.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
At Defence questions last week, the Secretary of State said that the delay to the defence investment plan was not holding up important investment plans, which came as a surprise to me, given that right now there are UK personnel on NATO’s border with Russia without specific equipment that would otherwise have been procured in my own constituency. Does the hon. Member share my concern that the delay is in fact having significant impacts on defence procurement?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman, who I believe is a gallant gentleman who served in the Royal Air Force, knows exactly what he is talking about. I agree with him wholeheartedly. It is having a real impact, and it is not just me saying that.
The serious consequence of this paralysis is our brilliant defence industry hanging on by its fingertips. This morning, I addressed a roundtable attended by many defence primes and small and medium-sized enterprises in Westminster. They are the experts at the coalface, and they spoke of British defence companies going abroad or even having to close because of delays to the defence investment plan, and a defence industry under strain when it should be firing on all cylinders.
When it comes to consequences, on a personal basis, what I find most disheartening of all is the impact of this paralysis on our ability to learn lessons from the war in Ukraine. I am incredibly proud of how, in government, the Conservatives stood by Ukraine even before Putin invaded.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I came into this place only in 2017. I was deeply disappointed by what happened in 2014 and our failure to stand by Ukraine on the invasion of Crimea. I think Michael Fallon was one of the few who said, “We should actually take action.” What was the hon. Gentleman’s view and what would he have done?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have been training Ukrainian soldiers since 2014—over 60,000, I think, under Operation Interflex. I think there is a very strong consensus in the House on support for Ukraine. Obviously, there were limitations on what we could do. We have done everything possible. We were the first country in Europe to stand by Ukraine. We sent weapons before the invasion started. We did not wait for Putin to invade so that we could comply perfectly with international law. Boris Johnson and Ben Wallace had the guts to ignore the Foreign Office and send those weapons, despite that—premeditated. If Kyiv had fallen and the column of tanks heading to Kyiv had not been intercepted, we would have been in an extremely serious situation.
I am making a point about procurement. This is important. By April 2024, we were providing Ukraine with drone and counter-drone capabilities that were proving decisive on a real battlefield, against the peer military threat in Europe. They were not being produced through the old system, full of delays and overspend, but by British SMEs, producing them cheaply, swiftly and with constant feedback from the frontline. We were therefore incredibly well placed to deliver the vision of the MOD defence drone strategy—which I published in February 2024 and is meant to be current Government policy—whereby we would be a leading nation in uncrewed warfare. Most importantly, we would have achieved that by providing in parallel for our armed forces the drone technology that we were giving to Ukraine.
By now, our Army should have been training across the board in drone warfare, the Navy should have been fielding the beginnings of an autonomous drone fleet, learning the lessons from Ukraine’s extraordinary victory in the Black sea, and the RAF should have been maximising investment in loyal wingmen—drones that would fly alongside and enhance the lethality of our current Typhoons. But there was one big problem.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem with his Government’s drone strategy was that they did not invest in satellites, making us reliant on foreign satellites for full capability, and they did not invest in the radars, as we have, that cover all of Europe and north Africa, thereby making us fully reliant on the US?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Lady talks about reliance on the US. I remind her that it was the United States that intercepted the ballistic missile heading for our base—our sovereign territory—on Diego Garcia. The point I am making—and it is incredibly important for the House to reflect on this, because it has not been talked about enough, partly for sensitivity reasons—is that we did tremendous things in Ukraine. We supplied drones made by British companies that had an extraordinary impact. I am not going to say any more than that, but that is a statement of fact.
My strategy—it is fairly simple—was that we should, in parallel, do the same for the British armed forces, but in the summer of 2024 we ran into a big problem, and it is the reason why we have no defence investment plan: money. As was the case when we were in government, the Treasury under this Prime Minister has agreed a funding line for Ukraine; that is correct, and we strongly agree with it. But there has been no agreement to fund parallel procurement for our own armed forces.
This golden opportunity to transform our military was lost because the Secretary of State failed to stand up to the Treasury and demand the cash from the Chancellor. So often have I met British SMEs producing amazing battle-tested kit for Ukraine, with nothing ordered by our own armed forces. It is extraordinary, and I think the Minister, who shares my passion for the uncrewed revolution, knows that. As ever, it boils down to hard cash.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that another example is Coventry-based NP Aerospace, which I met again this morning? It is producing body armour for Ukrainians, but because of the delay in the DIP, it has no confidence that it will be able to do the same for the British Army. It is a bit reminiscent of 2003, when several in this House went to Iraq with the most shoddy, appalling personal kit that took months to rectify.
James Cartlidge
I am very grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend, who speaks with his experience as not just a former Defence Minister but someone who served in the Royal Navy and still does as a reservist. I ran an SME—it was not a defence SME, but I know the stress of running a company in tough times, and my heart goes out to companies like the one he talks about, which will be struggling right now. They are selling abroad but getting nothing from the British military at a time when we face intense threats. That is not good enough.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
James Cartlidge
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin).
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I draw my hon. Friend’s attention and the attention of the House to the other fundamental structural flaw in the method the Government have adopted for planning defence: the aspiration after 2029 is only an aspiration. The Treasury has agreed to no spending line in its own forecasts and figures beyond 2029, and yet the defence investment plan is a 10-year plan. How can the Treasury agree to a 10-year plan when it has not agreed to any funding for defence after 2029? It is just an aspiration.
James Cartlidge
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, who ran rings around the Prime Minister yesterday so expertly. He is absolutely right. The Red Book details to the penny how much this Government will spend on their U-turn to abolish the two-child benefit cap by 2031. There is no line on what will be spent on defence in those years, so how on earth is the MOD meant to change? The key is that the Government are not going to go to 3% in this Parliament. I am going to conclude by setting out five steps, but before I do that, I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).
Sir Julian Lewis
It is very kind of my hon. Friend to give way on the point of making his peroration. He mentioned the tension between the MOD and its Ministers, and the Treasury. We could sympathise with the MOD Ministers if they did not keep adopting a line that is self-defeating. They keep coming out with this propaganda line that they have increased defence spending by a greater amount than at any time since the end of the cold war, and each time, I boringly point out to them—and I am going to do it again today—that they should not be comparing what we are spending now, in a much deteriorated situation, with the peace dividend years that followed the cold war; they should compare it with what we used to spend on defence during the cold war, which was regularly between 4.5% and 5%. If that seems a lot, just remember that when a country is involved in a full-scale war, we are talking not about 4% but about 40%.
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend is never boring in his interventions; on the contrary, he is one of the most knowledgeable people on defence in this House.
I will conclude with five steps that could be taken right now to galvanise our war readiness—positive suggestions from the Conservative Benches. First, we should rearm immediately. As I wrote in my letter to the Defence Secretary last week, instead of waiting on the defence investment plan, he should use the reserve funding agreed for the middle east operations to place orders for urgent operational requirements, in particular advanced short-range air-to-air missiles for our fighter planes, and Aster air defence missiles for our Type 45s. Secondly, we should deliver drone tech at scale and pace across the armed forces, as we set out in our sovereign defence fund last December. Thirdly, to fund that we would set a path to 3% this Parliament, not the next, including turning the National Wealth Fund into a defence and resilience bank, ringfencing £11 billion for defence, repurposing £6 billion of research and development funding for drone tech, and restoring the two-child benefit cap to fund a bigger Army.
Fourthly, to save more money for defence, and following Iran’s missile strike on Diego Garcia, we would stand up for that critical sovereign territory by scrapping Labour’s crazy Chagos plan. Finally, to boost immediately the morale of our veterans and all who serve our country, we would defend those who defended us by scrapping Labour’s plans to put our former soldiers back in the dock, simply for the crime of serving their country. It is not enough for Ministers simply to say, month after month, that they are working “flat out” to deliver the defence investment plan. In the national interest this country needs to rearm rapidly. That means the Prime Minister ditching the dither and delay, summoning the courage to reverse the spiralling welfare bill, and finally committing to 3% on defence this Parliament.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
I read the motion with a sense not of anger but of disappointment, because at a moment like this, when British armed forces are actively protecting our people and our interests in the middle east, intercepting drones, defending our bases, and preparing for further and potential escalation, I had hoped for a more well thought through and balanced motion to contribute to the debate.
Let me start by paying tribute to those who are serving today, at home and overseas, in the air, on land, at sea, and 24/7 beneath the waves, often in conditions of real danger, doing exactly what the country asks of them. This debate should have been about them. Instead, we have a motion that reads less like a serious contribution to defence policy, and more like an attempt to rewrite the record, and to whitewash what happened over the past 14 years. The House knows the record, and the public know it too. Importantly, the implications of 14 years have an impact on our armed forces, and they are bearing the brunt of it. Opposition Members cannot rewrite it, and they cannot run from it.
Let us be clear about the world we are now operating in. A major land war continues in Europe, where 55,000 drones and missiles have been fired by Russia into Ukraine, and there have been over 100,000 casualties on the Russian side alone—that is more casualties than America took in the entire second world war. Conflict is spreading across the middle east, and 10 countries have been struck by hundreds of ballistic missiles and thousands of drones. Authoritarian states are becoming more aggressive, and the way wars are fought is changing at pace. This is the most volatile security environment for a generation. This is not a moment for gestures or political point scoring; it is a moment for a serious decision.
James Cartlidge
When is the Minister going to publish the defence investment plan?
Al Carns
We will publish the defence investment plan as soon as is feasible. The hon. Gentleman will not find anyone who wants more than me more defence spending at a faster rate, but this is a moment for serious decisions to be taken in the national interest. We need to get ourselves back on track. There has been a whole plethora of funding decisions over the last 14 years, which I lived through, and I am sure some hon. and gallant Members present lived through, that in the current environment are no longer fit for purpose.
Dame Meg Hillier
I am sure my hon. Friend will remember that at one point when he was serving our country the last Government put an extra £4.5 billion into defence spending. However, time after time, every witness that came in front of the Public Accounts Committee told us how it was not solving their funding problem and was overspent many times. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need rigour in spending that actually delivers the kit to our men and women on the ground, in the air and at sea who are serving our country?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. We have a large defence budget, and in the past it has not been spent effectively.
I think we can collectively agree, on both sides of the House, that huge procurement mistakes have been made in the past that have resulted in either the wrong equipment or the money going the wrong way. We therefore need to take our time to get this right. As Conservative Members will know, the other reason we need to take our time to get this right is that conflict is changing; in some cases, it overtakes some of the capability that was ordered years ago.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I thoroughly enjoyed the Minister’s interview on Times Radio, in which he talked about his role in defence and his history and was asked about his leadership. I will not ask him about his leadership ambitions, but I would like to know where the DIP is stuck. Which Minister is it stuck with? Is it stuck with the Chancellor, or does the Ministry of Defence itself have a problem? I would be grateful if the Minister could elucidate a little.
Al Carns
Defence is very clear about what it requires. We are working collectively across Government to come to a joint decision on where that spending portfolio will fall.
There are points in this motion that are obvious. The world is more dangerous, and we are investing more in defence, but recognising that is the easy part; the real question is whether we are prepared to make the decisions required to deal with it. Defence is not a shopping list, and it must not be treated as such. It is not about picking a number of troops, as mentioned in the motion, and it is not about shifting money around on paper. It is about building a force that works—one that is properly equipped with the correct equipment, properly supported and able to operate alongside our allies. In my time in uniform and since coming into this role, I have spent time in multiple different operational theatres, and I know that this is not about the size of the armed forces; it is about the plan. This is about the purpose, the equipment and how people will be integrated. Simply stating that we should add 20,000 extra troops to the Army, with no clear or concise understanding of how they will be used, is not the way to go about business.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The Minister is making a powerful case. A man with his record and history coming to this place is to be congratulated, and I am enthused to see him in his place today, as I think we all are.
We have talked about the non-appearance of the defence investment plan, but there is another review that has not appeared that has even more impact: the review on China and the threat that it poses to us. That was promised again by the Government. I raise this issue because under Conservative and Labour Governments, I have gone on constantly about the growing threat, and we have not faced up to it. China is critical to this matter; if we watch the tankers going into the strait of Hormuz and out again without any problems, we begin to realise the incredible links that China has with Iran, Russia and North Korea. Is the Ministry of Defence demanding that that review is handed to it and published, or has it forgotten about it?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I do not require any correspondence from the Minister, although it is always welcome.
Al Carns
Let me go back to the point about the 20,000 troops. The motion calls for more troops, but it says nothing about how they would be recruited, trained, housed or equipped. It does not even begin to answer the most basic questions about what those troops would actually be used for. It proposes funding defence through unrelated policy changes, as if national security can be managed like a spreadsheet, and it pulls together issues that do not form a coherent strategy. That is not a defence plan—it is a list.
What is most revealing is the position of the Conservative party. One week, the Leader of the Opposition says that we should send jets “to the source” in Iran, and that we are in this war
“whether we like it or not”.
The following week, she says,
“I never said we should join”,
and when the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is asked for a clear position, he says that there are no easy answers. Those are their words, and they tell us everything. They are armchair generals rushing to judgment one week and retreating from it the next—rushing towards escalation, then stepping back from it the next. That is not leadership, it is not judgment, and it is certainly not how to make decisions about putting British service personnel in harm’s way. Those decisions demand seriousness, not commentary or hyperbole from the sidelines.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I share the respect of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for the Minister and his experience, but the two statements from the Leader of the Opposition that he read out are not incompatible. The fact is that we would not have joined in the military action that the Americans and the Israelis initiated, but it is undeniable that the war has now come to us. What does he think is happening in London? Did he not hear the deputy chief of the Metropolitan police on the radio this morning talking about the rising Iranian threat that is now domestic in our own capital? This war has come to us. As Leon Trotsky said, Madam Deputy Speaker,
“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
Al Carns
I hope war is not interested in you personally, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Iranian threat—Hezbollah, Hamas, lethal aid in Iraq and Afghanistan, and supporting terrorist organisations around the world—is not lost on me at all. However, I will be really clear: I have served in every staff college in the career structure of the British military, and I have always been taught that there are three key things. First, you have to have a legal mandate; secondly, you have to have a plan; and thirdly, you have to think to the end. If the Opposition think that we should be involved in the conflict, then by all means they should say so, but if they do not, they should be balanced.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Cartlidge
I believe that the Minister was giving way to me, and I am grateful to him for doing so.
To be clear, the Prime Minister and the Conservative party now have the same position. The Prime Minister would grant the US use of our bases—its bombers have been taking off from our bases. That was our position. The difference is that we have maintained that position from the beginning, 100% consistently, whereas the Prime Minister has U-turned repeatedly. We are the ones who have been consistent; Labour has been blowing all over the place.
Al Carns
The Opposition would have dragged us into this conflict quicker than we could possibly have imagined. We have made the difficult but correct decision to remain in a defensive posture. That is the right decision.
Let me deal directly with the record that we inherited. The shadow Defence Secretary himself admitted that defence spending reduced every year because, in his words, people thought we had peace. That assumption has left this country exposed. Ground-based air defence investment, which is now protecting our forces in the middle east with our allies and partners, was cut by around 70% in the Conservatives’ final year. Frigates and destroyers were reduced by a quarter, and minehunters were cut by more than a half. I was the chief of staff of our carrier strike force, which validates our minehunting capability that goes to the middle east. Interestingly, in the 2021 integrated review, the out of service date for minehunters was brought forward to 2026—good decision! Troop numbers were left at their lowest level in modern history. That is the reality, that is the legacy, and that is what we are trying to fix, and we are fixing it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Al Carns
I will continue and then give way in a minute.
We have taken more action in the past 20 months than the Conservatives managed in the 14 years before that, with more than 1,200 major defence contracts, 86% of which have been awarded to British-based businesses. The Conservatives argued that we should spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030; we are delivering it by 2027.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Let me just say to the Minister: no more “yous”.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I sense that this little fracas is something of a tautological tap dance. We are at war, and I do not think Iran cares whether we made the strike on it or not, because it still sees us as a target. We accept that, and that is the danger that our troops are in.
However, I want to ask the Minister about something else. I want to ask again the question that I asked the Defence Secretary yesterday. Is it not the reality that we are at war, and that Iran is an enemy of ours and has been for a considerable time? It has been carrying out operations here. It has been stirring up Islamic extremism, and we are seeing targeted antisemitism and hate marches. That is all part of Iran’s plan. Is it not time that the Government finally said “Enough is enough”, proscribed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and arrested the hell out of these people who are causing mayhem on our streets?
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Member for his comments. I will raise them with the Security Minister, and push exceptionally hard.
The motion suggests that we are failing to learn lessons from Ukraine. Let me make it absolutely clear that these are two separate issues. This Government are leading. We committed £4.5 billion in military support last year, building on £3 billion annually. We have co-led the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which has helped to secure over $45 billion of investment, and in February alone a further $35 billion was raised. However, we have not just provided funds; we have adapted.
At this point, I want to recall my own history. I left the military in 2024. I left because the Government and the military collectively were not learning the lessons from Ukraine. That is the very reason I left to come to this place. Labour was not in government at the time, and we were already years into the conflict. Opposition Members will recognise this as being one of my hobby horses since I have been in the Ministry of Defence.
There has been a tenfold increase in drone delivery, with a target of 100,000 this year. A new cyber and electromagnetic force has been built on lessons from the battlefield in Ukraine, and £4 billion has been committed to autonomous systems over time. We have seen Project Asgard, a hybrid Navy, a defence uncrewed centre of excellence in the SDR, a cultural change within the Army, Navy and Air Force in respect of uncrewed systems, an increase in uncrewed systems training, and cultural development in phase 1 and phase 2 training. I am therefore confused as to how no lessons are being learned. We must go faster, and we are pushing as hard as we can, but I want to be very clear about this, and I will bring you back to the first point. I left the military because your Government—[Interruption.] I left the military because the Conservative Government were not learning the lessons effectively from Ukraine.
Let me turn to the topic of Northern Ireland and morale. I do not recognise the argument advanced in the motion.
Dr Evans
The Minister gave us an extensive list of some of the spending commitments, but will he set out the exact spending commitments, and explain about the 1.5% required by NATO, which is not included in the defence spending? It was a great big list, but I have not heard the other side of it, and I should be grateful if he could provide those categories.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The 1.5% is, of course, about security-related initiatives, and it is important that we get to those soon. As for the wider defence investment plan, I would just say a word of caution: we must get it absolutely right. I have been trying to work with colleagues on both sides of the House since the start of the Ajax project in 2016 to find a resolution to some of these problems. We must take great care and be very clear-eyed about the procurement strategy that we follow.
Al Carns
I completely agree. We have to get the defence investment plan right, and we have to ensure that it balances all the different problems that we face, whether they relate to air defence in the middle east and the lessons identified there or, indeed, the lessons identified in Ukraine.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
One thing that we need to get right, and which we got wrong in the past, is this. When I was first elected in 2017, there were not Russian spy ships off the coast of my constituency, but now there are, and we detected a submarine before Christmas. I raised this issue with the Leader of the House last week and have been granted a ministerial meeting. Does the Minister agree that there is a Russian threat on our doorstep to vital strategic resources, including pipelines, interconnectors, our offshore wind, and our oil and gas? Look at what happened in the Baltic.
Al Carns
We often talk about not having a frontline with Russia, but the reality is that we do. It is in the north Atlantic and in maritime, where we are facing off against Russian capability on a daily basis. We have seen a 30% increase in surface and subsurface capability, which speaks to the complexity of the defence investment plan and to the requirement to balance our assets, given the crisis in the middle east and, of course, the continual and persistent threat from the Russians in the north.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I would like to take the gallant Minister back to his comments about when and why Britain should go to war. It is clear that the Conservatives have forgotten that the Leader of the Opposition made her comments during the offensive action, not the defensive action. Is the Minister concerned that we have a Leader of the Opposition and a leader of the Reform party who, when Donald Trump says, “Jump!”, say, “How high?”
Al Carns
I am going to make a bit of ground, and then I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman in due course.
Morale is built on leadership, clarity and trust, and the facts matter. Recruitment is up by 13%, and outflow is down by 8%. For the first time in over a decade, more people are joining the armed forces than leaving—that is the reality. Let us be clear about our responsibility to our veterans: there is no equivalence between those who served to protect life and those who sought to destroy it. This Government are putting in place proper protections for veterans following the legal uncertainty that was left behind, and we are backing that with action.
Actions talks. Op Valour is putting £50 million into our veterans programme—more than ever before. Op Ascend is helping veterans into meaningful employment, with funding to tackle veterans’ homelessness and to deliver real improvements in housing and pay. We have delivered the largest pay rise in two decades, including a 35% increase for new recruits. We have bought back 36,000 military homes and are investing £9 billion to improve them. We have funded 30 hours of free childcare for under-threes across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, saving forces families up to £6,000 a year. That is the difference that practical support makes, and it is why we are seeing a change in morale. If the Conservatives want a debate about who is delivering for our service personnel, I am more than happy to stand on our record and to compare theirs with ours.
Al Carns
I am going to a make a bit of ground, and then I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.
We come to perhaps the most revealing part of the motion: the suggestion that defence should be funded through changes to the two-child benefit cap. Let me say this plainly: you do not strengthen national security by setting it against support for working families, you do not ask the country to choose between security abroad and stability at home, and you do not build credible defence policy on that basis. It is the job of the Government to make life easier for families, not harder.
I will say something else. I grew up in a family where decisions about money took place, and I see the same pressures on the communities that I now represent. Security is not just about what happens overseas; it is about whether families feel that they can cope, whether they feel stable and whether they feel that the system is working for them. The Conservatives’ motion is not a serious way to approach defence funding, because the strength of a country rests both on armed forces that can deter and defend, and on a society at home that is stable, resilient and confident. Pitting one against the other does not strengthen either; it weakens both.
This Government are taking a different approach. We are making decisions in the national interest, and we will not be pushed into those decisions by noise or pressure—we will take them carefully and responsibly. We are increasing defence spending, strengthening our forces—whether it be recruitment or outflow, or the morale component as a whole—and ensuring that our forces are ready to face threats both now and in the future. We will publish our defence investment plan, but we will not rush it for the sake of a headline. As has been demonstrated over the past 14 years, a plan that is not properly funded or deliverable does not strengthen our security, but weakens it.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I have listened carefully to this debate, which has been an interesting knockabout. On the question of what we are achieving, I refer the Minister back to the comments of the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who was the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee when the Conservatives were in office, on the numerous wastage scandals in defence procurement. I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee during the Blair years; I go back so far that I remember Lord Levene being appointed by Michael Heseltine to get this right. We are never going to get anywhere until we stop the scandal of defence procurement. We have the sixth biggest defence budget in the world, but we do not get bang for our buck. I do not have any instant solutions, but is this not something we can all unite around? Can we not just insist that we stop these huge projects, which are not fit for modern warfare, and go back to actually being able to fight a war?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before the Minister responds, I note that many colleagues wish to contribute; no doubt he is coming close to his conclusion.
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. We are moving in that direction; the national armaments director is providing professional oversight now and is looking at reviewing the system. I think we can all collectively agree on whether we have got value for money over the past 14 to 20 years. We need to make sure that we do get value for money in the future; if we had in the past, we would have a properly equipped armed forces at the present moment.
In closing, this motion asks the House to express regret about a Government who are delivering the largest increase in defence spending, leading on Ukraine, investing in our veterans and reversing the decline in recruitment and morale that we inherited. At a time when our armed forces are deployed to protect British lives, the Opposition offer a motion built on a record they would rather forget and a set of arguments that do not meet the test of seriousness. This is not a moment for point scoring but a time for leadership, and this Government are providing it. I urge the House to reject the motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Earlier this year, the head of the armed forces, Sir Richard Knighton, issued a stark warning. In describing the current state of our military, Sir Richard said that the UK is
“not as ready as we need to be for the kind of full-scale conflict that we might face.”
We should remind ourselves of the context in which Sir Richard made those remarks.
For years, the Conservatives oversaw the hollowing out of our military, with troop numbers cut by 10,000 on their watch. [Interruption.] Now, this motion proposes 20,000 more troops. Let us be clear what that actually means. After cutting 10,000 troops in government, the Conservatives are really proposing a net increase of only 10,000 now. When Liberal Democrats called for a reversal of Tory troop cuts, they scoffed. How would they pay for even that increase? It would be by reinstating the two-child benefit cap and punishing struggling families.
Our surface fleet has been reduced to its smallest size since the English civil war. [Interruption.] Sorry, I just heard shouting; I did not realise hon. Members were trying to intervene.
Several hon. Members rose—
James MacCleary
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Sir Julian Lewis, I have never seen you behave so badly.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, is he not? The egg is now on the other face, and Conservative Members are very excited. Which of the Tory cuts does my hon. Friend think was the most damaging—was it the cuts to the frigates, the destroyers, the minesweepers or the troops?
James MacCleary
I thank my hon. Friend for his valuable contribution, and I support the point he makes. All the cuts he mentions were damaging. Probably the most damaging thing of all was how the Conservatives failed our serving troops, in particular with their accommodation and the deal they gave our veterans over some time.
Sir Julian Lewis
Can I share a little secret with the House? For slightly longer than the duration of the second world war, I was a shadow Defence Minister, but in 2010, I found myself back on the Back Benches because the Liberal Defence spokesman was appointed Minister for the Armed Forces. I was told that the reason for this was that the powers that be knew that I would never have gone along with the cuts that were made in October 2010 by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. I think the hon. Gentlemen’s amnesia is therefore somewhat selective.
James MacCleary
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention; that was very informative.
We saw our surface fleet reduced to its smallest size since the English civil war while the Conservatives were at the helm, and a crisis of recruitment, retention and morale across the armed forces ushered in by their incompetence. We should not be surprised by the disastrous impact that years of Conservative mismanagement have had on our military. What is the Conservatives’ answer now? After hollowing out our armed forces in government, their motion shows that they have learned nothing. They want struggling families to foot the bill. It is the same old Tory formula: break the country first, then ask the most vulnerable to pay for the repairs. What is needed now is a serious plan to reverse their damage
James Cartlidge
I am very grateful to the hon. Member; he does always give way on this point.
There is one capability that keeps us safe 24/7 more than any other, which is our continuous-at-sea nuclear deterrent. Was it, or was it not, a condition of the Liberal Democrats joining the coalition that the programme was delayed, putting massive pressure on the boats, with the result that they are now doing tours of more than 200 days? The Liberal Democrats should be ashamed of that.
James MacCleary
It is astonishing, Madam Deputy Speaker. You would not think that they had been in majority government for 10 years since the coalition. All the crimes that have been committed in history were committed by a minority partner in a coalition more than a decade ago. I make speeches at universities where some of the students were not even born when these things happened. It is extraordinary. We need a serious plan to reverse the damage.
Mike Martin
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I would just like to draw—[Interruption.] Do Conservative Members want to hear this?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order! We need less noise in the Chamber.
Mike Martin
On an Opposition day, one would expect His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to put together a cohesive critique of Government defence policy. Instead, what we have is a shopping list—a Christmas tree—that is effectively a list of the pet projects of various members of the Conservative party.
James MacCleary
We welcomed the Government’s efforts to try to reverse that damage last year, with their commitment to increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP. But the Government’s persistent failure to publish the defence investment plan is inexcusable Promised last summer, the plan was meant to turn the strategic defence review from warm words into hard action. We have been waiting for almost a year. All the time, Ministers have been working flat out, we are told, which must be exhausting. That delay matters. At the very moment Europe is rearming, Britain is hesitating, and hesitation sends signals—signals to our armed forces, signals to industry, signals to our allies and signals to our adversaries.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one immediate action the Government could take to reverse some of the damage that the Conservatives have done to our armed forces is on the Conservative decision to shut down Winchester’s Army training regiment, which trains 20% of our troops. No replacement for that facility will open in the next few years. That decision needs to be reversed.
James MacCleary
I hope that Ministers have heard my hon. Friend’s comments and will perhaps review that decision in future.
Reducing certainty for British defence companies is not what we need to be doing right now, which is why we need a defence investment plan. We are eroding our sovereign capability, weakening the supply chains, putting skilled jobs at risk, and ultimately undermining our national security. There must be no more hesitation and no more delay. Will the Minister commit to publishing the defence investment plan before the end of this Session? The Minister should need no reminding of the need for urgency, given the collection of threats that we face. Trump has cast doubt on NATO’s article 5 and trampled on international law, with illegal attacks in Venezuela and Iran—attacks that the Conservatives and Reform have backed uncritically.
Cameron Thomas
President Trump recently derided the UK as cowards for not joining his directionless operation in Iran—a pretty hollow statement for a draft dodger who understands neither courage nor calculation. Regardless, does my hon. Friend agree that, based on comments from the Leader of the Opposition just a month ago, under a Conservative Government we would now be engaged in offensive operations in a war for which there seems to be no plan and without the preparedness that this motion calls for?
James MacCleary
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. I agree; it is extremely hard to derive exactly what the Conservatives would be doing were they in government right now—God forbid—but I think inconsistency would definitely be the name of the game.
Meanwhile, Putin prosecutes his barbaric war in Ukraine, harbours wider ambitions beyond it and expands his campaign of sabotage across Europe. But here is what makes Britain’s position even more precarious: at this very moment we are committed to acquiring F-35A jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons, but they are equipped to carry only American gravity bombs, use of which would require sign-off from the US President. At a time when we cannot trust the White House, we are deepening our dependence on it. Britain should be strengthening sovereign capability, not locking itself into systems that could be denied to us by presidential whim.
Trump and Putin want to turn world politics into a system where might is right.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesman for giving way. I think he is warming up to his leader’s new Dr Strangelove plot to have his own independent nuclear weapon. Could he tell us how much it is going to cost the UK?
James MacCleary
I was actually going to talk about something completely different, but the question is a good one. I find it very disappointing that the Conservatives have so little faith in the ingenuity and industry of this country to produce its own independent deterrent. This is a multi-decade project. We understand that the Conservatives do not grasp fiscal responsibility—we saw that from the state they left our economy in—but a multi-decade project requires a serious commitment. In the short term, we should be looking to bring servicing and maintenance of the missiles into the UK to reduce our reliance on others. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are asking where. We will develop the capability. I understand that the Conservatives do not like investing in Britain’s skills, but we can develop the skills. I have complete confidence that we can do so.
The defining challenge for our nation is how to meet the unprecedented threat posed by an imperial Kremlin and an unreliable White House. It requires thinking about defence in a new way, because to stand up for values that we cherish, we must be strong enough to defend them. That means, at its core, rearming Britain. Meeting this challenge requires more than military hardware. It means a whole-of-society approach to national resilience. It means energy security, investing in renewables so that we are not dependent on fossil fuels from the very dictators we are standing up to. The Conservatives’ plan to raid investment in renewable energy investment undermines one element of UK security for another—it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It means food security too. Biodiversity underpins our ability to feed ourselves. Declining ecosystems mean declining food production, and that is a national security risk that we ignore at our peril.
It also means the defence readiness Bill, which is currently held up by the Government’s own delays on the defence investment plan. We cannot afford this drift; there can be no delay in beginning that work. That is why the Liberal Democrats have argued that the defence investment plan must be accompanied by an immediate cash injection to support vital capital investment in our forces. We have detailed what this programme could look like, raising £20 billion in defence bonds over two years. [Hon. Members: “Yay!”] I am pleased that Conservative Members are so excited about the bonds idea—perhaps they have come around to it at last. [Interruption.]
It would be a fixed-term issuance, legally hypothecated to capital defence spending. The programme would be a secure way for people to invest their savings while helping to strengthen Britain’s national defence.
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for allowing the intervention. I cannot describe the laughing and bickering that is going on right now, when we have troops in harm’s way. There has to be a level of seriousness, whether we are discussing the nuclear deterrent or investment opportunities and mistakes made. We have troops in harm’s way, so I ask Members to provide an element of seriousness to the debate.
James MacCleary
I thank the Minister for his intervention.
It would be a chance to back our armed forces, our security and Britain. We know that properly funding our nation’s security is critical to meeting the threats of this new and unprecedented era, and we also need to ensure that defence funding can generate wider growth in our economy. That is exactly what those bonds would deliver, supporting jobs and an expansion of our defence industrial base across Britain.
Do not just take my word for it; we need to listen to the voice of British industry, academics and financial institutions. In the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ September 2025 green budget, it was clear that borrowing for defence could lead to higher growth, particularly when that additional defence spending is investment heavy. We also need to recognise that the long-term regeneration of our armed forces will require even higher and sustained increases to defence spending—up to 3%. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to commit to cross-party talks to agree a shared approach to achieve that. I hope that the Minister will be open-minded about those talks.
We must look to secure and expand the UK’s involvement with financial instruments that offer cheap, new access to defence finance. That is why the Government must re-examine the negotiations to enter the Security Action for Europe fund. I hope that the Prime Minister will take a direct role in getting British access to that. Will the Minister update us on negotiations for access to that fund?
Cameron Thomas
Given the virulence of threats and chastisement from Washington towards European allies—including the UK—and, further, given the UK’s lack of access to the EU’s SAFE fund, which would otherwise support our rearmament, does my hon. Friend recognise that leaving the European Union was a historic mistake that has gravely undermined UK sovereignty?
James MacCleary
I agree with my hon. Friend. The SAFE fund is a good illustration of what it means to be outside the club.
The Conservatives hollowed out our armed forces for a decade; now they want struggling families to pay for the repairs. What we need is a serious plan. The Government must publish a defence investment plan, back it with defence bonds and commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. Our armed forces have been let down for too long by Conservative cuts, by Government delays and by a failure of political will. They deserve better.
Several hon. Members rose—
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
In January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Forgive me; I was slightly distracted. We now have a speaking limit of eight minutes.
Brian Leishman
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This will be a tough enough listen for many in the Chamber to hear it just the once—I do not need to do it three times.
In January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the doomsday clock forward. We are currently sitting at 85 seconds to midnight: the closest the world has ever been to ending. We live in a time of great political turmoil—of that, we are all certain—but the debate about ramping up defence spending, and making cuts to public services to do it, has been going on for decades. The suggestion of reinstating the two-child benefit cap so that we can have more bombs and weapons is against everything that I believe in. We have seen austerity that has created immiseration and poverty up and down the United Kingdom. Then we had a pandemic, with an explosion in wealth inequality. Now, a cost of living crisis has taken hold to the extent that most of the public think it will never end. All of that means deteriorating living standards. The social fabric of our country has been ripped apart—this is life in the world’s sixth-largest economy.
Pursuing economic growth and improving people’s living standards are the right thing to do, but thinking that militarism is the way to achieve that is at best misguided; at worst, it will further jeopardise global security. It also makes little economic sense. Military spending has one of the lowest employment multipliers of all economic categories: it is 70th out of 100 in terms of the employment it generates. Energy, agriculture and food, chemicals, iron and steel, and construction all have far greater employment multipliers than military spending—for example, health is 2.5 times more efficient than military spending for job creation. British military spending supports less than 1% of the UK workforce. So let us not kid each other: it will not be working-class communities who benefit; it will be weapons manufacturers.
Defence is neither a UK-wide industry, nor does it massively help small or medium-sized businesses, as they only secure approximately 5% of all orders. Ministry of Defence figures highlight that defence employment is densely concentrated in specific geographical pockets of the country. Instead of bombs and weapons and talking about a defence dividend, what about what Tony Benn called a “peace dividend”? That is all about making political choices.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there is any military threat to this country from abroad?
Brian Leishman
Yes, I do. But when I look at the threats that we face in this country, I have an inbox full of constituents who are saying that they have to make the incredible decision of whether to feed their family or put the heating on. That is actually killing people. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said about perceived threats, but those are the actual threats that I am dealing with in my inbox.
As I say, there is a choice. We can build hospitals to save lives and schools to educate our children, and upgrade infrastructure—we all know that local authorities most definitely need that, as they need investment in public services. These are the things that really will improve people’s living standards up and down the United Kingdom.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Whatever side one takes in the argument that he presents to us, does he agree that in the hopefully unlikely event of Scottish independence being achieved, two things would happen? First, Scotland, on forming its own navy, would have the greatest difficulty defending the strategic assets to which I referred in an earlier intervention; and secondly, an independent Scottish Government would have the most hideous choices to make, exactly along the lines that the hon. Gentleman is presenting, between armaments, and badly needed hospitals and other social investments.
Brian Leishman
The hon. Gentleman focuses on the constitutional question that is such a huge part of Scottish and UK politics. I honestly have no issue with people who voted yes and I have no issue with people who voted no. The politics that I try to bring to this place is not based on nationalism versus Unionism; it is about class, which I think is the overriding political force in this country and has been for centuries, regardless of whether that is north or south of the border.
I mentioned the choice that I would want. The other choice is to spend tens of billions of pounds on military hardware, with that money inevitably flowing to private capital and corporate shareholders. For me, that will only serve to create even more inequality. It is very much an either/or. Do we build or do we destroy? I feel that workers and communities, certainly in my constituency of Alloa and Grangemouth, need the former and not the latter. It is my opinion that militarism will not make the UK a more equal country or, indeed, the world a safer place. I fear that, given the way that we are going and when we look at geopolitical forces, in January next year the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists will move the second hand closer to midnight once again.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I listened to the Minister’s remarks with great care. Many of the things that he says, he says with great sincerity, but some of the things he says, I do not believe that he quite so fervently believes. I ask him, being the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he is, to consider whether criticising those who criticise Government policy on the basis of the question “How dare you criticise the Government at such a serious time?” reflects the same kind of attack made by supporters of Neville Chamberlain against Winston Churchill and his supporters even as late as 1940. As they went through the Division Lobbies in May that year, they taunted those coming through voting against the Adjournment of the House: “Quislings”, they said.
To implicitly brand my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as some kind of warmonger who is out of control—that is what the Government are basically saying—reflects exactly the gibe thrown at Winston Churchill: that he loved war so much, he was not objective. Yet he was the one who appreciated the dire emergency of the situation being faced, even as the British Expeditionary Force was losing in France and the Norway campaign was proving such a disaster.
I appreciate that it is perhaps obligatory for the Minister to say these things about the two-child benefit cap for the satisfaction of many of his Back Benchers, but we are now spending so much on welfare and so little on defence. Maybe the two problems have something to do with each other. If we could just spend the same on in-work or out-of-work benefits for people of working age as we were spending before covid, we could save £50 billion a year, but that does not seem to matter to the Government at all.
The Minister talked, I am sure with great sincerity, about how important it is to have a system that works “for them”—I think I am quoting his very words; he said that we need a social system in this country that works for the poorest people in our society. Well, the system over which the Government are presiding is failing. We now have a rising and terrifying number of young people who are not in education, employment, or training—the so-called NEETs. Even those operating on the frontline of food banks—I visited a food bank recently—understand that if we keep indexing benefits with inflation, but do not index tax allowances, that means that people pay more tax at lower rates of pay, and if we increase benefits, such as by removing the two-child benefit cap, and do not uprate the tapers to protect the better-off who are receiving universal credit, we create a disincentive to work.
When I first visited food banks, which I think was under Tony Blair’s Government—they were not originated under the Conservatives—there used to be a tiny number of people who were permanent beneficiaries of food banks; the vast majority were in a state of transition, and that persisted until quite recently. At the food bank I visited at the weekend, 80% of beneficiaries are now permanent clients, because they say there is no point in them trying to take work, as it does not pay. The system is not working for them, because we are spending too much on welfare and we have not cut taxes enough.
The next question is: are we at peace or at war? Much of the discussion in the Liaison Committee was about that. I cannot find a Minister who denies that we are at war, and I am afraid that makes the question of whether we choose to get involved rather redundant. We are involved, and we cannot help being involved. Our sovereign territory is involved, because it is being attacked. Indeed, we have been involved in a war in defence of the west, NATO and Ukraine probably since as far back as the original invasion of Georgia and Abkhazia, because the nature of Putin’s regime had become apparent by then. They are quite explicit: Lavrov has said that Russia is at war with NATO, so that war is already here.
What kind of war is it? Well, it reflects all kinds of conflicts, including hybrid conflict, which has often been discussed and is of such a varied nature, and what one might call cognitive conflict, which is the capacity and determination of Russia and China, and probably Iran, not just to interfere in our democratic processes, but to corrupt the truth. This is aimed at reshaping the societal, economic and informational environment, at undermining people’s faith in democracy and democratic values, and at destroying the faith of our voters in our democratic system.
The question now is: what are we doing to fight back? Well, what are we doing? I know that in bits of Government, many small parts of the Government are at war. There are some wonderful people in the Ministry of Defence who are sweating the night hours to do things that are of crucial importance.
Sir Julian Lewis
I am concerned about one problem that may arise. We have now got to a stage where the Government have given permission for the Americans to strike back against, for example, missile batteries launching at targets that might include our own bases. I am not clear what would happen—and I hope it never has to come to this—if our bases were successfully attacked and damaged. Are the Government still saying that only the Americans should retaliate against those batteries, or should the RAF have a role as well? I am not anxious to escalate, but I do not see where the logic lies in America being able to retaliate, when our own armed forces cannot, following an attack that has successfully damaged one of our own bases.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The fact is that the whole of the deterrent stance of all the NATO nations is very substantially—I will not say hopelessly—dependent on the good will that the United States shows towards us. That was the basis on which the SDR was written. George Robertson—the noble Lord Robertson of Port Ellen—has said in public that one of the constraints of writing the defence review was to assume that the United States was our closest ally and could be relied upon. Whether that will be true in the future, we do not know. Some things that have happened have very much shaken our faith in that, but the idea that the Government should choose this moment—this very moment, when we are begging for American support in Ukraine to hold back the tide of possible Russian aggression across the whole European front—to further alienate President Trump from NATO seems to me like a bit of a tactical error.
Going back to the second world war, when Anthony Eden, the Foreign Secretary, complained to Winston Churchill that the United Kingdom did not seem to have an independent foreign policy, Churchill said, “No, we don’t. We’ve got to do what the Americans want us to do in order to get them to come into the war.” I am afraid that we are not in a great position of strength to dictate to the Americans, and pontificating about their moral judgments or their interpretation of international law seems to me totally counterproductive for the security of the United Kingdom and our European allies. To answer my right hon. Friend’s question, we need a deterrent stance.
But what is the Government’s response? Well, we are waiting for a plan, but that plan is a long time coming. Drones have transformed the last few months, but the Government have not kept up with the change. We are still waiting for a plan, and it is not enough.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I am going to start by doing something unusual in these debates: I am going to agree with the Opposition. I agree that we need to spend more on defence, I agree that we are in a once-in-a-century moment where the safety and security of our nation are fundamentally at risk, and I agree that the only way to prevent war is to prepare for one. Now, before my Whip has a heart attack, I will set out where I disagree with the Opposition. To take their point seriously, their plan to pay for what they set out in the motion would make this nation weaker and more divided. On top of that, it is very narrow, as if the only thing we have to do to prepare for war is to spend more money, without considering how we spend it or scale up.
To put the two-child limit back in place and have children go hungry would make our nation weaker. How could we possibly say to the people whose sons and daughters would go out to fight that today we will let them go hungry and that we would take money from them? I say to Opposition Members who spoke about this that we should remember that 60% of the children affected are from working families. Beyond that and more than that—no ifs, no buts, no exceptions—no child should be going hungry in this country. How can we expect them to have a stake in our nation if we do not have a stake in them? When we live in a nation where record numbers cannot afford a decent life, what does it lead to? It leads to fear, frustration and fury, but more than that, to division, and a divided nation cannot take and meet this moment.
On energy, the Conservatives want to make us more dependent on fossil fuels supplied by dictators such as Putin and more dependent on the middle east. That would make us weaker. In the 14 years they had, with all the licences they granted, how many days of gas were there? There were 36 days. The North sea is operating on a declining basis; it will not give us security.
Lincoln Jopp
With the points the hon. Member has just made, it seems he has forgotten that a year ago his own party suspended seven of its Back Benchers for voting with an SNP proposal to lift the two-child benefit cap. If he is going to be quite so forthright in his criticism of us, could he explain why his Government have done such a volte-face in the intervening 12 months?
Dr Sandher
I am proud of this Government for ending the two-child limit, and I am proud of the previous Labour Government who halved child poverty in this country. If Opposition Members truly believed that putting back the two-child limit or ending expenditure on net zero would fund the military, why did they not do it in 14 years? They had 14 years to prepare. In 2022, it was clear where we would get to, and there was nothing from the Opposition side.
Dr Murrison
I am following the hon. Member with a great deal of interest. Is he able to name a single major western economy that after 1989 did not take a peace dividend?
Dr Sandher
To be fair to the right hon. Member, it makes perfect sense to reduce expenditure after the cold war. I take that point, but let us be clear: the world also changed in 2022. The things we depended on for our safety—sacrosanct borders and our force in NATO—were not funded enough. If we truly were to prepare for war, that was the moment to start, and I agree that we have to do more.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Will the hon. Member just explain where we were in the standings for NATO defence spending in 2022 and where we stand today?
Dr Sandher
My point is not where we stand in the defence standings; my point is about what we need to do to prepare for war to prevent it.
Moving on to the things that we do agree on—and I think it is worth saying what we agree on, because we should not disagree across this House on this fundamental thing—the first and fundamental duty of this Government, of any Government, is to keep us safe at this moment in time. I want to talk a little about what that actually means, because we focus a lot on the percentage of GDP, but a defence economic strategy means far more than that. It is the fundamental question of how we produce more fighting forces, munitions, drones and soldiers. Clearly, that is changing, and at this moment, in a pre-war situation, we have to decide what that means. It means having production lines available, and crucially a supply chain of drones, as the innovation cycle is moving so quickly. It means being able to secure crucial input such as steel and training welders and engineers should we need them. Most crucially, it means the ability to scale up, because if we are to prevent war, we have to show that we are prepared for it. It is not just about spending 3%, 4% or 5% of GDP, although I take the point; it is about showing Putin and any other adversary that we could get up to 10% to 20% and use that effectively.
A defence economic strategy is a fundamentally different economic problem. It is not just about maximising production, as we do now, but about ensuring that we produce the most fighting forces possible. It is a type of economics that we are not used to. It means, first, capital control to ensure that investment goes to the right place; secondly, rationing so that we have the investment that we need; and thirdly, ensuring that we can prepare to fight the war that we face. A defence economic strategy goes far beyond the amount we spend on defence. I would expect the Treasury, the Government and No. 10, who take the defence of this country seriously, to be preparing for that right now. Of course they take it seriously; it is the first and most fundamental duty of any Government.
We stand here today a century on from people who failed on these Benches. In fact, we stand in a Chamber that is a testament to that failure. They did not prepare for war, we ended up in war in Europe, and this Chamber was bombed and had to be rebuilt. That failure should live with us and shock us. We should remind ourselves of it when we look in the mirror every single morning.
Let me share a story. I have a friend who serves in the Army, and I saw him for dinner not too long ago. He said, “Jeevun, here is the thing. I have a 30-year-old Land Rover that was in the Gulf war, in Bosnia and in the Baltics. All I want is a Range Rover that can drive.” This Government will absolutely ensure that we overcome all past investment failures so that our forces have what they need to defend our country. That is what falls to us now.
I say to Conservative Members that we must have the courage to face this moment and look forward. I could criticise them all day—I have done it before and I will probably do it again—but we must have the courage to face this moment, and to look in the mirror and know where we stand, at a moment when we must prepare for war in order to prevent it. History will judge us for this moment, and we should always bear that in mind.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am imposing a six-minute time limit.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher). I do not think that I have heard anyone call for 20% of spending on defence, but I like it. I am not sure how we would maintain the reversal of the two-child cap if 20% of spending went to defence, but he made a very good speech.
I will set out a few key points on what we are looking at, where the world is today, where we have been, and what we must do to deal with the threat. As I have said many times—colleagues are probably getting sick of me saying it—there is a challenge to the world order as we know it. I do not believe that anybody alive has experienced such a significant change. We face the ultimate volatility, like the fall of the Berlin wall or 9/11. Given the current position of the US Government—on Venezuela, in what they said about Greenland, and in the attack on Iran—everything has been thrown in the air.
Many people expect life to fall back to where it was and to continue, but there is a challenge to the world order between China and the US, and there is a commodities race over oil and rare earth metals. How do we get global supply chains working and moving forward? Rare earth metals are not actually rare, but it can take 15 to 17 years to get them out of the ground once they have been found. Most of the electronics that we have on us, including wearables, require such metals. At the moment, about 90% of those resources are controlled and processed by China, and there is a huge push to change that. The US is moving to change it, and our policy seeks to shift around that.
When AI and quantum come together, defence technologies—including drone and autonomous warfare—will take a huge leap forward. If we do not get this stage right, we will be so far behind. The second world war was about who could produce the most tanks, planes and troops at scale, with the right strategy. Now, technology can shift the dial exceptionally quickly. I know that the Minister has spoken about the drone passion, autonomy and things like that. That is the right direction. It is not either/or; there is a whole plethora of things that we need to. The defence investment plan unlocks the next phase of where we can go.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I do not think many people in the House fully appreciate how utterly profound the drone revolution is. It means that in Ukraine, they do not have to mass troops to defend in the way they once did; they can mass drones. If we want to defend NATO, if we want to defend London and Akrotiri, we need to be able to mass very cheap drones in order to get that protection and deterrent capability, so that the option of pushing large numbers of troops over a NATO frontier at some stage is not available to Russia.
Stuart Anderson
I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. How warfare is fought is catching people by surprise—we are seeing that played out in the middle east at the moment—and we have to be prepared. We have stood with our head and shoulders high on the world stage, and I want to see us continue to do that.
I want to throw out some numbers. We say that the Great British Army has always been the best army of its size. In 1981, we had 333,000 troops. In 1997, the number went down to 210,000, and it went down to 174,000 in 2010. It is currently about 138,000. With the use of technology, it is not just about mass, although I would always be happy to have a larger military. We need to make sure that we are able to work in a changing environment and that we have the operations to do that. The world as we know it is changing, and we must pick that up very quickly.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to respond to a crisis and to deliver mass quickly would be to scale up the reserves during this Parliament? Does he find it surprising, as I do, that the relatively small cost—in a £60 billion budget—of scaling up the reserves would help to deliver some of that response?
Stuart Anderson
I definitely do. I have had the reserves deployed with me when I have been on operations, and they were a great asset. Scaling up the reserves is vital. We have the article 3 NATO commitment, and we need to ensure that we can fulfil that. It is not just about the reserves staying here and the regulars flying overseas. Integration is key, and I would be keen to see that.
Let us look at how the rearming of the world has changed. After the illegal invasion of Russia into Ukraine, the world sat up. At that stage, defence spending was at 2.1%. I will be clear: as soon as I was elected, with hon. Members from across the House, I called for 3%. I felt that even 3% was not enough during the previous Government, and I said that all the way through. The Defence Committee was united. We did procurement reports right the way through 20 or 30 years of procurement failings. I am not just saying this to make a point now. I still believe that if defence spending is not at least 3% of GDP today, we do not have the ability to put the plan in place on the scale we need.
From 2021 to now, we have gone from 2.1% to 2.4%, but the problem is that the NATO average is currently 2.76%. In that short space of time, we have gone from being roughly the third highest defence spender according to percentage of GDP to being the ninth or 12th, depending on which table we look at. It is good that, as the Government say, we have made the biggest increase since the cold war, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, we need to look at what it was like post war. We are not moving as fast as all the other peer nations. We had a great start, but that has now started to deplete over decades of a peace dividend. We need to take this seriously as an urgent priority and invest on the necessary scale.
The delay on the DIP is having an impact. I know that if Ministers had a choice, they would have the DIP here today. We have to get this right. It has gone past the time when we expected the DIP to be produced. I have spoken to so many in the industry and so many serving personnel who are screaming out for it. I have struggled to find anybody who thinks we have the time for this. I hope the Minister will take away the importance of the DIP being produced—I am positive that he wants it today—to unlock the next phase.
There are many areas where there is consensus in this House on how we should move forward and prepare this country for war. We are losing standing on the world stage because of our current capability, which has seen getting on for 30 years of under-investment. We do not have the ability today to project power on the scale that we did 10, 20 or 30 years ago.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for what I perceive to be a very constructive speech in which he is generally trying to support the Minister. I promise I will not mention Cheltenham markets to him. He talks about our power. I recently visited Estonia with the Education Committee. Does he agree that part of our power is in how we work with our allies such as Estonia, and that soft power—I am looking at the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), given his passion for the World Service and BBC Monitoring—is an important part of this country’s overall defence strategy?
Stuart Anderson
The hon. Member is right on that. How we work with our partners is important, but we have to invest and have a clear plan to hold our head high on the world stage.
I will finish on this point. We are told that the Department is working at pace on the DIP. I probably know about pace better than anybody in this House. I was proud to be a member of the Royal Green Jackets, which had the fastest pace in the British Army at 140 paces per minute, and the double-off was 180—unmatched by any regiment in the British Army. We need this pace now. We need the defence investment plan to be delivered to unlock the next phase of doing what is best for the British people.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
First, I should note that, for all their chatter outside this Chamber on defence, there is not a single Member of the Reform party here. They are utterly incapable of having a serious conversation when it comes to defence.
I would like to congratulate the shadow Defence team. I did not believe it was possible to reduce their credibility on defence any further, but they have managed to lower the bar once again and slither under it. To suggest that we should restore the two-child benefit limit to pay for defence spending shows such a lack of understanding of what is happening in society. Under their Government, for 14 years, the people living at the poorest edges were working—those people on benefits were working and still could not pay the bills to feed their families and put the heating on. That tells us that the Conservatives do not understand working people. They assume that anybody receiving a benefit is a scrounger or does not want to work. [Interruption.]
I will not give way, because I have heard so much from the Opposition on this. It is outrageous. The shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), was the Defence Procurement Minister who left 47 out of 49 programmes not on time and not on budget. The Tories’ legacy was a procurement programme that was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we now face. They cut frigates and destroyers by 25%. They cut minehunters by more than 50%. There was a lot of pearl-clutching when they were asking where HMS Dragon was, but we know why HMS Dragon was in dock: it was there because it was under maintenance. We could not send it because it is the only one we have, built under the Labour Government, and the Conservatives did not bother to build any more during their term of office.
Michelle Scrogham
No, I will not be taking interventions. Lots of Members would like to contribute to the debate who have not had a chance to speak because the time has been taken up. The Opposition can feel free to mutter from the other side, but they should perhaps use the ears that are painted on instead of flapping the lips.
I am astonished at the brass neck of shadow Ministers in criticising our readiness, when it was their Government who slashed £12 billion from defence in their first term, and continued that trend throughout their sorry record of 14 years, including by slashing spending on counter-drone systems by 70% in their last year in office.
Few MPs will feel the cost to their communities of the chaos and choices made by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition as keenly as I do in Barrow and Furness. The Opposition Benches are filled with those who were responsible for wreaking carnage on the communities I grew up in. The price of the coalition was to delay the nuclear deterrent; the cost to my community was economic devastation, with 10,000 families where the main breadwinner was out of work, 10,000 skilled workers losing their livelihood, and an industry that is struggling to recover to this day.
It takes nuclear welders 15 years to train and achieve the level of experience that we need to build those boats, but the coalition Government threw that away like a spoiled child with a toy, who expects it to be there when they want to come back to it. Critics at the time said that delaying the replacement for Trident would cost the taxpayer more in the long run as it risked losing skills, and increase the costs of repairing existing Vanguard submarines, which would have to last for longer. MPs at the time said that they did not think the delay would happen, because that would be the “maddest” decision to take—and yet they did it. Those critics forgot to mention the impact on our incredible submariners, who are spending over 200 days at sea on Vanguard, as we stretch that capability beyond its limit. Had it not been for the recklessness of the coalition Government, Dreadnought would be in service now.
After 14 years of hollowing out our defence capabilities, Conservative Members have the nerve to come here today and attempt to blame this Government—a Government who have increased defence spending to its highest sustainable level since the cold war, and who are investing in our armed forces to give them the largest pay rise in two decades and the homes they deserve in order to turn around the recruitment crisis that we inherited from the Tories. This Labour Government are once again cleaning up the mess left behind by those on the Opposition Benches. We do not get to decide when other countries attack, and we can never predict instability around the world. We can, however, predict that history always repeats itself. We can never take peace for granted, but this Labour Government are delivering on defence where the Conservatives failed.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It is a bit of a pity, is it not, that we seem not to recognise what is going on today? It would probably help to recognise that defence spending was cut from the end of the cold war to 2022, when the whole NATO alliance suddenly woke up to what the threat had become. One of the best speeches I have heard today—I am sorry to some of my colleagues—was from the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), because he had the honesty to stand up and point out what the choices are. I disagree with him, but he made an honest speech in that if there has to be an increase in defence spending, it has to be funded. I believe that if we want peace, we have to be ready for war. I am afraid that we are now in war, and things have to change.
I was in the United States last week in my role at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. There are several concerns to bring back from that, not least that the American commitment to NATO is always predicated on saying to other members, “That is why we need you to spend 5%.” That gives it that little bit of wiggle room to say, “Well, if you’re not going to spend that, we can’t defend you any more.” Perhaps even more worryingly—this is where some of the dots need to be connected—one of the think-tanks that we were at made it clear that the Democrats, who will probably take the House in the mid-term elections, will use their leverage to control the amount of money that can go to the White House and the commander-in-chief. He can direct troops, but Congress has to fund that and it will say no. As a consequence, the President will say, “Well, I’ve already got assets and I’ve already got money, so I will use those,” which is to say in Europe. That should bring into sharp focus the threat that the defence of Europe faces.
What we are picking up in many of these debates, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) said, is talk about article 3. A lot of people overlooked article 3 for a very long time. Article 5 was never about the United States guaranteeing European security; it was about ensuring that we all acted as one. Article 3, which obviously comes before article 5, says, “You must be able to defend your borders for three weeks.” There are very few European nations that can do that.
I will touch on Security Action for Europe, which I am afraid to say is becoming a single market issue. It is becoming about protecting the borders of the single market, rather than the borders of Europe. We really do have to stand back and say, “Do we think the single market would exist if the borders of Europe did not exist?” We need to wake up and realise what is going on.
In the Czech Republic, we were given the example of a company that makes drones. Some 25% of the materials used to build those drones came from Canada. The AI to run them made up 20% of the spend and came from the USA. Under SAFE, both would be shut out, because those countries are not willing to pay into the budget just to have access, and that will set us back. We should be more concerned about the fact that the NATO industrial base does not have the ability to deliver on what it needs. The Americans themselves had $135 billion of exported arms last year and $160 billion of domestic arms manufacturing last year, and that did not even scratch the surface.
What the Americans are good at, which we have frankly never been able to deliver in this country, is the diversification into small and medium-sized enterprises. It was recognised that the big companies do not have the flexibility to develop at the speed that is needed in a rapidly changing world. We visited a company in Nevada that is making energy-focused weapons—or lasers, as we might call them—that are used to knock incoming ballistic missiles out of the sky.
I have very little time, and I could expand on so many more areas, but I make the point that we cannot fight the last war. We have pretty much used up all our munitions and weaponry in Ukraine, and the Russians know exactly how those weaponry and munitions work and how to defeat them. We cannot just restock what we have used before; we have to be able to develop, and that means that we need to be light on our feet. To be fair, in Bavaria in Germany there are drone factories that not only produce drones, but react quickly to the changes in drone technology.
To be fair to the Minister, he outlined some of the things that need to be developed in the Royal Navy—a service that is close to my heart. There is no doubt that this is about decisions that have been made over a very long period of time. I will gently prod the Minister and say that when we are talking about Royal Navy procurement, I think of the story of the aircraft carriers, which was probably not the greatest moment of the Labour Government—they spent tens of billions extra by changing their mind. We have to be able to adapt quickly.
There is plenty more that I could say, but the war exists today. Talking about what has happened ever since the end of the cold war and trying to place the blame on the last 14 years, on the last 10 years or on what has happened from 1997 onwards is irrelevant; we are at war, and we have to be able to develop. I am afraid that in the current political climate, Europe will have to look after itself.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Sam Carling.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I, too, will start by agreeing with a member of the Opposition, specifically the former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace. He was quoted as saying that under his own party, our armed forces had been “hollowed out”.
Sam Carling
The shadow Secretary of State says, “Under successive Governments”—that includes his own, for 14 years. It is not often that I agree with Ministers from the last Government, but the former Defence Secretary was absolutely right. The smallest Army since the Napoleonic era, a record 13,000 complaints about defence housing in a single year, and investment grievously cut under austerity—that is the legacy we are looking at, no matter how much the Opposition want us to forget it.
As was recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), the shadow Defence Secretary is criticising delays, but he was the Procurement Minister when 47 out of 49 major programmes were not on time or on budget, so we need to take what he says with a little bit of salt.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Gentleman is quoting some figures. Does he have the figures for the percentage of GDP spent on defence in 1991 compared with what it was in 2010, and how many troops there were in 1991 compared with how many there were in 2010?
Sam Carling
What I am very happy to say about defence spending is that when we last hit 2.5%, it was under a Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman’s party failed to do so throughout their time in office. Although it has been quite entertaining in some respects watching old marital woes play out on the Opposition Benches today, it sounds like everyone agrees that bad things happened, but the two former partners—the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats—are evidently more interested in taking chunks out of each other than owning up to leaving the mess.
The motion before us today also calls for some of the Government’s legislation to not proceed on the basis that it is “a threat to morale”. The reference to morale is quite interesting, given that satisfaction with life in the services fell from 60% in 2010 to 40% in 2024. When it comes to satisfaction, one key issue is housing, so I welcomed the Labour Government’s decision to insource a huge number of houses that were wrongly privatised by a previous Conservative Government back into our ownership. Some 431 of those houses are in my constituency, and I hope we will be able to radically improve their condition, particularly through the work we have done to make defence housing subject to the decent homes standard at long last, which I welcome.
Unfortunately, we have a Leader of the Opposition who appears able to shoot from the hip without thinking too much about the consequences, and who has now changed to a very unclear position that none of us seems able to grasp. In contrast, this Government have taken the right decisions at the right time.
Lincoln Jopp
Was the hon. Member in the Chamber to hear the Prime Minister make his statement on the war in the middle east, in which he said that British sovereign bases, British troops and British people had been attacked? He said that it was therefore right that we defend ourselves, but that we cannot shoot all the drones out of the air and they have to be attacked on the ground. Does the hon. Member remember the Prime Minister coming to this House and saying that, and would he like to repeat his point that the Prime Minister has been absolutely crystal clear on his position throughout this conflict?
Sam Carling
I am not 100% sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but he has put it on the record. There is a huge amount of drone activity going on, and a lot of ways in which that needs to be dealt with.
I am heartened by what this Government have done so far, including, to name just a few achievements: the largest pay rise in two decades for armed forces personnel, many of whom are my constituents; the first veterans’ strategy in seven years; the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, including a pledge to reach 3% of spending on defence by the end of the Parliament; and a £9 billion plan to renew those 36,000 military homes. Again, that last one has been so critical for my constituents working at RAF Wittering. Life in the services has to be made rewarding—a rewarding career and a rewarding life—and I am afraid to say that for too long, that has not been the case. It is no wonder, therefore, that the number of troops plummeted on the previous Government’s watch.
Some comments were made about trying to boost the reserves, which I very much agreed with—we need to do some work in that area. We also need to sort out the ongoing issues with recruitment, which again became significantly worse under the previous Government. I have spoken to a number of people who have tried to join the military and found that the bureaucratic process is incredibly difficult, and we have heard about that on several occasions through the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I hope we will make some progress in tackling those issues soon, because we have a Government who are willing to invest in our forces and improve the quality of life for those serving.
My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), is in the Chamber, and I notice that his name is on the motion as well. I found some of his criticisms of this Government’s record on defence surprising, given that so much work is going on in our own area of Huntingdonshire around defence. The local council and the Ministry of Defence—represented by the two Ministers who are in the Chamber right now, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones)—visited RAF Wyton in December and signed a statement of intent, committing to work together to support the growth of Project Fairfax and establish Wyton as a nationally significant area for defence intelligence and innovation. With that will come the redevelopment of the North Hunts growth cluster, which will deliver new homes, jobs and investment. That will be brilliant for the local area.
Very briefly, I will respond to something that my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) said about investment in defence being spent on weapons and bombs. Those are not the only things that defence investment goes on—military intelligence is a huge part of the local economy in my area, and ideally it will make up more of our local economy. I think it is useful to recognise that there is a broad spectrum of things that we spend funding on, but of course I respect the points that he made.
I am very glad that the Conservative party has called this debate, as it is a great opportunity to highlight the good work we are doing and remind us all of the many ways in which the Conservatives let our armed forces down for a decade and a half. It is a good thing that they can only comment on policy rather than make it, a fact for which I am sighing in relief.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Whatever has gone well in defence and whatever has gone wrong in defence in the United Kingdom over the last 50 years, it is the responsibility of the two main parties, one currently in opposition and one currently in government, and the ping-pong back and forth today has been a bit difficult to listen to. I heard the Minister’s plea earlier for us to inject some seriousness into the debate. He directed it over here although he could equally have directed it to those behind him, but I agree with him that this is a serious issue, not just because we have troops deployed but because, as others have pointed out, the first duty of Government is to defend the state and the people. I also agree with him that the motion in the name of His Majesty’s Opposition is a bit of a catch-all. It is a spleen-venting motion, and there is absolutely no way we can agree with it, much as we might agree with some of the priorities that the Opposition wish to be advanced purely on the defence side.
In response to the Opposition’s stated wish to fund their ambitions through the reinstatement of the two-child limit, the Minister referred to the importance of society. We do not invest in the importance and the priority of defence by marginalising people in society. It is essential that our communities have a sense of belonging in defence, and that defence has a sense of belonging in them. I speak from experience in Scotland, where defence has become an increasingly remote activity, as it has in large parts of England as well. I am not making a constitutional point. As defence has contracted into the south-east of England, it has become increasingly irrelevant on the rest of these islands. It is something that happens somewhere else, and there is a price to be paid for that, as people choose other careers and see other political and fiscal priorities as being more important than defence.
Sam Carling
The hon. Gentleman has just made a point about the concentration of defence investment in the south-east. Can he remind us where Trident is based?
Dave Doogan
I think the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is being smart. I do not need to be reminded where Trident is based, and neither do the people of Scotland. We do not need to be reminded where the bullseye of the target on these islands is based. I do not need to be reminded how many Scots were asked whether they would like the UK’s supposedly independent nuclear deterrent to be based in our waters. I do not need to be reminded of that for one second—and in case the hon. Gentleman is under any illusions, which he apparently is, let me point out that the United Kingdom spends more money on defence in the south-west of England than it spends in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. He might like to reflect on that.
Dave Doogan
I will make some progress.
A key problem for the current Government is that when they took over in 2024, they set great store by their strategic defence review. They said that they were going to fix defence from the ground up, and that it would all be in the strategic defence review, but when the strategic defence review was published it contained more questions than answers, principal among which was the defence investment plan. That was going to come in the summer. Then it was the autumn and then it was the winter and now it is the spring, and we do not even know whether we will get it in the following summer. It is critical for businesses to plan on this basis. I know that the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) takes a dim view of business and its role in defence, and takes a dim view of defence manufacturers. I respect his position, but I deeply disagree with him. We cannot honour our service personnel in uniform and then besmirch the manufacturers that equip them to do the job of defending us that we require them to do.
Similarly, the Government must come clean on the defence investment plan. It is simply not tenable. The Minister was clear with us in saying that Defence was very clear about what we required from the defence investment plan. That, alarmingly, tells us what the problem with the defence investment plan is, and it is the Treasury. Some of us have the privilege of speaking on defence and on the economy, and the fact that the current Chancellor of the Exchequer is the arbiter of how our nation, or rather this state, will be defended in the future is deeply concerning given her competence in generic fiscal matters, let alone issues to do with defence.
David Smith
There are many things in the hon. Gentleman’s speech that I agree with, but as someone who grew up on the Clyde, does he welcomes the naval shipbuilding on the Clyde and the sales to Norway. Those who live in Scotland—I grew up 15 miles as the crow flies from Faslane—are also protected by the nuclear deterrent.
Dave Doogan
We will disagree on that last point, but I am very happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman on the benefit of complex warship manufacturing in Scotland. It would be nice if it was occasionally framed as something other than a benevolent gesture from Westminster towards Scotland, as opposed to what it actually is: the United Kingdom benefiting from the skills and engineering expertise that have been present in Scotland for an awful long time. [Interruption.] I would not go that far.
That leads me to an intervention that was made on the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who declared that an independent Scotland would be completely defenceless and penniless. Classic Unionism! It totally ignores the fact that, at current rates, hard-working taxpayers in Scotland contribute £5 billion every single year to the defence of the United Kingdom. That has been airbrushed from reality.
Brian Leishman
I have been very clear—I have said it outside the Chamber, and I will say it inside—that I do not want Scotland or the United Kingdom to have any nuclear weapons. What is the hon. Gentleman’s personal opinion?
Dave Doogan
The United Kingdom invests so much in the independent nuclear deterrent—more than £100 billion over a 10-year period—but the Government cannot even tell us the 10-year rolling price. It is not independent, and I do not believe that it makes us any safer. We would be far safer if we invested that money in playing a leading role in Europe in conventional defence. I further disagree with the unilateral decision of the UK Government to suddenly go and buy F-35As for gravity-drop nuclear weapons without even so much as a debate in this House. I think that clarifies for the hon. Member my position on the non-independent nuclear deterrent. I implore the Government to get their finger out and get the DIP published.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I will not repeat the excellent points that have been made by hon. and right hon. Members, but I will focus on one specific point: the country’s technological capacity, which is being delayed because of the delay to the defence investment plan. Some 8% of UK GDP—£454 billion—is reliant on satellite services, and the importance of space to our defence, intelligence and security is ever increasing. The previous Government understood that, and set out a clear strategy to make the UK a meaningful actor in space when we published the defence space strategy in 2022. However, the situation has now changed, and this Government are completely failing to grasp the urgency of leveraging our existing commercial capability so that we can operationalise the space domain at pace.
Earlier this month, I attended Space-Comm with the shadow Science Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), and it could not be clearer from the conversations I had that Britain is at serious risk of lagging behind our neighbours when it comes to the new space race. Countries such as Germany have recognised the opportunities, with a commitment to invest €35 billion. We must match that ambition.
Another point that came up time and again was that the missing defence investment plan impacts on our ability to encourage new people into the sector. The Government promised that it would be published in the autumn of last year, yet we are still waiting. However, given that their strategic defence review was late and kicked big procurement decisions down the road, it is no real surprise that the DIP is late too.
The Government simply have no evidenced plan to hit 3% of GDP on defence, and this is leaving our domestic defence and space industry in the lurch. Many companies tell me that they have plans that are ready to go, but they cannot action them without the publication of the defence investment plan. This kind of paralysis will only serve to see us fall even further behind our neighbours.
I know that the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is currently not in his place, cares about the investment in our armed services and takes it deeply personally—as does the Minister for Veterans and People—and I put on the record my personal respect for him. I would hope that he would agree with the Conservatives on the urgency with which we need to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament. I hope that the Government will make the same commitment; otherwise, we will lose the opportunity to lead and develop the technologies that will take us to the new scientific and defence frontier.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
When I was new to this place, I clearly did something very wrong, because the accommodation Whip allocated me an office that is geographically nearer to Trafalgar Square than to this Chamber. There is one compensating benefit, which is that when I look out of the window, I can see the statue of General Bernard Law Montgomery, Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) moves his head a bit, I can see Field Marshal Alanbrooke, on whose statue is written: “Alanbrooke, Master of Strategy”. The Minister will be aware that the art of strategy is the matching of ends, ways and means. In the few short minutes that I have, I want to use that framework to reflect on the approach that the Government have taken recently.
I wish to also use the model of the three components to fighting power: the moral, the physical and the conceptual. The Minister will be fully aware of this. We know that this is a good model because Napoleon made the observation that “The moral is to the physical as three is to one.”
Let us quickly run through the physical component and some developments that we have seen. On the base at Diego Garcia, despite Conservative Members asking a thousand times for the reason why the Government asserted that our position was untenable in the long term and that they had to do this leaseback agreement with Mauritius, we have never, ever been given a definitive view on which court or jurisdiction made it untenable. It has never been delivered in this place or anywhere else, and that has undermined the Government’s position a little.
The Defence Committee heard representations from the Ukrainians we were training that, although they loved the training and were grateful for it, we were starting to lag behind. This was in November 2024. The absence of drones in the British military armoury and the environmental constraints on Salisbury plain meant that although the training was good, it was really lagging behind reality.
It is a shame that the Minister for the Armed Forces is no longer here, but he has given us a decent amount of time. He said that we cannot rewrite history and we cannot run from it, which is absolutely right. I just wanted to remind him of the reason we had only one Type 45 at six weeks’ readiness to go to sea. After the widely lauded 1998 strategic defence review, which I appreciate was before the time of the Minister for Veterans and People, the Government came to the conclusion that we needed 12 Type 45s to fulfil the strategic defence review. Subsequently, the Labour Government cut that number down; I think the first cut was to eight, and then down to the six that we have now. They also chose a home-grown propulsion system that was subsequently proven not to work, which has meant that, having cut the original fleet in half, we are now having to cut what remains in half—quite literally, in order to take the propulsion system out of the side.
We then had the strategic defence review. I sat on the Defence Committee and heard the reviewers say that the answer was 2.5%, after which they came back and said that it was actually 2.7%, and then that they had been told it would be 3% some time in the future, and then 3.5%; then, on the eve of the NATO summit, it went up to 5%. I am not surprised, therefore, that the defence investment plan has been a long time in coming.
We do not have time to rehearse the arguments about the moral component of fighting power, and the huge undermining of the Government’s actions over the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the remedial order, and, indeed, the revelation that our own Prime Minister volunteered to work for free for Phil Shiner in attacking British service personnel such as myself; I do have to declare an interest as a veteran who spent three and a half years in Northern Ireland.
Lastly, when I was at the Ministry of Defence, where I spent five years, we had a saying: “plans without resources are hallucinations”. Without the defence investment plan, the SDR is meaningless. When the Minister winds up, I would like her to acknowledge the fact that on 10 March, the Defence Committee was privy to a secret briefing in the Ministry of Defence. To a man and woman, the all-party Defence Committee came out of that briefing and took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement that, in our view, the Government should adopt Conservative party policy and go to 3% of GDP within this Parliament. That is unprecedented, and it needs to be listened to.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
South West Devon is home not only to 42 Commando Royal Marines, but to Plymouth and South Devon freeport, with Langage and Sherford offering significant development opportunities, thanks to the previous Conservative Government, and plenty of space for defence. We have Turnchapel Wharf, home of the Plymouth National Centre for Marine Autonomy. Devonport naval base is in the neighbouring constituency, which is involved in the upgrading of our nuclear deterrent. GMD Eurotool, Bluestone Technology and DTM Global Procurement, which I am visiting after Easter, are just some of the many SMEs that rely on defence. Members can therefore imagine the anticipation in my constituency for the strategic defence review. Indeed, at the Oceanology International event, it was clear that there are businesses queuing up to come to South West Devon.
The strategic defence review brought forward welcome promises: regional clusters in areas like Plymouth; the hybrid Navy, with the introduction of new autonomous systems; a boost for UK export potential; and the use of uncrewed vessels and autonomous systems in our own military, with improved regulations to enable the autonomous experimentation required. Indeed, recommendation 39 says:
“More flexible regulation is needed to enable experimentation in areas such as autonomy. By April 2026, Defence should establish options to enhance the mandate of the Defence Maritime Regulator to allow the Royal Navy and industry to use a dedicated regulatory ‘sandbox’ to test and deploy new technologies.”
We are a couple of weeks away; I wonder where that is.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend, my constituency has a number of really important defence SMEs, and I make sure that I meet them. The delay behind the defence investment plan and the lack of action on the strategic defence review are filling them with utter dread. Those SMEs are going abroad to sell a lot of their technological advances, particularly in autonomous vehicles, because they cannot get into the Ministry of Defence. There is paralysis in procurement, where there is not the money to have that so-called sovereign capability. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are talking about sovereign capability a lot, but they are not actually delivering on it, which means that a lot of businesses in the United Kingdom are going without?
Rebecca Smith
My hon. Friend makes a really good point. That is exactly what I am beginning to hear in my constituency. I referred earlier to a queue of companies wanting to come to South West Devon. My concern is that the queue is going to get shorter if the investment under the DIP does not come forward.
Following the strategic defence review came the defence industrial strategy. Again, it was another lauded document, with further references to industrial clusters, which it called
“critical for the competitiveness of the IS-8 and national economic resilience”,
including to “maritime autonomy in Plymouth” and so on; it kept promising. There was a fantastic paragraph in the strategy about the existing ecosystem in Plymouth, to which I have already alluded. It was an exciting prospect and has been a positive development. The city has got going; we have Team Plymouth looking at how we can deliver. But the defence investment plan is required to fulfil this aimed-for growth and to enable contracts—like those just mentioned by my hon Friend—to be brought forward, with the jobs that have always been promised. For businesses, the SDR and the defence investment plan were exciting, but they are still missing the funding. This is a threat to our national sovereign capability and to the economic growth that the Government seem convinced that they are going to deliver.
Furthermore, there is a delay to the vital trial areas for autonomy that we were also promised, and that is hampering growth too. Businesses in my constituency want the green light in order to go forward on their testing, but those trial areas have not come forward—we just see more dither and delay. I raised this matter recently in Prime Minister’s questions, asking for the changes that we need to see. Canada is able to clear these vessels for practice testing off their shores within as little as six weeks, yet our businesses are expected to fill out hundreds and hundreds of pages of applications.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
The hon. Member celebrates the Labour Government’s decision to create Team Plymouth. She celebrates the Labour Government’s decision to designate Plymouth the National Centre for Marine Autonomy, and she celebrates the countless defence technology companies crowding into our wonderful, vibrant city. Can she acknowledge, in the spirit of balance, that this Labour Government have delivered some good things for defence?
Rebecca Smith
I thank my constituency neighbour for his comments, although if he had been listening, he would have heard me say that I welcome all those things, but without the defence investment plan it will disappear in a puff of smoke. I am sure that, like me, he wants to see Plymouth and the surrounding area capitalise on the strategy. We can see the things that Team Plymouth will bring, but without the defence investment plan, we will see people walking out of the door.
We have the King’s Speech in May, I believe—that has been the worst kept secret—and I would suggest that is the perfect opportunity for the Government to deliver the changes required to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. At the moment, they are saying that there needs to be a legislative opportunity and are looking at other Bills, but if they were serious about delivering for defence and growth, why not bring forward a unique Bill? It need not take very long, and it could be included in the King’s Speech. That would show that the Government have the ambition to make the necessary changes. We need to get deals across the line, and we need to give the businesses investing in our community the funding to enable those deals to happen. I would be interested to hear what the Minister can say to reassure my constituents in that regard.
To conclude, I had an incredibly constructive letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), about marine autonomy test sites and the regulations. I think this is the hook:
“Marine autonomy is a cross-departmental priority of the Government, as detailed in the Maritime Decarbonisation Strategy…the Modern Industrial Strategy…and the Strategic Defence Review…The draft legislation for maritime autonomy exists and the Department for Transport will continue to seek parliamentary time for these important clauses.”
I make my point again: what are they waiting for?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Ben Obese-Jecty, on an immediate four-minute time limit.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I will start with a quote:
“Your path leads to war. You know that. So war is coming. What will you do when you feel its breath upon your neck?”
The answer is: not enough. The defence investment plan was due last autumn, then by Christmas, and then it was to be delivered as soon as the MOD finishes working flat-out. If the MOD spent as much time on the DIP as it has done telling everyone that it is working at pace, maybe it would have been delivered by now.
Let us look at the impact of the delay. In the air, we are yet to see investment in the capability that has been committed to. The Chief of the Defence Staff, in his prior role as Chief of the Air Staff, last year confirmed that the RAF has
“no major equipment programmes planned for the next 15 years. We have what we have for the near and medium term”.
Given the evolution development cycle of current capability, is that really a tenable position? The F-35B is due to graduate as a Government major projects portfolio programme by the end of this month, but will it? Will we see the delivery of the remaining seven F-35Bs by the end of next month, as scheduled?
The Royal Air Force is yet to even place an order for the 12 F-35As that are due to qualify us to join NATO’s dual capable aircraft nuclear mission. That was announced nine months ago, with no orders placed and no progress made. It might as well just be a poster on the Defence Secretary’s bedroom wall. Likewise, the next tranche of F-35Bs has also not yet been ordered from Lockheed Martin. This goes back to my point regarding overstretch. Operation Firecrest will see the carrier strike group deploy with 24 F-35Bs. There are six deployed forward in Akrotiri, seven are awaiting delivery, and one fell in the sea. That leaves us with just 10 planes for training and to cover any other tasks. We are maxed out.
Later this year we may be in a position where we have no realistic spare capacity of our only fifth-generation platform, with no current plans to purchase any more—and if/when we do purchase more, they are years away from delivery. But are we actually going to buy any more? Given our limited resources, putting all our chips on the global combat air programme and inevitably short-cutting our way to never truly fleshing out the accompanying system-of-systems does not augur well. We are already struggling to find the funding for the next phase of that project, delaying the signing of the trilateral contract for the next phase from last September because of the delay to the DIP, creating tensions with Japan and Italy and threatening the 2035 timeline that is crucial for Japan. When I challenged the Prime Minister on the delay, he would not commit to when the contract would be signed.
On the high seas, Britannia most certainly does not rule the waves. HMS Dragon has finally arrived in the eastern Mediterranean, but it was one of only three Type 45s available. I use the term “available” loosely, as it had to be withdrawn from its NATO Maritime Group One commitment—a commitment that starts in a few weeks and for which we currently have no replacement ship available. The Government have no plan to facilitate that commitment and are presumably hoping that HMS Dragon can be recalled.
The Royal Navy has to deliver Type 26 and Type 31, with all ships coming into service, optimistically, within the next nine years. Type 83 will see its outline business case submitted by June, but my understanding is that that programme may not make the cut, which raises serious questions about the future air dominance system. I would be surprised if Type 91 made the cut either, given that it is currently being assessed for feasibility and affordability.
Decisions are pending on: the future cruise anti-ship weapons system; batch 1 offshore patrol vessels; the global decision support system, the maritime aviation transformation programme; Project Beehive; and Project Vantage. Charting a course to a much vaunted hybrid Navy looks perilous at best—I hope the Minister has his sextant to hand.
On land, despite all that, the Army arguably has the most work to do. The Army has a huge transformation programme that will make it almost unrecognisable by the next Parliament. If there is one capability that we should be throwing the kitchen sink at, it is Project Asgard, which the Chief of the General Staff spoke effusively about last year in his Royal United Services Institute land warfare conference speech. He said:
“It’s a project that, through AI-fuelled, software-defined and network enabled capabilities we are confident has made 4 Light Brigade capable of acting 10 times faster and 10 times further than it could last year.”
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is an old quote—I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise it, given his service—that while veterans talk logistics, amateurs talk tactics. He is outlining a dire situation, because we are not gripping the logistics problem.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I concur. There is a huge need to ensure we have the correct amount of logistics, and that includes supply of troops, in particular in munitions and energetics. The Government have pledged to build factories; we are still not entirely clear where they will be, but ammunition supplies will be key to anything we do going forwards.
Project Asgard is the programme in defence that could arguably be delivered quickest and to the most immediate effect, trading space for time and allowing us to develop our most exquisite capabilities with longer lead times in slow time. Alongside its RAF equivalent, Project Boyd, it presents the vanguard of future capability and outlines where the armed forces are going in these domains. There is a painful conversation to be had about the use of AI in the kill chain in the not-too-distant future.
The Government must commit to 3%, must commit to delivering the right capability and must commit to armed forces that are fit to fight the next war, not the current war or the last war.
“Your path leads to war. You know that. So war is coming. What will you do when you feel its breath upon your neck?”
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Governments of all colours reduced defence spending after the cold war to spend more on health, education and welfare, but the world of today is not the world of 1991. This Government must deal with President Putin rather than President Yeltsin. Since Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022, it has become increasingly clear that we need to spend more on our armed forces. The Government have admitted as much. Last year, they said they would raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—a good start, albeit not enough—but thus far they have failed to set out a programme for how that money will be spent. Where is the defence investment plan? Twelve months have passed and no extra money has gone into advancing our military capabilities. Meanwhile, the Government have found billions of pounds to spend on welfare so as to placate their Back Benchers, to try to save the Prime Minister’s skin. It is a pity that the Prime Minister does not regard defending our country as important as defending his own job.
Three weeks ago, the Government finally announced a £1 billion contract for the new medium helicopter. That contract will keep Leonardo operational in Yeovil. That is vital for Somerset’s economy as well as for the UK’s defence infrastructure, and I welcome that announcement, but the deal was announced at the last minute only to stop the factory closing. That demonstrates how unserious the Government are about setting their plans for defence. If they were serious, they would have published their defence investment plan as promised in the autumn; instead, we have had delay and excuses ever since. The Government are happy to set out their plans for welfare spending years ahead, but they cannot tell us their plans for defending the country.
An additional problem is that the Government are run by human rights lawyers. They see all matters on the global stage through the prism of international law rather than what is in Britain’s national interest. I imagine that Lord Hermann lives in the hope that Russia and China will one day adopt such an approach, but I fear that he will be disappointed.
The Government apply that myopic approach to how they treat our military personnel and our veterans as well. There are about 4,400 veterans living in my constituency—I have met many of them at the Bridgwater and Burnham-on-Sea branches of the Royal British Legion—and I pay tribute to every one of them for their service and the sacrifices they have made for our country. They have told me how worried they are by the legal persecution of veterans who served in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner. Those men faced down terrorists who threatened our country. Now, decades later, they are not being honoured for their service; rather, this Government treat them as suspects. Terrorists who murdered British soldiers have effectively been granted an amnesty—we know that no future action will be taken against them—but veterans who served the British state are to be hounded like criminals for doing what they were ordered to do.
Fred Thomas
The hon. Member mentions quite rightly the brave men who served in Operation Banner. Does he agree that women also served in that operation?
Sir Ashley Fox
I do agree, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the additional time.
The legacy legislation introduced by the previous Conservative Government intended to halt that injustice is now being repealed by Labour. That is disgraceful. Not only is Labour’s campaign against our veterans deeply unfair; it endangers us in future conflicts. In a more dangerous world, with a looming threat of conflict, we need to increase the size of our armed forces. What signal are the Government sending to young recruits by prosecuting our veterans and showing that serving their country may lead to decades of lawfare, with the full support of the Prime Minister and his Attorney General?
The Minister knows that republicans in Northern Ireland will exploit Labour’s naiveté to undermine the morale of our armed forces. The time has come to stop relitigating these events. I call on the Government to stop this disgraceful prosecution of our veterans.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
When I spoke from this Dispatch Box barely a month ago, I had literally just returned, hot foot, from Ukraine. Those who were here that evening might recall that I conveyed to the House a personal warning from the Speaker of the Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament:
“No one knows the Russians better than us. If we fall, you and your friends are next.” —[Official Report, 25 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 423.]
Not only is that war in Ukraine sadly ongoing—and has been for 12 years, not four years—we now face a very challenging situation because of the two concurrent conflicts in the middle east and Ukraine. Yet again, as we debate defence in this House, the plastic patriots of Reform are absolutely nowhere to be seen.
Tonight’s debate is all the more pressing given the Government’s fundamental failure to display the requisite sense of urgency that is now clearly required. As an example, the Government’s much-vaunted strategic defence review, published last July, states on page 43:
“This Review charts a new era for Defence, restoring the UK’s ability to deter, fight, and win—with allies—against states with advanced military forces by 2035.”
That is nine years from now. Our Chief of the General Staff is on record as saying that he believes we might have to fight Russia by 2027 and the First Sea Lord estimates only a couple of years after that, yet it is the official policy of His Majesty’s Government that we will be prepared to fight a peer enemy almost a decade from now. That has terrible echoes of the so-called 10-year rule of the 1920s, and we all know what happened after that.
The all-party, Labour-led House of Commons Defence Committee, with its excellent Chair the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), recently accused the Government of proceeding “at a glacial pace” in improving Britain’s war preparedness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) reminded us, on 10 March, after a classified briefing, the Committee issued a joint statement and urged hitting 3% on defence spending in this Parliament. That is already Conservative party policy. The matter cropped up yet again at the Liaison Committee yesterday, when the Prime Minister was clearly floundering about the ability of his Government to respond to emerging threats and about why the defence investment plan—the DIP—has still not been published.
Nowhere is the complete lack of strategic thinking from this Government more abundantly clear than in their barmy proposal to spend £35 billion of British taxpayers’ money to lease back the vital strategic outpost of Diego Garcia, which belongs to us in the first place. There is no credible legal threat to the sovereignty of Diego Garcia, and certainly none that would justify the expenditure of that much of taxpayers’ money. Instead, that money should be spent directly on our own defence.
Why do I say that the threat is not credible? First, when we signed up to the International Court of Justice, we specifically included an opt-out for any cases involving current or former Commonwealth countries. Any judgment by the ICJ—even a mandatory one, and we should remember that this one is only advisory—would still not be legally binding on the UK, because of that crystal clear opt-out.
Secondly, the Government attempted to argue that via the International Telecommunications Union, which is a UN agency like the ICJ, we could somehow lose control of our military spectrum. Again, that is absolute nonsense, because article 48 of the ITU treaty, to which we are a co-signatory, states clearly:
“Member states retain their entire freedom with regard to military radio installations.”
Again, that legal threat simply does not exist. Even the Government’s then telecommunications Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) confirmed that in a written answer to me a year ago on 12 February 2025.
Thirdly, the Government’s last trench, as cited on Second Reading of their Diego Garcia Bill, was the desperate argument that we could somehow lose a case under the UN convention on the law of the sea at the international tribunal for the law of the sea. However, article 298(b) of the UNCLOS treaty, to which we are a co-signatory, states clearly that we have an opt-out in the event of any disputes concerning
“disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service”.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
We can throw in the Pelindaba treaty on nuclear non-proliferation, which Mauritius has signed and will prevent basing of nuclear weapons on the islands anyway, and, crucially, the 1966 Anglo-American treaty, which means that the United States has a formal written veto over Labour’s deal with Mauritius. The Americans are now almost certain to exercise that veto after we denied them the initial use of the runway, which our Ministers allegedly sought to protect in the first place. Ministers must surely know that the whole benighted deal is as dead as a dodo, and still they cannot bring themselves to admit it. They are totally and utterly in denial over Chagos.
The same obsession with human rights from a Prime Minister who once described himself as a human rights lawyer first and a politician second—he was not kidding there, was he?—has also led to the utterly despicable position of the Government, in their Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, seeking to pursue our veterans through the courts via a process of lawfare and two-tier justice. That is while alleged terrorists, who those veterans were sent to the Province to fight, effectively walk free with letters of comfort in their pockets. Not only is that morally wrong on a whole range of levels, but it has a debilitating effect on recruitment and retention, especially within our own special forces community. That is an area where, even to this day—as I am sure the Minister for the Armed Forces would agree—our nation remains world-class.
Then we come to the delay to the defence investment plan, which is simply unconscionable with not one war under way, but two. When the Government published the strategic defence review last year, they delayed most of the decisions on equipment capabilities to a subsequent defence investment plan, which we were promised would be published in the autumn. We were then faithfully promised it would be published by Christmas, and here we are in late March, all promises broken, and there is still no DIP. Ministers have been claiming for months that they have been working flat-out on this plan. What would have happened if they had not been trying?
The reality is that we still do not have this document, because the Ministry of Defence is totally and utterly at war with His Majesty’s Treasury. That vital intergovernmental relationship has effectively broken down, and the Prime Minister is simply too weak to bang heads together and force the plan to be published.
Mr Francois
If I may, I will make just one more point and then give way. Moreover, Labour claims repeatedly that it is introducing the largest increase in defence spending since the cold war, but that is simply not true. In the current financial year, it has actually done precisely the opposite. It has introduced a £2.6 billion efficiency savings programme that viciously cuts operational spending across the British armed forces at the Treasury’s behest. That means fewer ships at sea and longer times to regenerate them, as with HMS Dragon; fewer training hours for our pilots; and fewer exercises on Salisbury plain.
So here we are, with two wars under way, and nine months later this completely dysfunctional Cabinet is still unable to publish a forward equipment programme for the British armed forces. Do Labour Members not realise that they can also see this in Moscow, in Beijing and, indeed, in Tehran? If Labour Members believe, as I always have, that the role of the armed forces is to save life by preventing war and by persuading any potential aggressor that they could not succeed were they to attack us or our allies, how in God’s name are we supposed to deter the likes of Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping if we are unable to publish the forward equipment plan for our own armed forces that is now nearly a year overdue? On what planet do Labour MPs think that this is an act of credible and effective deterrence?
To be fair to the Government, they have published something today. Just a few hours ago, they published the defence diplomacy strategy. They have been working flat out on it for months. They have been absolutely knocking themselves out to get that one away. I apologise to the House that I have not had the opportunity to read it yet, but I hope that it contains one very firm recommendation: “If you are going to maintain effective diplomatic relations with your strongest ally, the United States, whatever you do, don’t send to Washington an ambassador who had to resign from the Cabinet not once but twice for effectively being a crook and who has now had to be fired third time around.”
Mr Francois
I cannot; I do apologise.
The international skies are rapidly darkening, and the response of the Labour Government is, first, to cut operational spending in our armed forces by £2.5 billion and, secondly, to be completely unable to say when they would reach spending of 3% of GDP on defence, which all three authors of the SDR have said repeatedly is fundamental to delivering it. Until they do that, they cannot deliver it. Thirdly, because of the utterly dysfunctional relations within Government, with a Prime Minister whose authority is shot to pieces, they are totally unable to produce the defence investment plan, even though the House rises and we go into purdah for the Scottish and Welsh elections 48 hours from today.
This has become a farce, but it is a very dangerous one. We are now, quite literally, a laughing stock in Washington, and there is no way we can possibly deter our adversaries if we carry on like this. It is just not a credible defence posture to maintain, so I conclude by saying to Ministers: you have had long enough to produce it; if you can’t do the job, get out of the way.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Our debate today reflects—or should reflect—the seriousness of the global security situation we now face. In eastern Europe, in the Mediterranean and around the world, our service personnel are working so hard, sacrificing so much and facing risk on our behalf. We have lived through—and I served through—a Government that refused to acknowledge the changing world, refused to take it seriously and refused to take the steps necessary to raise funding and invest. The architects of that neglect are sat in front of me. Sleeping on stag is a serious offence in the British military. In the Conservative party it was defence policy.
I shall now turn to the contributions made by hon. Members. I would like to remind those who have voiced their concerns about British bases that the threat of the growing situation in eastern Europe was clear in 2014—it could be argued that the signs were there in 2008—yet the Conservative Government, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, chose to close down our bases in Germany and withdraw our armoured infantry brigade. We can now see what a mistake that decision was.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made a passionate defence of the importance of fighting inequality. Like him, I see in my inbox the challenges that people face in my constituency, in his constituency and in the constituencies of Members across the House. We have seen what happens when instability around the world does not stay in eastern Europe or the Med, but affects us right here. It affects the energy bills we pay and the cost of goods. I am well aware of the challenges and the duty we have to face those challenges, but I say to him that sometimes war comes to you, and our armed forces are the ones who stand between us and those threats. It is vital that we give them the kit and equipment they need to face those threats and defend us.
Turning to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), that is the first time that I have heard the Leader of the Opposition and Winston Churchill compared. We will see over the coming weeks, months and years who is correct, but I expect that that comparison will age like milk.
We had an obviously fantastic speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher)— I declare an interest, although I do not comment on operational matters—on the importance of looking at the defence economy in the round. He said that it is not armies that win wars but nations. I agree that it is young people who we send to fight wars, and we need to ensure that as a state we have invested in those young people—in the very children who will grow up to face the world that we are creating for them.
The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) raised the important need to grow our reserves. We are taking measures to do that and, indeed, we are reinvigorating the strategic reserve, of which I am a member, to ensure that it is ready to meet the challenges ahead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) spoke about the importance of getting the DIP right. That is a crucial fact that we must all bear in mind—we must get the DIP right because jobs and capabilities depend on it.
The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) was absolutely right that we must support our SMEs. That is why we have launched the Defence Office for Small Business Growth to boost opportunities for SMEs and why we have committed to spend £2.5 billion with them by May 2028.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), who always speaks up for those in his constituency who serve in our armed forces, rightly raised the importance of ensuring that we are able to recruit young people into our armed forces as quickly as possible. We are treating this as a priority and doing various things, such as improving the medical process and bringing in novel ways to enter the armed forces, such as through cyber direct entry.
The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) spoke movingly about the child benefit cap, and I will return to that point in a while. He rightly noted the important role that Scotland plays in the defence of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) spoke about the importance of space. It is important to mention the wonderful work being done by UK Space Command. As someone who used to work in a company that used a lot of satellite data, I understand the importance of it and welcome the extra £1.5 billion that we are spending on defence space technologies.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) spoke eloquently, and I know that he is passionate about this matter. He is absolutely right when he says, “The moral is to the physical as three is to one.” The hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) also spoke passionately, and I take his points on board. I have absolutely listened to every one of his points, but for me, what he said reiterates the importance of getting the DIP right. A lot is at stake, and we must get it right. I say to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) that his law has given terrorists immunity. It is unlawful, and I am glad that we are changing it.
As the House knows very well, the Government are fixing the mess that we inherited, which included an equipment plan that was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats and conflicts that we now face. The Conservatives slashed defence spending by £12 billion in their first five years. The shadow Defence Secretary was the very Minister for Defence Procurement who left 47 out of 49 major programmes not on time or on budget.
I am reading those stats, but I lived through them, and this is deeply personal to me. I was serving when the previous Government were in office, and I could see the damage that they were doing all around me. While the threats to this country grew and grew, the Conservative Government refused to acknowledge that the world had changed. Labour is now fixing their mess, delivering for defence and for Britain. We have awarded more than 1,200 major contracts since the election—86% of them to British businesses—including the £650 million upgrade to our Typhoon fleet, securing 1,500 jobs.
Louise Sandher-Jones
No, I need to make time.
Our £1 billion contract for new medium helicopters has helped to secure the future of the Leonardo plant in Yeovil, sustaining more than 3,000 jobs. We have spent millions more on drone procurement and development, including, earlier this month, an order for 20 uncrewed surface vessels, which will be built by Kraken in Hampshire and take us a step closer to our vision of a hybrid Navy.
That is not a frozen procurement pipeline; it is a Government delivering for British security and the British economy. It is possible only because we are investing £270 billion in defence over this Parliament. We are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, and we are growing our defence industrial base by backing UK-based businesses and UK workers. That vote of confidence is matched by record foreign direct investment totalling £3.2 billion since the election and the most successful year on record for British defence exports, bringing a defence dividend to every part of the country.
The Opposition have got one thing right today: we do live in an increasingly dangerous world, and we see every day the skill, professionalism and expertise of our personnel in defending our people, allies and interests in the middle east. It is all the more staggering, then, that the Conservatives cut frigates and destroyers by 25%, cut minehunters, and—in the words of their former Defence Secretary—left our armed forces “hollowed out and underfunded”. That is their record, and today we have heard no acknowledgment of it, so it falls to this Labour Government to take action to put that right.
Last June, as part of the SDR, we announced up to £1 billion extra, above Conservative plans, for air and missile defence. We have been leading NATO’s initiative on delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences—DIAMOND—and this year alone we have boosted spending on counter-drone systems by five times, and spending on ground-based air defence has increased by 50%. In an era of growing threat, we are delivering for defence, and we will not repeat the Conservatives’ mistakes.
I was surprised to hear the Conservatives speak about morale, which plunged to record lows on their watch, when they slashed real-terms pay and saw record numbers of housing complaints. This Government have delivered the largest pay increase in two decades. We are investing record amounts in statutory services, including £9 billion in forces housing, and renewing and repairing nine in 10 forces homes. The Conservatives left serving personnel in damp and mould-infested homes. I am so pleased that we have funded 30 hours of free childcare for the under-threes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have taken more action in 20 months that the Conservatives managed in 14 years.
Let me address two points, if I may. As soldiers, we talk about how we fight, but it is also incredibly important to talk about why we fight. When I stood to become involved in politics, one of the things that I was most looking forward to—I knew that it would not be possible right away, but I hoped that it would be possible during this Parliament—was the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap.
That vote—being able to walk through the Lobby to scrap the cap—has been one of my proudest moments, because we cannot balance the books on the poorest children in this country. In closing, with the highest—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Division off.
Question agreed to.
Main Question put.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I wish to present a petition about the imminent closure of the post office on Uxbridge High Street. With no plans for an alternative provision, this has left many of my constituents devastated, especially those vulnerable people in my constituency who rely on this vital service. Over various community petitions, led by Tony Burles, Masoud Dildar and Trust Phenyo, more than 1,000 residents have called for action to be taken by the council and the Post Office to secure a site, which shows just how much this means to the people of Uxbridge.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to put pressure on the Post Office to provide an alternative post office site in Uxbridge before closing its existing branch.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that an alternative Post Office site must be provided on Uxbridge High Street before its planned closure in June.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to put pressure on the Post Office to provide an alternative Post Office site on Uxbridge High Street before closing its existing branch.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003177]
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
The people of Redbourn have spoken loud and clear. This petition, which has been signed by 1,427 residents, rejects the top-down, developer-led planning approach by this Government, which could see the village of Redbourn increased by 70%. Residents are not opposed to housing, but they are rightly alarmed by the burden placed on their community, including on infrastructure, and they are deeply frustrated by the lack of meaningful voice in shaping the proposals that will define their village for generations to come. From top-down targets to grey-belt policy, community voices have been diminished.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to schedule a debate in the House of Commons on the Government review of the National Planning Policy Framework and how villages like Redbourn can be protected from over-development, and local communities given real power over planning decisions and infrastructure provision that affect the lives of village residents.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Redbourn and the surrounding area,
Declares that Redbourn village faces large-scale development proposals driven by national planning law pushing development onto green and grey-belt land; further declares that government policy is having a detrimental impact on Redbourn village’s character and environment.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to schedule a debate in the House of Commons on the Government review of the National Planning Policy Framework and how villages like Redbourn can be protected from over-development , and local communities given real power over planning decisions and infrastructure provision that affect the lives of village residents.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003178]
Coastal Communities: Start Bay
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this evening a matter of profound importance to thousands of people across the country, including many of my constituents living and working near one of the most beautiful and vulnerable coastlines in England. That issue is coastal erosion—more specifically, what happens when human-built infrastructure such as roads and homes collapse and fall into the sea or are damaged beyond repair by the intensity of storms, waves, wind and tide. This is not just an infrastructure problem; it is a human one. The psychological toll of what is happening in these isolated shoreline communities and the threat of what might happen to others in the future should not be underestimated.
To set the scene, Start bay is one of South Devon’s most stunning stretches of coastline—15 miles of cliffs and shingle beaches running from Warren Point near Dartmouth in the north to Start Point in the south, taking in the villages of Stoke Fleming, Strete, Torcross, Beesands and Hallsands. The Slapton Line—the narrow shingle bar that carries the A379 and separates the freshwater Slapton Ley from the open sea—is one of the most remarkable and fragile landforms in this country. The A379 is a vital link road between the towns of Dartmouth and Kingsbridge. Alongside it lies Slapton Ley, the largest natural freshwater lake in south-west England. It is a site of special scientific interest and a national nature reserve of enormous ecological importance, home to rare wildlife and a place of outstanding natural beauty that draws visitors from across the world.
The area carries another layer of history that many across the world hold dear. In the autumn of 1943, the area was requisitioned by the British Government, and residents evacuated so that American forces could use the land to train for the D-day landings. Exercise Tiger cost the lives of nearly 800 American servicemen—a tragedy long kept secret—but the bond still runs deep, and many Americans come regularly to visit.
Alongside that history is a long and ongoing battle with the sea. In 1917, the thriving fishing village of Hallsands nearby was almost entirely lost to the sea in a storm, not long after hundreds of thousands of tonnes of shingle were dredged from the bay to help build the dockyards in Plymouth. In recent years, the storms have come harder and more frequently. This winter brought a succession of severe weather events that battered the Start bay coastline with extraordinary force. Properties in Torcross suffered significant damage, and businesses that depend on the summer season found themselves counting the cost of repairs before the year had even begun.
Then, on the night of 2 February, came the collapse of the A379 and a battering to homes behind the sea wall—windows smashed, roofs lifted, and water and shingle pouring into homes. Huge slabs of tarmac fell into the sea, and one section of the road collapsed entirely. A once-picturesque stretch of coastline looked like a bomb site. It was not a surprise to people who know this coast—the road has long been acknowledged as vulnerable—but the speed and scale of what happened shocked even those who had been warning about it for years. The alternative inland route is completely inadequate and needs an urgent upgrade. I have been contacted by hundreds of residents and businesses over the past seven weeks, and 40,000 people signed a petition, such is the concern.
Locally, the impact on daily life has been severe. Travel times to work and school have increased substantially—journeys that once took just minutes now take far longer via inland diversion routes that were never designed to carry this volume of traffic. Bus routes have been cut or diverted; older residents and young people trying to get to school and college have found themselves effectively cut off; and everybody dreads the arrival of the caravans. Access for emergency services is a significant concern. Mr Starr of Torcross told me that his wife required urgent medical attention twice last year, and that
“On both occasions the ambulance came across the A379 and therefore responded to the call within 30 minutes, before taking her to hospital. We are now living in fear that an ambulance will not be able to respond quickly enough.”
For others, the partial closure of the A379 is a barrier to education, due to increased journey times and altered bus services. This is true for pupils as well as staff at local schools. For local businesses, the consequences have been equally serious: reduced footfall, cancelled bookings, and the sheer visual impact of a collapsed coastline on what should be a thriving tourism destination have cost businesses dearly at a time when many were already operating on very thin margins. The Torcross Boathouse café has suffered substantial damage and remains closed. Its owners, Katy and Rob, told me that
“We won’t reopen for several months while the insurance is sorted out—it’s been a huge blow and our business has been devastated.”
In the weeks after the A379 was breached, one local pub reported trade being down by 80%. Other businesses highlighted the impact on their staff of a longer commute and issues with receiving deliveries. Matt Darke, who farms land on either side of Slapton, tells me that travelling between sites is now taking an hour longer every day than it used to, and even the viability of a local health centre is now at risk, as patients are choosing to move their prescriptions elsewhere.
Besides the damage to the A379, there has also been a serious impact on properties in the village of Torcross. The sea wall that protects the village has been left exposed by the recent loss of shingle along the beach, resulting in severe wave damage to homes and businesses and ongoing concerns about the stability of the buildings. Residents are scared and struggling to sleep due to the constant vibrations caused by the loss of shingle around the footings of the sea defences, which are an Environment Agency asset. The local EA team have been fantastic, working at pace to progress the case for an urgent project to install remedial rock armour in front of the sea wall, and while approval for that project is not guaranteed, the local team hope that the EA will find the funding to support Torcross. I look forward to receiving an update on this soon.
However, there will still be the question of what could and should be done to prevent outflanking where the Environment Agency’s assets end. There is a huge cost to works such as these, and there is always a cost-benefit argument to be won, which is what we will all try to do for Torcross. What is never easy to factor into such an equation, though, is the cost of doing nothing. What does it really cost to leave a village to fall into the sea? What is the cost to people’s health and health services, to the wider community, and to the social fabric of a place like this when defences are not maintained? Places such as Torcross and Beesands are more than just houses—they are destinations. They are lifelines for people looking for an escape from the demands of daily life; with their beaches, pubs and cafés, they are a magnetic draw for anyone looking to slow down, breathe the air, watch the birds, swim in the sea, or simply walk along the beach.
Who should pay when home owners lose everything that they have worked and saved for? These are not easy questions, which is why there is no clear answer, but the cost of prevention versus evacuation and loss must be part of this, and it is an issue with which the Government must grapple seriously. Time is not on our side, and that is abundantly clear in the village of Beesands, just down the coast. The erosion has accelerated rapidly in recent years. Where about 80 metres of village green previously separated houses from the sea, only 9 metres now remain in some areas, with the access road to the village also potentially at risk.
Amid all the trauma for the residents of this special place, I must express my sincere gratitude to officers and councillors from South Hams district council and Devon county council, who have been outstanding throughout the crisis; but for them, gratitude is not enough. Those councils are absorbing the cost of emergency repairs, facing potential loss of council tax, business rates and car parking revenue, and doing all this while operating under significant financial pressure, with limited central Government support mechanisms on which to draw. What they need, and what local authorities and coastal communities across England need, is a genuine financial partnership with central Government when coastal emergencies strike.
The Bellwin scheme is simply not fit for purpose when it comes to coastal flooding. As the coastal protection authority, South Hams district council has incurred huge costs since 2 February, including £100,000 for boulders to provide protection in the area that was worst affected. However, it has been informed that only expenditure within 30 days of the event is eligible for reimbursement under the Bellwin scheme. While I understand that the scheme is intended to support local authorities in respect of their emergency response, in the case of coastal emergencies it can easily take 30 days just to formulate and implement a plan. The current system asks councils to carry risks and costs that it is simply beyond their means to absorb, and that must change.
I must also mention the flood recovery framework. The current situation is illogical. The framework provides central Government support in cases of severe flooding affecting large areas of England, but weather incidents with localised impacts, however devastating, do not qualify. In Start bay the community is in crisis, but the answer from the system is “Sorry, but not enough people were affected.” That cannot be right, and I urge the Government to reform the framework so that it can respond to severe but localised coastal incidents of exactly this kind.
Let me now turn to the question of insurance, a common theme among my constituents. There is currently no specific insurance product for coastal erosion. Flood Re provides Government-backed cover for flood risk, but there is a clear and urgent gap when it comes to erosion. I therefore call on the Government to look seriously at implementing a Flood Re-style product for coastal erosion, and I note that a sobering report published last week by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee makes exactly that recommendation.
While home owners in Torcross may be successful in securing insurance payouts to support repairs to their properties on this occasion, it is unclear whether they will be able to obtain new insurance in the future. I therefore ask the Government for an assurance that those who are affected by coastal erosion and coastal flooding—particularly those whose properties are in areas with coastal protection measures in place that are supposed to work—will be helped to gain access to affordable insurance in the future. It is also crucial for people buying homes near the coast to be given the full picture of the coastal erosion risk that they face during the conveyancing process—not just the risk to the property itself, but the risk to the surrounding access routes, utilities and insurance availability. Given the climate-induced threats that we now face, those risks must be included as material information in conveyancing.
There is also a problem with the way in which the Government respond to crises of this kind. The community impacts of coastal erosion fall primarily to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, while the physical erosion challenges are overseen by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That fragmentation has real human consequences, and it places an additional burden on local authorities, which find themselves navigating a confusing and fragmented central Government landscape at precisely the moment when they need clarity and support. I want DEFRA to set out clearly how it recognises the full range of the human impact of coastal erosion and incorporates it in policy development and funding decisions, with clear actions and a defined approach to community engagement. The EFRA Committee report calls for exactly that, and I endorse its call.
Finally, one of the most troubling gaps of all is the complete absence of any national strategy for those who lose their homes to the sea. No one should face the loss of their home to the water and find that the state has nothing to offer them but a place on a housing waiting list for social homes that simply do not exist. The EFRA Committee has recommended that a long-term national strategy providing financial assistance and relocation support should be in place by no later than March 2027. I fully support that recommendation, and I urge the Government to commit to it.
What are my asks? First, we need funding for the repair of the A379 Slapton line and for the improvement of our inland road network. Devon county council is currently working on a full business case for the Department for Transport, and I urge the Government to respond to the application swiftly.
Secondly, we need funding for sea defences along the Start bay coastline. I ask the Government to commit that the Environment Agency will have what it needs to respond in an agile and timely manner to coastal emergencies such as this one. The process for accessing such funding is incredibly complicated, but speed is of the essence in a situation like this.
Thirdly, we need meaningful, dedicated financial support for local authorities dealing with coastal emergencies, which have to cover the cost of emergency repairs and the potential loss of business rates revenue, car parking income and council tax. Councils are doing extraordinary work in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. They should not be left to carry the financial consequences of a national challenge on their own.
Fourthly, we need urgent action on the flood recovery framework to ensure that localised weather incidents are treated just as seriously as national events. This is a big problem in a small place, and it needs a big solution. Fifthly, we need a national strategy for households displaced by coastal erosion to be in place by March 2027.
Lastly, we need a commitment to provide Government-backed insurance for coastal erosion, and insurance policy premiums must be capped for people whose properties have been damaged by coastal flooding, including those in Torcross. I am very aware that not all those asks are the responsibility of MHCLG, but I hope the Minister will relay them to colleagues in other Departments.
I will close by making a broader point, because although this debate is about Start bay, it is also about something much larger. Communities the length of England’s coastline are facing versions of what Start bay is facing right now. From the Holderness coast in Yorkshire, where land is disappearing into the North sea faster than almost anywhere else in Europe, to the eroding cliffs of Norfolk and Suffolk, coastal communities are watching the ground literally shift beneath their feet. Many of them are already among the most socially and economically vulnerable in the country, and many feel forgotten. According to the EFRA Committee’s report, over 10,000 properties are at risk from coastal erosion in the next 80 years, as are 183 km of roads and 6 km of railway. If local authorities are to be able to manage the impacts of coastal erosion, they must be supported by the Government to carry out long-term strategic planning.
What this Government do in response to the crisis in Start bay will be noticed far beyond South Devon. It will send a signal about whether coastal communities can expect a national Government to treat their situation with the seriousness it deserves, or whether they will continue to be managed at the margins and left to local authorities and agencies that are doing their very best with nowhere near enough support. The sea does not respect administrative boundaries, departmental silos or funding formulae designed for a different kind of emergency. It requires a response that is strategic, sustained and genuinely cross-governmental. The EFRA Committee has provided a road map, and the communities of Start bay have provided the urgent human case. What is needed now is the political will to act.
The people of Torcross, Beesands, Hallsands and the wider Start bay are not asking for the sea to be stopped; they are asking for a Government who see them, who invest in them and who work with them to find a way forward. They are proud and resilient communities that deserve a response equal to the challenge they face, and so do coastal communities the length and breadth of this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. I start by saying that the Government absolutely understand and sympathise with those impacted by coastal erosion in Start bay. I was hugely saddened to see the impacts of the recent storms on the hon. Lady’s constituents and communities. The Government are committed to supporting her communities and indeed all coastal communities, because we understand and appreciate the urgency of the issue and the huge impact it is having.
I want to reiterate that coastal communities are a vital part of our national identity, serving as a reminder of our national pride and shared maritime story. We know that we must do more to both protect and preserve these communities against the vulnerabilities they face with coastal erosion. That is why, between April 2024 and March 2026, around £609 million has been invested into protection from sea flooding, tidal flooding and coastal erosion. It is also why the Government announced major changes to our flood and coastal erosion funding policy last October. This reform, which will take place this April, will make it quicker and easier to deliver the right flood and coastal defences in the right places by simplifying our rules.
Most recently, in January, the Government announced £30 million for coastal adaptation pilots, £12 million of which will be made available across England to deliver adaptation action in areas affected by coastal erosion. These pilots will help communities to take practical steps to prepare for coastal change, from relocating vulnerable community buildings to strengthening local infrastructure, such as beach access and coastal tourism facilities. The insights from these pilots will be applied across all coastal communities as they adapt to coastal change.
The hon. Lady is rightly concerned about the communities in her constituency. We know that residents in Torcross are concerned by the recent flooding, with wave overtopping and structural vibrations affecting some properties. As the hon. Lady has pointed out, the Environment Agency has done a huge amount of work in the area, and early investigations are clear that the defences remain structurally sound. However, we will continue to keep this under review.
The feasibility of further defence work at Torcross is currently being assessed by the Environment Agency and we expect the initial cost-benefit analysis findings to emerge shortly. Future schemes will, of course, depend on developing a full and detailed business case and securing the necessary funding, which the Department is committed to doing.
Caroline Voaden
Does the Minister accept that in such a cost-benefit analysis, there is also a cost of doing nothing? Maybe she could advise me if this is already the case. The cost of moving an entire community, with all the social and economic impact that has, is possibly much more than the cost of improving defences so that that community can stay put.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are very alive to the cost of inaction in the context of not just coastal erosion, but climate change more broadly. We are very clear that we need to take robust action to prevent, adapt and build our resilience to the change that is coming. My colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are working very closely with both the Environment Agency and communities themselves to ensure that we are responding in the right way. To reassure residents, it is worth saying that the process of looking at how we bolster our defences is under way and being taken seriously, in addition to the work that DEFRA is doing.
I will take away the asks that the hon. Lady has set out. She will know that many of them sit with my colleagues over at DEFRA, and not with us at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but we do work closely together; as she says, the boundaries do not stop at DEFRA, and we absolutely need to work in lockstep. I will make sure that we relay all her questions, and ask the relevant Minister to respond to her and potentially arrange a meeting to discuss the particular issues in her area.
Alongside recognising the critical issue of coastal erosion—I hope the hon. Lady is reassured that we are taking that matter seriously and understand the need to act—we are also very clear that we need to continue investing in and supporting our coastal communities. We want to ensure that we are investing in the areas that are under pressure, and putting vital assets into retaining the heritage, the life and opportunities in our coastal communities.
That is why we have put in place Pride in Place funding across many of our coastal communities; at least 56 across the UK will receive more than £1 billion through the Pride in Place programme over the next decade. That money will be targeted at regeneration and, fundamentally, at investing in the priorities of the local community. Many will be thinking about how that investment in their infrastructure will best preserve their communities. We are also clear that the programme will champion local leadership, foster community engagement and strengthen cohesion. For me, that is important because we must absolutely do the job of protecting and insulating against the change that is coming. We must also make sure that we are investing and bolstering our communities, so that they continue to be thriving, vibrant places.
I thank the hon. Member once again for securing this important debate. I can reassure her that we will highlight the points that she has made with our colleagues in DEFRA and that we will do our part to build communities that are resilient and support those communities as they go through a very difficult transition to adapt to the changes that are coming. We will continue to do our bit to support coastal communities, and it is important that hon. Members continue raising the case for them.
Caroline Voaden
Something that came out in conversations that I had today was the complication of Torcross having assets that are owned by the Environment Agency and other assets, such as the road, that are owned by the council. There might also be third-party assets, such as quayside walls and other infrastructure. The complication of managing all the different agencies involved, alongside the complication of the MHCLG, DEFRA and the Department for Transport all having to work together, might suggest that we are reaching the point where the Government need to think about an office for climate change events or something like that; I do not know what we would call it, but we need to bring all those things together and for there to be oversight, because it is incredibly complicated to navigate this patchwork landscape of responsibility.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Member is right. We are acutely aware that the landscape is incredibly complex and has evolved over time. We are trying to work at a local authority level, but, increasingly, as we try to build up the structure at regional level, we want to allow far greater co-ordination so that, ultimately, all the priorities of the local area can come together. Critically, rather than working in silos, we Departments should be working with one voice, in lockstep with the community.
I come back to the point that I have consistently made. This is an urgent issue. We are hugely aware of the impacts on our coastal communities. We are very aware of the need for us to work across departmental silos, and with the Environment Agency and the local authorities, in order to respond. There is an absolute commitment on all the part of us all to do that for the very reasons that the hon. Member has set out. This issue is having a huge, profound impact on communities. If we do not get this right, if we do not adapt, if we do not build resilience and if we do not build the infrastructure, there will be communities that will fall into the sea, and that is an unconscionable outcome.
I hope the hon. Lady is reassured that we are trying to work across boundaries. I will pass on the points that she has made to my colleagues in DEFRA who hold some of the levers, but there is a commitment for us to work alongside them in order to make sure that we are supporting our coastal communities, not just so that they are protected but, critically, so that they can thrive.
Question put and agreed to.
Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 13 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I ask everyone to ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent. We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate.
I remind those present that a Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group will be called first; for a debate on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate their wish to speak in that debate by bobbing. At the end of a debate on a group, I shall call again the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision.
If any Member wishes to press to a vote any non-lead amendment, new clause or new schedule in a group, they will need to let the Chair know. The order of decisions will follow the order in which amendments appear in the amendment paper. I hope that that explanation is helpful.
Clause 1
Extension of right to vote etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 33, in clause 80, page 100, line 15, at end insert—
“(1A) Part 1 does not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament that reviews why the age at which it would become legal to vote in parliamentary general elections should differ from the following—
(a) the age of majority in the Family Law Act 1969;
(b) any minimum ages specified in law which the Secretary of State considers appropriate to review.”
This amendment would prevent Part 1 of the Act coming into force until the Secretary of State had undertaken a review of the consistency of the age of majority with the age of voting set out in this Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I look forward to discussing the finer details of this important Bill with members of the Committee.
Clause 1 extends the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds for UK parliamentary elections, Northern Ireland Assembly elections, local elections in England and Northern Ireland, local referenda in England, and police and crime commissioner elections, as well as ward elections in the City of London. The Government committed in their manifesto to increasing young people’s engagement in our vibrant democracy by giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all UK elections. That will enable young people in England and Northern Ireland to join their peers in Scotland and Wales, who can already vote in local and devolved elections. The change is aligned with the aim that the Government set out in the national youth strategy to ensure that young people are “seen and heard”, and will build the foundations for people’s lifelong participation in our electoral processes.
Furthermore, the Government’s view is that once 16 and 17-year-olds are enfranchised, they should have the same rights and responsibilities as all other electors. For that reason, the clause also ensures that 16 and 17-year-olds are able to sign recall petitions, as all other electors are permitted to do. The clause will support the Government in our work to deliver on our commitments to young people, meaning that approximately 1.7 million eligible 16 and 17-year-olds will have a say in all UK elections for the very first time.
Amendment 33, which was tabled by the Opposition, would oblige the Secretary of State to publish a report on why the voting age for UK parliamentary elections should differ from the age of majority set out in the Family Law Reform Act 1969, which provided that
“a person shall attain full age on attaining the age of eighteen”.
Under the amendment, the report would also be required to include comparisons with other age limits that the Secretary of State deems appropriate, and would have to be published before voting rights could be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds.
The important question is not about what else a person can or cannot do at age 16, but whether 16 is the right age at which to be able to vote. This Government are clear that the answer is yes: 16 is the right age for a person to be able to exercise their democratic right. Extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds will allow them to have a say in the Government who shape their future, and will set them up for lifelong engagement in our democracy. Sixteen and 17-year-olds have views, which deserve to be represented, and engaging voters at a younger age will build the foundations for a lifetime of participation in our electoral processes.
Making decisions about the electoral franchise on the basis of comparisons to legislation made nearly 70 years ago is not, in the Government’s view, the way to build a democratic system fit for 2026 and beyond. The amendment would simply delay the delivery of a manifesto commitment that, given the response to the Opposition’s reasoned amendment on Second Reading, has already been shown to have the overwhelming support of the House. Accordingly, I ask the Opposition to withdraw their amendment.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Good morning to you and to members of the Committee. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, although I am slightly surprised that she has asked me to withdraw my amendment; I have not yet talked about why it is so brilliant. I hope that she will reconsider and look at the amendment again, although I doubt it.
Amendment 33 is in my name. At the heart of the issue lies a simple question about clause 1: when do we consider somebody to be an adult? In the United Kingdom, the answer has long been clear—at 18. That is the age at which full citizenship rights and responsibilities are granted. Voting—one of the most significant civic duties in a democracy—should remain tied to that threshold. Those who argue for lowering the voting age to 16 often claim that the issue is about fairness and inclusion, but that quickly unravels when we examine how 16 and 17-year-olds are treated under the law.
At 16, individuals cannot marry or join the armed forces without parental consent, and they are not permitted to buy alcohol, gamble, purchase cigarettes or even obtain certain financial services independently. Those are not arbitrary restrictions; they reflect a consistent legal and societal judgment that individuals under 18 are not yet fully mature adults. If we do not trust a 16-year-old to make decisions about alcohol, finance or personal safety, why should we trust them with decisions about the future of the nation?
Since the adoption of universal suffrage, taxation has never been the basis for enfranchisement in the United Kingdom, but the Prime Minister has stated that those who pay tax should be able to vote. Those aged 16 and 17 are explicitly exempted in law from paying council tax. Do advocates who say that 16-year-olds should be able to vote in local elections believe that that legal exemption should be removed, so that those aged 16 and 17 become liable for council tax? I suspect the answer is no.
Taxation already exists without direct representation for children. Everyone pays indirect taxes, such as VAT. For example, for children, VAT is levied on toys and sweets. Only a tiny number of those aged 16 and 17 actually pay income tax, especially given the Conservative Government’s increases to the income tax threshold. Those under 18 cannot obtain consumer credit, nor can they open a full bank account without a parent’s signature; that indicates how their financial rights are qualified.
There is also a striking inconsistency in the Government’s arguments for this change. On the one hand, they argue that 16-year-olds are mature enough to vote. On the other, they support policies that explicitly treat under-18s as children in need of protection: raising the legal age for buying knives, fireworks, cigarettes and even undergoing cosmetic procedures. Those contradictions suggest that the push to lower the voting age is not grounded in principle but in convenience.
Consider also the issue of responsibility. Voting is not just a right; it is part of a broader framework of civic duty, yet 16 and 17-year-olds are exempt from key responsibilities such as paying council tax, and only a small proportion pay income tax at all, as I have outlined. Historically, the right to vote in the UK has never been based on taxation alone, and it would be wrong to start now. We should also look internationally. The overwhelming majority of democracies, including the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, set the voting age at 18. That is not a coincidence; it reflects a widely accepted understanding of adulthood.
Furthermore, the argument that lowering the voting age will increase long-term political engagement is not supported by strong evidence. Studies show that any increase in participation among younger voters tends to be short-lived, with no lasting impact on political involvement. In other words, the reform risks being a symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful improvement to democracy. A study looking at the effect of a lower voting age in Scotland, which was also cited by the Minister’s Department, advised:
“For engagement with politics beyond voting in elections, however, we find no lasting difference between young people who were eligible to vote at 16 versus 18. The experience of voting at age 16/17 did not make a difference in young people’s non-electoral engagement in early adulthood.”
It warned that any change in turnout might actually have been due to the polarising effect of the Scottish independence debate, rather than the voting age. It went on:
“Our results may reflect this to some extent as cohorts included in our sample of young people enfranchised at 16 came of age in the highly salient and polarised time around the 2014 independence referendum.”
Finally, we must consider where the logic leads. If we detach voting from the age of adulthood, then why stop at 16? Why not 15 or 14?
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I smile at the idea that it is convenient for us to pass the law; it is never convenient to pass a law.
The hon. Gentleman has set out a number of ages at which people can do different things. Most people would agree that adulthood is not the flick of switch but a continuum. We do things at different stages; many would argue that voting is at the lower end and is one of the earliest things that we should do. That was the position of the Conservative party when it came to choosing three of our recent Prime Ministers; 15-year-old Conservative party members had more say over who was the Prime Minister of this land than the rest of us. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?
Paul Holmes
The difference between me and the hon. Gentleman is that I do not want to legislate for when people can become engaged in politics. Younger people can absolutely become engaged in politics and join a political party. As I think I have said previously, I love elections and I love politics. I joined the Conservative party at 15, and I have not regretted my decision—sometimes.
Engaging with a political party is absolutely acceptable. If the hon. Gentleman has a complaint about the system of younger people electing a party leader, then we can have a debate about that. But we cannot pick and choose different ages for when a person becomes an adult just because it is convenient. I contend that the reason why the Labour party brought this matter forward in its last manifesto is that it wanted to extend the coalition of voter that it thinks favours it politically. That is why the Bill has been presented and brought before the Committee today. I suspect that every Labour Member secretly knows that that is true.
Let us not pretend that this is a divine intervention of principle. It is being done because the Labour party wants to extend the coalition of voters that it suspects is more likely to vote for it in the election.
Sam Rushworth
Every political party has equal opportunity to appeal to every voter. Why does the hon. Gentleman feel that Labour party politics is more attractive to younger voters?
Paul Holmes
If the hon. Gentleman only dares to look at the polls from recent weeks, I suspect that he will find that his style of politics and his party’s politics are not attractive to 16-year-olds—they are voting for other parties because of the record of the current Government. But I do not want this to be a debate about how popular or unpopular the Government are.
Political parties can select the age of their memberships, but the Conservative party fundamentally believes that the age of majority should be made more consistent. When it comes to deciding the future of the country, 18—the age at which a person becomes a statutory adult and has the rights of citizenship—is the age at which people should engage as a citizen in the democratic process.
I understand if the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that, but many countries around the world disagree with him. I do not expect him to agree with my speech at all, but if we look at some of the reports that I have outlined and the statistics that have come out, we see that there is no evidence that voting at 16 increases participation rates in elections. My party will be in a minority of one in the vote on this issue because Members across the House have different views.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Is the hon. Member aware that the evidence submitted by the Electoral Reform Society says that research has shown that the younger people are engaged in voting, the more likely they are to carry on voting later in their lives? What he has said about there being no evidence is not correct.
Paul Holmes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but look at the evidence that the Electoral Reform Society gave the Committee. It believes in a change of voting system and in reducing the age of the franchise to 16. However I have just cited evidence from a report from his Minister’s own Department; it states that there was no significant change in participation rates when the voting age was reduced in Scotland for the independence referendum—it was the polarising effect of the independence referendum that increased participation rates.
The hon. Gentleman has cited one source. Although the Electoral Reform Society is a very good organisation, I have a number of disagreements with what it said in Committee when we were cross-examining. It believes in changing the electoral system, in greater limits on political parties being able to maintain their business and in votes for 16-year-olds. That is not the Conservative party’s policy, and I hope I am setting out reasons why I do not think it should be the Government’s policy. There is evidence showing that there is not an overall increase in participation rates in general elections, or national elections, when the voting age is 16.
The Cambridge professor of politics, David Runciman, has argued for a voting age of six. He has said:
“we don’t apply a test of competence before granting the right to vote to anyone other than children. So why start with them? Setting imaginary tests before allowing enfranchisement is essentially a 19th-century idea.”
He goes on:
“I do believe in a very basic competence threshold, which is the ability to express a preference in the first place. Being in full-time education seems a reasonable way of establishing that”.
The Government have said that they do not intend to drop the candidacy age below 18. If they think somebody can vote, why do they not think that person should be able to stand in those elections? I will give way to any Labour Committee member who can explain to me why the Government have advocated for a drop in the voting age to 16 but do not want those people to stand in elections. Is it because of competency? Is it because, dare I suggest, the Government do not believe they are mature enough to stand in those elections?
Sam Rushworth
I am happy to share my personal view on that point with the hon. Member. As was mentioned a moment ago, growing up is not a moment that happens between one night and the next. It is a continuum, and different ages apply to different things; people have to wait until they are 21 to do some things. One vote is one grain of sand on the beach. It allows people to meaningfully participate in democracy. That is, of course, entirely different from actually being an elected representative themselves. To me, that is a fairly obvious point.
Paul Holmes
What I think is fairly obvious is that if there was consistency from the Government, someone’s being allowed to vote for their representatives would enable them to stand as a representative themselves.
I am a big fan of the hon. Gentleman’s and I want this Committee to be good tempered—as his colleagues will know from previous Bill Committees, I am a very good tempered individual. However, I politely suggest that the hon. Gentleman wants to have his cake and eat it. He is again saying that there are variations of participation. He is proposing to open up the franchise to 16-year-olds in the election of Members to this place and the Government of the United Kingdom, but he does not want them to stand in those elections and have that participation in democracy. In his intervention, I heard no solid reason why the Government do not believe younger people should be able to stand in those elections.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. I was elected as a councillor for the first time at the age of 22; at that time, someone had to be 21 to stand in local elections, although they could vote at 18. Inevitably, I think, the Government accepted the argument that there was a serious inconsistency if someone could vote in an election but was unable to stand in it. That goes to the point that my hon. Friend is making.
There is an old saying: “If you are not a socialist in your youth, you have no heart; if you are not a Conservative when you grow up, you have no brain.” Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is solely about trying to garner the vote of 16-year-olds, not about a change based on principle?
Paul Holmes
I agree with my hon. Friend. I was a Conservative at 15—maybe that means I have just been completely stupid all through my life. [Interruption.] I said it—there is no need for an intervention on that! We know the reason why the Labour Government have brought this forward.
I was elected as a councillor at 19, and the voting age was 18. I was older than the voting age at the time. The Government are criticising my party on why we do not believe there should be voting at 16, but I ask the Minister again—perhaps she will respond in her winding up—why the Government do not believe that 16-year-olds should be able to stand in an election for the Government of the United Kingdom if they are enfranchised to vote in such an election. I contend it is because they want the votes, but they do not want them to be able to stand, because they do not believe they are mature enough and—dare I say—adult enough to do so.
The contention that the Minister has brought to the Committee is flawed. We cannot pick and choose when we believe a child becomes an adult to participate in part of the democratic process, and not include in the legislation the ability for them to stand in those elections.
Amendment 33 simply tries to urge the Government to review the mess of the age of majority in this country. If we legislate to have votes at 16, that is fine. I think I am pretty down with the kids when I go on school visits—I see there is no comment on that—and my party and I will absolutely make sure that we become presentable and popular and start talking about young people and the issues that they face—
Paul Holmes
Which is the point, the Minister says from a sedentary position, but it is our contention that we then need to look at the age of majority across the whole of the United Kingdom.
David Simmonds
Does my hon. Friend recall the last Labour Government’s measures to raise the participation age? They took a very clear view that people at 16 were not mature enough to be trusted to leave school and start working life, and there was legislation compelling them to remain in education or employment-based training until the age of 18. Does that not give a very clear indication that this is a marked inconsistency—a departure?
If we were to have MPs and councillors at 16, they would be compelled to still be in education at the same time. That would require, for example, under the laws passed by the Labour party, Parliament to implement its own college system so that those 16-year-old MPs were able to continue their education while serving their constituencies.
Paul Holmes
What an interesting idea from my hon. Friend. It is one of his more radical suggestions, but he raises a serious point. The inconsistency of this Government’s approach to the age of majority is about to be made worse by this Bill.
If the Minister had come to the Committee this morning and said, “We are going to open a proper consultation and review on the age of majority”, that could be a starting basis for a genuine conversation in this country. At the moment, as my hon. Friend outlined, the Government are proposing to allow a 16-year-old to vote, but they have mandated them to stay in full-time education, meaning that they do not pay tax. They do not have that stake in the Government, because they do not pay those taxes. As I have outlined, the Prime Minister said himself that people who vote should be paying taxes. That would not be the case under this proposal.
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point on other aspects. The Government believe in 16-year-olds not being able to join the armed forces or secure a bank account without parental support, but they want them to be able to elect the Government of the United Kingdom, because it is convenient to them. It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to bring in votes at 16; it is perfectly reasonable, and I know many Labour Members genuinely believe that. I have no problem with them, but if they are going to do that, they should at least bring what a 16-year-old can do in society on to a level playing field.
The way this proposal has been brought forward, on the basis of the reasons given, with 16-year-olds not able to participate fully in the democratic process because they are not able to stand in the elections, suggests that this is more a cynical attempt than a pragmatic one.
Sam Rushworth
I feel that, particularly in the previous intervention, the Opposition are still tying themselves up in knots around the idea that the transition from childhood to adulthood has to happen within a millisecond of someone turning a particular age, rather than under-standing that there is a process of becoming an adult and we allow people different rights and responsibilities that are appropriate for those stages.
The hon. Gentleman asked why I feel that there is a difference between voting and standing to be elected. It is the difference between someone being able to choose a person to represent them and having to listen to and represent others. They are two different jobs. The Conservatives know that. I do not think the hon. Gentleman would tell me that he believes a 15-year-old should be Prime Minister, but they allowed 15-year-olds to elect who is our Prime Minister.
Paul Holmes
I do not think a 15-year-old should be allowed to be Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman is advocating for a 16-year-old to be able to elect a Prime Minister and their Member of Parliament, but does not want them to have the equal right to stand as a candidate for Parliament. I understand his intervention, but he still has not told me why he thinks that the purposeful variance in this legislation is a good thing.
I have been very clear that I think the age to able to vote and become a Member of Parliament should be 18, because that is when somebody becomes an adult. Forgive me if I am wrong—I do not intend to put words in his mouth—but the hon. Gentleman said in his intervention that some bits of becoming an adult happen when we are younger and some when we are older. In legislation in this country, someone becomes an adult when they get citizenship rights at 18. This Government are changing that and making it slightly more blurred than it needs to be. That is why we oppose this clause.
David Simmonds
I am sympathetic to the case put by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. I understand where he is going with it, but there is a distinction between the internal rules of political parties and the law of the land on electoral participation. Conservative party policy is that all members can vote to elect the leader of the party, but only those who have attained the age of majority can participate in elections to public office, whereas the Labour party recently changed its rules so that that only people over the age of 18 can participate in its internal processes for the same purpose. Does my hon. Friend think it is inconsistent for a political party to say internally that people have to be 18 to participate in leadership elections, but seek to allow 16-year-olds to vote in national public elections?
Paul Holmes
That goes to show the picking and choosing attitude of the Labour party when it comes to enfranchising younger people. They want to allow them to elect Members, but believe that 18 is the right age to vote their candidate selections and internal processes, so why are we suddenly discussing legislation proposing that 16-year-olds should have the right to vote? I am sure Labour Members will present a petition to the National Executive Committee, or whatever organisation represents them, to change the internal voting age. If they so believe in 16-year-olds electing national politicians in this country, perhaps they should believe in being selected by 16-year-olds too, although I do not see them jumping to take up that proposition.
I will wrap up shortly. The Government have said that they do not intend to drop the candidacy age below 18. We have had a vibrant discussion about that. Why do they think that those aged 16 or 17 are old enough to vote, but not old enough to stand for an elected body? Even if the Government do not think they can be MPs, why can they not represent smaller communities? Are they not capable of being local, parish or town councillors, or police and crime commissioners? The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has advocated this clause. Does he therefore think a 16-year-old could represent their local parish or local town ward? Is there a variance in their ability to represent constituents in their local areas?
Warinder Juss
It is misguided to compare the ability to vote with being a representative. There is a huge step between someone having the right to decide who should represent them and being that representative themselves. Many people well beyond the age of 18 would be able to vote for their representative, but would not necessarily be in a position to be a representative themselves.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but I do not think, if he looks inside himself, that he genuinely believes that 16-year-olds should not be allowed to stand in an election but should be able to vote in them. In his intervention, like many on the Government Benches, he arbitrarily decided in his head what a 16-year-old can do and what they are not quite ready for. I suggest that is intellectually at variance with what the Government are saying about a 16-year-old. I take his intervention with a pinch of salt because he himself is saying they are not ready.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland also said they are not ready to stand in the election. It is a big difference for someone to be able to represent the community they live in—but they can vote in it and elect someone to represent their community on their behalf. To put it mildly, that is intellectually at variance with the Government’s position, and I suggest that Labour Members do not really believe it is the case. Labour Ministers have not yet justified that variance—though that is understandable as the Minister has not yet spoken on this—other than to say that a lower voting age is about building long-lasting engagement.
The right to vote is one of the most important responsibilities in a society. It should be granted when an individual reaches full legal adulthood—when they are entrusted with the full range of rights and the responsibilities that come with them. We in the Conservative party contend that that age is 18. Lowering the voting age to 16 undermines that principle, introduces inconsistency and fails to deliver the benefits that its supporters promise.
Amendment 33 would prevent part 1 of the Bill coming into force until the Secretary of State has undertaken a review of the consistency of the age of majority with the age of voting set out in the Bill. It is not a troublesome amendment; this will have such profound impacts on other Government Departments and public services, and I genuinely do not believe the Government have thought of them. For example, each of us are privileged to represent a constituency in this place. We all go and visit our schools and younger people and we advocate, hopefully impartially—I am the biggest recruiter for the Hamble Valley Labour party that there could possibly be, and they all go and join once I have spoken to them.
When we go and speak to our younger people, we do so because we want to get them interested in politics, but nothing that this Government are proposing in this legislation would improve the education system to make sure that people have proper citizenship lessons and get that proper education through the national curriculum. Our teachers are doing their best, but many young people I talk to in schools are not getting that full, rounded citizenship education from the very early age that they should be if the Government are to implement these provisions.
That is an inconsistency in the Government’s approach, so we think there should be a review on a cross-departmental basis to see what that age of majority should be and what resources, from any Government Department, should be working towards if this legislation is passed and the voting age is reduced. That is the aim of amendment 33. We have set out our position, perhaps not as clearly as I would have hoped, but we have had a good debate on it. We will oppose clause 1 because we do not believe that the voting age should be 16; we believe the age of majority is 18, and that that is where it should stay.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. The Liberal Democrats support the general direction of the Bill and want to help the Government to get it right and, where we feel it falls short, be more ambitious. We remain particularly disappointed that the Bill contains no steps towards electoral reform and feel that it fails to take the opportunity that the moment presents. However, we will conduct ourselves in a constructive manner throughout this Committee.
The Liberal Democrats strongly support extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Young people can work and care for family members and are profoundly affected by policy decisions. In every single manifesto since 2001, the Liberal Democrats have supported votes at 16. In the 2010 policy paper “Free to be Young”, which was voted on by the party conference, we decided that
“when you are old enough to get married or join the armed forces, you are old enough to vote”.
We also affirmed that the Liberal Democrats,
“would empower young people with full political rights at 16”,
and we reaffirmed this most recently in our 2024 manifesto.
We will not support amendment 33, tabled by the official Opposition. We feel that it is an attempt to delay and obstruct votes at 16, which is a long-standing Lib Dem policy. We believe it is a delaying mechanism and not a genuine policy question. We feel that the age of majority argument is a red herring, as 16 and 17-year-olds already exercise significant legal rights and responsibilities. Inconsistency in voting ages is not a new problem requiring a review, as the voting age already differs across different types of elections, whether local, devolved or national. Voting at 16 applies already in Scotland and Wales for devolved elections; I have not spotted a particular constitutional crisis brought about by that. The amendment implies a problem that does not exist, and the Liberal Democrats will not support it.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am delighted to speak on a Bill of such huge importance. I am also delighted to be speaking so positively in support of clause 1. I might have some constructive suggestions to make on further clauses, but I warmly welcome the long-overdue legislative change for votes at 16. The extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds will be hugely positive for our young people and for our democracy. It will be good for voter registration and turnout. It will help to embed healthy democratic habits in young adulthood that will continue into adulthood. It is vital that the voices of young people are giving the respect and the democratic space that they deserve.
Voting is a healthy habit that we want young people to form early on. Engaging younger voters in the process of voting creates positive habits for the future. Hon. Members will know that in 2024, turnout in the general election was just 59.9%—narrowly avoiding the 2001 historic low of 59.4%. Not only are too many voters not turning out; the turnout gap between younger and older voters has been expanding. We see lower levels of turnout in constituencies that have larger proportions of young people.
Introducing votes at 16 creates an opportunity to improve democratic education, providing a chance to create a seamless transition from learning about and discussing politics in the classroom to engaging in local and national elections. Research has shown that the earlier young people are engaged in voting, the more likely they are to carry on voting later in their lives. In Austria, Scotland and Germany, those who were enfranchised at 16 or 17 were more likely to turn out to vote into their twenties, compared with those who first voted at 18.
Enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds also tend to turn out to vote in greater numbers than those voting for the first time who are aged 18 and over. That is likely because younger voters are better supported through their first experience of voting while they are at home and in education. By the time those who are 18 or older first vote, many will have already left home—for example, having gone to university—and are likely to be moving home more frequently, and may find it harder to register to vote or know where to vote. Registration levels for 18 and 19-year-olds are just 60%, compared with 96% of those aged 65 and over.
The main arguments being advanced against expanding the franchise are that 16 and 17-year-olds are not considered adults in many legal circumstances, such as in criminal law. We have heard comments today about the concept of full legal adulthood. The suggestion is that lowering the voting age conflicts with other legal thresholds of adulthood, such as restrictions on alcohol, gambling and jury service. I point out that adulthood starts in a phased way from 16, as 16-year-olds will pay tax, 17-year-olds can drive a car, and the majority of things that we prohibit 16 and 17-year-olds from doing are public health-faced, such as drinking and gambling. They are aimed at preventing people from developing unhealthy and potentially harmful habits.
David Simmonds
On the hon. Lady’s point about consistency, we often hear about the age at which one can purchase alcohol on licensed premises, but that is not a restriction that applies at home, so there is a significant inconsistency. Essentially, one is free under the laws of this land to consume alcohol at home from the age of 5. That is what the law says; one simply cannot purchase it on licensed premises. It is not the case that 16 is the point at which this becomes part of a consistent approach in the way that the hon. Lady describes.
Dr Chowns
I think the hon. Gentleman is in effect making my point for me, which is that adulthood starts in a phased way. There is no simple black-and-white cut-off at which things change from one night to the next. In society, we recognise that many aspects of growing up are part of a process. Voting is clearly a healthy, positive habit, and lowering the voting age to 16 and 17-year-olds will help to support their development.
The 16 and 17-year-olds whom I know and meet are thoughtful, interested and interesting. Their thoughts are worth having and are worth listening to. Their voice matters, and I want to know what they think. They have very pertinent and sometimes unexpected views on the key debates and decisions occupying much of our time in Parliament.
If we take the grotesquely unfair rip-off system of student funding, with the deeply unfair loans that young people wanting to go to university must take out unless they are exceptionally wealthy, 16 and 17-year-olds are thinking now about those loans as they think about whether university is for them. If we take the debate on whether social media should be banned for those under 16, these people can really tell us what it is like and how it affects them. If we take the debates we have had in Parliament on decriminalising abortion and any number of other vital issues, including the state of the planet and what that means for our futures, young people’s lives are the most affected by the decisions elected representatives take and they will have to live with the consequences of those votes for longer than any of us.
Warinder Juss
I want to reiterate what the hon. Member has said. In my experience, the younger the person the more politically engaged they appear to be. I spend so much time going into schools, and I find that younger people are more concerned about the environment than anyone else. I have more emails and letters from schoolchildren about climate change than I have from anyone else. So it is really important that we take that political engagement on board and give them a right to vote at 16.
Dr Chowns
I completely agree with the hon. Member. It is interesting that young people are often better able to engage with climate change than many of us who are older and are preoccupied with the short-term issues right in front of us.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove that we need a proportional voting system so that everybody’s votes are equally taken into account. That would enable us to make policy in a way that focuses more on the longer term and the investments we should make on a generational basis, rather than people, under the first-past-the-post system, being so focused on short-term decision making and on the next general election. Young people are concerned about what sort of world they will inherit—what the world will be like when they are 50—and they are going to have to live with the decisions we make for a very long time.
I want to speak briefly about trust in politics. Giving young people votes at 16 tells them that their voices, votes and views are valued, and this really does matter. The 2024 British social attitudes survey, conducted after the general election that year, recorded a new low level of trust, with only 12% of people saying they trust Governments to put the interests of the country above those of their own party. Votes at 16 would be a really valuable sign of trust in and respect for our young people, which is a healthy and important part of defending and bolstering our democracy. At a time when division and polarisation are unfortunately flourishing, it is vital to work with and support young people to make their voices heard, because they do want to bring the country together.
There is positive evidence for extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. For example, younger voters in Germany have had a positive impact on family discussions of politics. In a number of countries, 16 and 17-year-olds already have the vote. As has been mentioned, it is also the norm for many voters in the UK. Scottish and Welsh 16 and 17-year-olds are already enfranchised to vote in devolved and local elections, and I would love those in England and Northern Ireland to have the same rights.
In conclusion, enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds would not drastically change the electoral landscape, but it would allow young people to have a voice in the decisions that are made for them every day at local, regional and national level. It is also a golden opportunity to improve democratic education, which I believe we will have a chance to discuss that in more depth later in our line-by-line scrutiny, as well as to register young people to vote and to embed that deep democratic respect for the right to vote. I congratulate the Government on taking this forward. Lowering the franchise is a really important opportunity to nurture more active citizens for the future. I will be absolutely delighted to vote for clause 1, giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, so we can positively engage the next generation in politics and improve the health of our democracy.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan.
We are coming at this debate in the wrong way. We need to look at when someone becomes an adult in this country, rather than at an arbitrary age at which it is acceptable to vote. The last Labour Government obviously thought that people become adults at 18. I remember that some people in my school year could buy cigarettes, at 16, and the last Labour Government raised that to 18. I would have supported that at the time, but the last Labour Government’s principle was obviously that adulthood started at 18 rather than 16.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, said that someone can join the Army, RAF or Navy at 16. That is true, but they cannot be deployed on the frontline. A consequence of the Bill could therefore be that somebody can vote for a party or a Prime Minister of this country, which then, heaven forbid, has to send troops to the frontline, where they themselves cannot go, even though they are theoretically voting to send other people there. That is a difficult and challenging situation. We need to look at other age limits, whether for smoking, going to the frontline or driving. They all need to come at the age that someone becomes an adult.
Sam Rushworth
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that everything should happen at exactly the same age? For example, people have to be 21 to adopt or pilot a plane. Is he suggesting that we should lower those age limits? The age of consent for sex is 16. Is he suggesting that that be elevated to 18? The point he seems to be making is that everything must happen at once.
Lewis Cocking
I am arguing that, if we want to lower the voting age, we need to have a debate about when someone becomes an adult. We can absolutely have that debate, and if the Government decide that we want votes at 16, we need to consider a number of other age limits. I would not change any of them, and I would not reduce the voting age to 16, because I believe that people should be able to vote when they become an adult, at 18. If the Government intend to change that, we need to consider lots of other age limits. As I just pointed out, the last Labour Government obviously believed that people become adults at 18. That is why they raised the smoking age, and why they introduced legislation to ensure that people could not leave school and just do nothing, so that people now have to stay in education, training or employment until the age of 18. How can someone go out and vote for me to have certain rights when they do not have those rights themselves? That needs to be looked at.
As has already been asked, why has the Labour party’s national executive committee raised to 18 the age limit for voting in some party official elections and standing for some of those posts? That is nonsense. The Labour party is saying that people can vote for their MPs, but cannot vote in internal party elections, or stand for some of those positions, until they are 18. That is absolute nonsense.
I support amendment 33, in the name of the shadow Minister, because it would make the Government think again. As I said, we need to look at these age limits as a whole. We need to look at the age someone becomes an adult in this country, rather than at an arbitrary figure.
The Minister said that she wanted consistency. If the Government are successful in lowering the voting age to 16, then of course, to make this consistent, people should be able to vote in recall petitions. But she should then go a step further, by allowing people to stand. If we trust young people, at the age of 16, to cast their ballots for someone to represent them, they should be able to stand as well. There have been a number of contributions on whether someone should be able to stand. What is the difference between listening to somebody who wants our vote and listening to someone whose vote we have, and whose constituency casework we need to deal with? That is the same skillset: listening, developing policy, thinking about what to do and thinking about legislation to bring forward. I will never know how one can argue that the age limit for one of those should be 18 and the other 16.
I do not support lowering the voting age, and I will oppose clause 1. If the Government intend to lower the voting age, I urge them to look at when someone becomes an adult in this country. This Bill will have unintended consequences. If the Government deem that 16 is when someone becomes an adult in this country, we need to have a wider discussion about what other legislation will need to be changed.
Samantha Dixon
I thank Members for such a constructive debate. I come back to the original point that I made: the important question is not what else someone can or cannot do, but whether 16 is the right age to vote. The Government are clear that the answer is yes, it is the right age to be able to exercise a democratic right. It will allow 16 and 17-year-olds to have a say in the Government that shapes their future and sets them up for a long engagement in democracy.
Turning to issues raised in the debate, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley pointed out that there is no single definition of age at which someone becomes an adult. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland ably pointed out, the idea that 18 is a standard age of adulthood is a misconception. Different age limits are applied in different circumstances, which is quite right. “One size fits all” solutions almost always mean “one size fits none”.
On the issue of representation, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West made this point very ably: the act of casting a vote is not the same as representing voters. It is perfectly reasonable for different requirements to apply. We will be following the line of Scotland and Wales where representation is allowed from the age of 18. On education, to speak to amendment 33, the Government are already working with the Electoral Commission, the devolved Governments, the electoral sector and civil society organisations to prepare people to exercise their democratic rights. That, combined with the Government’s national youth strategy and the improved curriculum and programmes of study in England following the curriculum and assessment review, will make sure that young people are not only given the means to make their voice heard, but are empowered and motivated to do so.
Last November, the Department for Education committed to make citizenship compulsory in primary schools in England and to revise programmes of study to make sure that pupils receive an essential grounding in a range of topics, including democracy, Government and law. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley, who joined his political party at the age of 15, has given a very pertinent demonstration of why young people are perfectly capable of exercising their rights, engaging politically, and participating in our democracy. We want to extend those rights to 16 and 17-year-olds, because too often young people are ignored by politicians. The policies of the parties that put representatives forward do not take account of the views of those young people. And it is the young people themselves who have the most at stake.
I am reminded of my own daughter, who at the age of 16 was unable to vote in the Brexit referendum, like many of her classmates in that school year. Ten years later, that is an absence that they feel very keenly. Their participation is healthy for our democracy and our political parties, and they should be able to vote.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Voting eligibility of convicted persons in detention—
“(1) RPA 1983 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In section 3 (disfranchisement of offenders in prison etc.), for subsection (1) substitute—
‘(1) A convicted person, during the time that they are detained in a penal institution in pursuance of a sentence imposed for a term exceeding four years or unlawfully at large when they would otherwise be so detained, is legally incapable of voting at any parliamentary or local government election.’
(3) Omit subsection (1A).
(4) In subsection 1B for “1A” substitute ‘1’.”
The new clause seeks to extend the franchise at UK Parliamentary and local government elections to include those serving a custodial sentence not exceeding four years and who would ordinarily be eligible.
Samantha Dixon
I now move on to clause 2, which extends to 16 and 17-year-olds the existing legal incapacity to vote that applies to convicted prisoners—with the exception of those imprisoned for contempt of court or in default of paying a court-imposed fine. It is right that those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody cannot vote. The provisions in this Bill simply reflect that well-established position and ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds are treated the same as all other electors. That is in keeping with the core principle of the policy that 16 and 17-year-olds must have the same rights and responsibilities as all other electors. That must include being accountable for their actions, including their disenfranchisement upon being convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody.
To give effect to this intention, this clause ensures that the relevant definitions of youth detention accommodation account for all of the institutions in which convicted prisoners aged 16 and 17 may be held. I would like to draw hon. and right hon. Members’ attention to the part of the clause relating to secure children’s homes. It is important to note that this does not have the effect of disenfranchising a young person who is not a convicted prisoner but who is resident in a secure children’s home.
The application of this clause ensures that young convicted prisoners may not vote in UK parliamentary elections, police and crime commissioner elections, elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and all local elections in England or Northern Ireland. However, these provisions do not apply to elections for which responsibility is devolved, that is, elections to the Senedd Cymru, Scottish Parliament or local elections in Wales or Scotland.
I will also speak to new clause 9, tabled by the Green party. This new clause is intended to allow convicted prisoners serving a sentence of up to four years to vote. The Government have a clear view on this issue: those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody should not be able to vote. We have no plans to extend the franchise to prisoners. I understand that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, who tabled this amendment, and her party advocate for a restorative approach to justice, and the Government agree that rehabilitation is an important part of the justice system. Prisoners must be prepared to return to society.
As the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), said during the passage of the recent Sentencing Act 2026, the Government wish to ensure the justice system rehabilitates and turns offenders away from crime. It is important to note in this context that that Act introduced a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or fewer, unless an offender has breached a court order, there is a significant risk of harm to an individual, or there are exceptional circumstances.
Rehabilitation is not the only part of our justice system. Justice is also about delivering appropriate and proportionate punishment for individuals who have committed crimes where the crime committed is grave enough to warrant imprisonment. The Government are clear that part of that punishment should include the loss of the right to vote.
The new clause aims to grant voting rights to those serving sentences of up to four years, and would allow individuals who had committed serious offences to cast ballots. Such a change would be disproportionate and would water down the important principle that prison sentences are there to punish behaviour that we as a nation have decided is not welcome in our society. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw the new clause, and I commend clause 2 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the Minister’s speech on this clause, and we agree entirely with her remarks.
Clause 2, as the Minister has outlined, extends the disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners to include 16 and 17-year-olds detained in youth custody. It is consistent with the long-established principle in UK law that individuals serving custodial sentences have temporarily limited civic rights. The extension to youth detention simply aligns 16 and 17-year-olds with the framework that already applies to adults, ensuring that the law treats those in secure detention in a consistent manner, regardless of age. While 16 and 17-year-olds are generally recognised as sufficiently mature to vote under the legislation, that recognition does not automatically override the legal consequences of being placed in detention, where participation in normal civic life is restricted for reasons of accountability, public protection and rehabilitation.
We believe the Government have made the right decision. If the Bill goes through and the voting age is reduced, it is absolutely right to align it with the legislation that extends to such people. When someone commits a crime and faces a custodial sentence, I believe that there should be rehabilitation and education, which are crucial parts of the prison system. However, the fundamental right to participate in civic life is taken away when someone receives a custodial sentence in this country, which includes the right to vote and participate in electing a Government. That punishment has been sacrosanct within the criminal justice system for hundreds of years, and the Opposition believe that it should continue, so we wholly welcome the alignment of the Bill with current legislation.
I turn to new clause 9, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). The Minister rightly outlined that it would extend the franchise to those serving a custodial sentence not exceeding four years, and who would ordinarily be eligible, and I think her response was absolutely spot on. No member of this Committee, or any Member in the main Chamber, would ever say, “Once you go to prison, you do not have the right to restorative justice, or the right to make something of your life again.” There is a fundamental principle in UK society when we make a mistake: you do the crime, and you do the time. We pay our debt back to society, and we then have the right to rehabilitate ourselves and make the most of our lives.
There is a fundamental difference if someone is put in prison for a custodial sentence, particularly one of up to four years, as the person has likely committed quite a serious crime to deserve that. It seems right to me that a punishment for that is the person being removed as an active participant in society, including having the right to vote for an elected Government or locally elected representatives.
This issue has been contentious for many years. When I worked for the last Conservative Government, before I was elected as the MP for Eastleigh, the European Union made an overt attempt to punish the United Kingdom for not aligning our custodial laws and voting laws with its mainstream recommendations; that was vehemently resisted by the Government at the time. Correct me if I am wrong—I am looking to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to help me out—but I think that happened during the coalition Government.
We resisted that attempt to punish the United Kingdom, because we believe a dividing line is that, if someone goes away and is put in prison for a crime, they should not be able to participate. The Opposition wholly stand by clause 2, and we do not support new clause 9. If the new clause is pushed to a Division—I know the procedures mean that votes on new clauses will happen another time—we will vote against it.
Lisa Smart
The Liberal Democrats believe that voting is a fundamental democratic right, not a privilege to be earned on release. We champion the right to vote, and we are opposed to this disenfranchisement. We also believe that every unnecessary restriction on the franchise weakens democratic legitimacy.
Prisoners serving short sentences will, in most cases, be released within the lifetime of a Parliament, so they have a direct stake in the laws passed by the MPs they help to elect. Denying that stake feels arbitrary. We are also committed to the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, and we believe that other laws we pass here should sit comfortably alongside them.
On new clause 9, we feel that the proposed threshold is arbitrary, and we are unclear why four years has been chosen as the cut-off. If the hon. Member for North Herefordshire could explain that, it would be extremely helpful. As things stand, without understanding why four years has been chosen, we will not support new clause 9.
We believe that the rules that apply to the franchise should impact 16 and 17-year-olds in exactly the same way that they impact those who are 18 and above, so we will support clause 2.
Dr Chowns
I rise to speak to new clause 9 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion, and to oppose clause 2 stand part.
New clause 9 seeks to extend voting rights to prisoners serving sentences of four years or less. That is the sentence length at which a prisoner would traditionally have been eligible for release after serving half their sentence. Extending the franchise to more people in prison would widen civic participation, strengthen our democracy and aid rehabilitation.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I just want to clarify my understanding of the Green party’s policy position. I have been looking at the Sentencing Council guidelines, and typically a person convicted of racially or religiously aggravated assault serves two years in prison. Is it the Green party’s position that those people should be allowed to vote in a general election?
Dr Chowns
I have made my position about the new clause clear, but perhaps this is a good moment to discuss a point that I was going to come to later. Various points have been made about the importance of restorative justice and rehabilitation. Imprisonment is a punishment for something that somebody has done wrong. There is a wide variety of things that people may have done wrong and for which they are rightly imprisoned, but should we not use the opportunity of a person’s imprisonment to support, encourage and reward prosocial behaviour?
Voting is prosocial behaviour that helps to integrate and rehabilitate the person and connect them back to the society from which they have become estranged through their crime. We encourage prisoners to use libraries to engage in educational opportunities and a whole range of other prosocial activities. In the same way, should we not encourage prisoners to engage in voting?
Andrew Lewin
I am grateful for the tenor of the debate. The hon. Lady talks about the connection to society, but I ask that she considers the victim for a minute. Let us stick with my example. Very sadly, we are seeing cases of religiously aggravated assault rising in this country, particularly relating to the Jewish and Muslim communities. Just this week, we saw the horrific example of the attack on ambulances. What does she think will happen if the victim learns that the perpetrator of the crime is allowed to vote? Does she think that is right?
Dr Chowns
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, although I am disappointed by his tone and what appears to be a politically motivated attempt to score points rather than to engage with the substance of the debate, which is about whether prisoners should be encouraged to vote.
Whether somebody is a victim of a racially aggravated assault, a rape or any other horrific crime, if the perpetrator receives a sentence that comes within the framework of the new clause—I very much hope that it would not be less than four years for a serious crime—we should encourage that perpetrator to participate in voting in the same way as we encourage prisoners to participate in other prosocial behaviours. That is done very widely in many other countries. Imprisonment is the punishment to the individual. The question is whether we should prevent those individuals from engaging in rehabilitative behaviours that reconnect them with society.
Warinder Juss
I am a member of the Justice Committee, and my biggest focus is rehabilitation and resettlement. I take the hon. Lady’s view that rehabilitation is extremely important, and that that is the way that we stop reoffending. But as someone who grew up suffering a lot of racist abuse—physical and verbal—I would be very affronted if somebody who had committed a racial crime against me was then allowed to vote, because going to prison is not only about rehabilitation but is a punishment. It is important that we do not lose sight of that fact. I am stating my personal position, bearing victims in mind. If somebody had committed a racial crime against me and they were given the same right to vote as anybody else I would feel very insulted.
Dr Chowns
I confess that I am a little puzzled at the questions that are being raised about specific types of crime. I am not sure whether hon. Members are suggesting that particular types of crime, for example those motivated by racial hatred, should be treated in a particular way in relation to voting, or whether they are simply objecting to the idea of any prisoner being allowed to vote. By raising one particular type of crime in making arguments against the new clause hon. Members are not, sadly, engaging with the substance of the argument that I am making.
By way of background—as has been mentioned—in 2005 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s blanket ban on voting rights was unlawful. In 2017 the UK therefore extended the right to vote to prisoners on remand, civil prisoners—normally those in prison for failure to pay fines on time—and offenders on home detention curfew or released on temporary licence. However, that did not go far enough. The strength of our democracy is determined by how many of us participate in it. Against a backdrop of declining trust in our institutions and in democracy, that is more vital than ever. Not only are more than 21,000 people missing out on a key democratic right, they are having their chances of rehabilitation and resettlement harmed. Studies have shown the positive impact that democratic participation by people in prison has on rehabilitation and resettlement. Prisoners who keep the right to vote have an enhanced sense of civic responsibility and are more likely to be successfully reintegrated following release.
Let us consider other countries. In Guernsey all prisoners have had the right to vote since 1996. In Jersey, all prisoners serving a sentence of less than four years keep their right to vote, and in 2025 plans were announced to extend the right to vote to all prisoners. All prisoners in Ireland can vote by post. Across Europe, all prisoners have the right to vote—in Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine. In France, disenfranchisement is considered as an additional penalty in some sentences, however the vast majority of prisoners retain the right to vote. In Germany, all prisoners retain the right to vote unless they have been convicted of an offence targeting the state or democracy. It is clear that the UK’s ban on prisoners voting makes us a real outlier among comparable countries.
Clause 2 provides for the disenfranchisement of detained 16 and 17-year-olds. I am profoundly opposed to that and would like to see the clause removed, because fostering civic responsibility, civic pride and involvement is particularly important for young people aged 16 and 17 who are in custody—that is, about 420 young people at any one time. Any young person in that position is likely to have been badly let down. That point was made last year by the Children’s Commissioner, who in 2025 published an important report, “The educational journeys of children in secure settings”. She found that children in youth custody are “failed before they arrive” and trapped
“in a cycle of disadvantage”.
The Commissioner made it clear that such young people faced
“disrupted education, low English and maths skills, unmet additional needs and high levels of exclusion, compounded by poverty”.
She also found that
“children in prison have been failed by multiple services long before they arrive in custody, and their time in the justice system worsens their disadvantages and limits future opportunities.”
I believe that it is wrong to cut those children—those young people—out of the voting process. They will know more about the failings of the state than many over-18s and their voices should be heard. The Bill is an opportunity to include them and to commit to supporting them to exercise their right to vote, which is a healthy habit that we should support and encourage all members of our society to engage in. As well as being right and fair, such inclusion, coupled with the right support and training for those who look after and educate them, could be a very positive part of their rehabilitation. I sincerely hope that the Minister will closely consider that in the context of clause 2.
It is clear that the current voting system for prisoners in the UK needs urgent reform. New clause 9 provides us with an opportunity to talk about how to fix that broken system by normalising democratic participation in our prisons, as so many other comparable countries do; strengthening civic society; restoring faith in our democracy; and supporting rehabilitation among some of the marginalised people in the UK, including some of our most disadvantaged young people.
Paul Holmes
I will speak briefly, because I spoke to new clause 9 before the speech made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. During the course of the debate, I heard a couple of things that I wanted to come back on. I thank the Committee for indulging me; I will be very quick.
There is absolutely no difference between my party and that of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire in advocating for the rehabilitation of the individual who is in the prison and criminal justice system. That is also the stated position of the Government. I was pleased to hear the passionate intervention from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West, which was filled with conviction. I was disappointed, however, with the tone that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire took in responding to the hon. Members for Wolverhampton West and for Welwyn Hatfield. The former, having been through horrific prejudice growing up, and the latter, as an advocate, asked the hon. Lady about a crime that falls within the arbitrary four-year sentence proposed in new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion.
There are many crimes for which someone can be issued a custodial sentence of four years that—I hope that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West takes this in the right way—could be perceived as worse than the racially aggravated assault case that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield mentioned, such as sexual assault. Many people are put away for less than four years for sexual assault. They would be able to vote under the proposals in new clause 9. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said that those Members mentioned that crime to make a political point, but their point directly addresses the proposal from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to set the sentence threshold at four years. If the threshold were six months, or anything less than four years, we could openly discuss that, but the crimes encompassed within a custodial sentence of four years can be some of the most serious perpetrated against victims.
I believe that everything the hon. Member for North Herefordshire does is well intentioned and principled. There is no doubt about that, and it should never be intimated that I take a different view. Members feel, however, that they have to challenge the Green party’s position because of that arbitrary figure for a custodial sentence in their proposal. The hon. Lady should therefore expect to be questioned on some of the terrible Pandora’s boxes that will be opened by the people serving those custodial sentences.
Dr Chowns
As I outlined in my speech, in many comparable countries, all prisoners are permitted to vote. The proposal in new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion, sets an arguably arbitrary cut-off date, but that is intended to offer balance.
As we have to some extent previously covered, if someone is sentenced to four years they still become eligible for early release. That does not lessen the terrible nature of their crime. If somebody is sentenced to four years, they are still eligible to participate in educational programmes, rehabilitation, and a whole range of things that are not in themselves punishments but are designed to assist that person to reintegrate into society. Surely we all, victims included, want to ensure that perpetrators of crime are reintegrated and rehabilitated and do not offend again? That is the driving force behind this new clause: to reduce crime by reconnecting to society people who have been convicted and imprisoned.
Paul Holmes
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I do not doubt the hon. Lady’s intentions—or those of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion—in tabling the new clause. However, I put it to her again that the four-year figure is arbitrary. The core reason why so many people are concerned about this proposal is the plethora of cases that would be included under the four-year provision. She is absolutely right that many of those people who are sentenced to four years will be released after two. I disagree with that, but it is something that happens in the current justice system. The fact that they might be released early does not mean that they should be given the vote.
The hon. Lady mentioned something that I agree with: that people are entitled to use libraries, to learn, to undertake qualifications and to do other parts of rehabilitation. That is absolutely right; they should always be allowed to do that, because of the core belief in British society that they should be able to make their lives better. But they are doing that while locked away and playing no role in civic society. They are improving themselves and learning so that they can play a part in civic society once they have served their custodial term. That is the real difference between my party and hers. We believe that when someone receives a custodial sentence, they should be removed from civic society. They should be able to go through rehabilitation and make their life better, but that element of being removed from civic society and locked up is sacrosanct.
I think that new clause 9 comes from a good place, and we could have a wider discussion on greater involvement by somebody who receives a custodial sentence, but unfortunately, the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion—we must consider the seriousness of the crimes that might fall under the threshold of a four-year custodial sentence—means that the victim is hugely let down and forgotten about. I apologise to the Committee, but I feel so passionate about the way in which the argument was made that I had to stand up and speak again. We will be opposing the new clause with, all right, only three Members, but if it comes back on Report, I urge Members from all parties, including that of the hon. Lady, to vote against it. It would represent a slow erosion of the punitive system that is meant to support victims. I do not believe this new clause supports victims.
Samantha Dixon
The Government have a clear view on this issue: those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody cannot vote. We have no plans to extend the franchise to prisoners.
The hon. Members for Hazel Grove and for North Herefordshire mentioned the European Court of Human Rights. The UK’s prisoner rights voting policy was very recently the subject of a judgment by that Court, and no violation was found. I am quite happy to share that judgment with Members should they wish to see it.
The provisions of the Bill simply reflect that policy, by accounting for all of the institutions in which convicted prisoners aged 16 and 17 may be held.
David Simmonds
There is a high degree of cross-party agreement on this point, but I have a technical question. The Minister referred earlier to the status of secure accommodation for children. Such an order is made by the family court rather than the criminal court, but it is often handed down when a local authority youth justice team is concerned particularly about the risks of self-harm. Under existing legislation, any child who is in custody of any kind is de facto in the care of the local authority where they reside. Under the terms of the Bill, that local authority then has a duty to support those who may be in secure accommodation to access their vote.
Could the Minister briefly set out what discussions, if any, she has had with the Department for Education, which owns that children-in-care legislation, so that we have clarity about what arrangements would be in place so that a child who is in secure accommodation, of which there is a very limited amount, often some distance from someone’s home, is able to exercise their right to a vote, which they would retain under these provisions?
Samantha Dixon
The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is quite technical. I will provide him with the details. He is right that some convicted 16 to 17-year-olds, rather than being imprisoned in a young offender institution, are detained in secure children’s homes or secure training centres. Whether an individual is held in a young offender institution, a secure children’s home, a secure school or a secure training centre following conviction is not a direct reflection of the nature of their offence or determined by characteristics such as age.
It is possible for one individual who is convicted of a particular offence to be held in a young offender institution while an otherwise identical individual, who has committed the same offence, is held in a secure children’s home. Accordingly, it is appropriate and consistent to ensure that all convicted prisoners, regardless of their age or the institution in which they are held, should be prevented from voting. I will provide further details in writing, if that is acceptable to the hon. Member.
I thank hon. Members for their support for clause 2 and for the principle, which we are extending to 16 and 17-year-olds, that those held in secure accommodation and prison cannot vote—I think that is a well-understood principle, and it is one that we continue to support—and for their comments regarding new clause 9, which the Government will not be supporting.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 3 will give young people the ability to register from the age of 14, before they have the right to vote at 16, ensuring that they are able to exercise their right to vote as soon as they reach voting age. I am sure that Members will agree that no young person should be unable to vote for the first time because there was insufficient time for them to be correctly registered to vote. The clause will ensure that all young people have the opportunity to vote, even if an election falls on or shortly after their 16th birthday, removing the chance that time to register is a barrier to participation.
The clause’s approach is consistent with the current rules, which allow some 16-year-olds, and all 17-year-olds, to register to vote. Importantly, it simplifies the current rule considerably by removing the complex December calculation, which is hard to explain and understand, in favour of a clear right to register from an individual’s 14th birthday. The December calculation will remain in place for devolved Welsh elections in accordance with existing devolved legislation. The clause enables the slightly different rules to work side by side.
I underline that the two-year window for registration ahead of someone’s turning 16 established by the clause also allows for enhanced links between the classroom and active engagement in our democracy, with the option for that to begin with the act of registering to vote.
Paul Holmes
It would be churlish of me to criticise these proposals. We have had a detailed debate on the principle about votes at 16, with which we vehemently disagree, but there is no reason why we should be difficult about the implementation of the system if the Government get their way. If the legislation passes and people are allowed to vote at 16, there is a vital need for them to be able to register in plenty of time and for it to be as easy as possible for them to do so. Therefore, we will not oppose the clause.
I ask this question of the Minister not to be tricky but for clarification: why should the registration age be 14 and not 15? I was going to say, “What’s the difference?” Obviously, the difference is 12 months, but why does it need to be permitted two years in advance, rather than just one, when someone is 15 and, I would argue, there is a bit more stability for them in the education system, given some of the things that come with being a 15-year-old in school?
The Minister is correct that the December calculation is hard to explain and understand, and fairly outdated, so we do not think that is an issue. We will not oppose the clause, and we see that it is perfectly reasonable, notwithstanding—I do not know whether Members have recognised this yet—that I absolutely oppose votes at 16.
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Member for his support. For attainment at the age of 18, we work with 16 and 17-year-olds, so the two-year rule will continue by convention. If I have anything to say that differs from that, I will share that with him.
David Simmonds
This is, again, a bit of a technical question, but both my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley and I served previously as lead members for children’s services, and one of the groups for whom this will be particularly relevant is those young people who may be in the care system because they are asylum seekers. My local authority has among the highest populations of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the country.
There are existing arrangements, but at the moment, because the voting age is 18, it is completely clear: someone is an adult in the system and their eligibility to attain their vote depends upon the determination of their claim. However, there is a significant population of young people who have age assessments that are being disputed, or for whom there are issues around where residence may take place and whether leave to remain will be granted, and therefore at what point the individual, not because of their age but because of their immigration or asylum status, will attain the right to vote. What discussions have there been with the Home Office, which owns that legislation, and potentially the Foreign Office, which may have sight of what arrangements are in place in the countries from which those young people may be moving to the United Kingdom, to ensure a degree of consistency and certainty?
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Member for his question on quite a complex issue. The right to vote is based on citizenship, so I would have to come back to him with further detail on those circumstances. We will come on to clauses that relate to children in the care of local authorities and their rights to register to vote, and to vote, but on that specific issue I think I will need to come back to him.
David Simmonds
I am sure that everyone is aware that the arrangements with Ireland, for example, provide a degree of eligibility and commonality, not just in the electoral system but in all sorts of other areas. In terms of enfranchisement, we have eligible Commonwealth voters who may participate in our electoral system by virtue of their Commonwealth status. That does not apply to all countries in the Commonwealth, but it does apply to a significant number of them. It would be helpful if the Minister could address that issue too, particularly given that we can envisage, for example, service families from the military of an allied country—in my constituency, with HMS Warrior just over the border, we have a significant number of families who come from Canada and Australia and, indeed, Europe—who may be here for a period of time, which would mean that they fall within the scope of this legislation. It would be helpful to understand what arrangements are in place to ensure that they are treated fairly.
Samantha Dixon
I will supply the hon. Member with that information, because it also applies to attainers who are living overseas. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Declarations of local connection: looked after children and detained persons
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 4 will ensure that the extension of the franchise works effectively for young people whose living arrangements do not fit the traditional model of a fixed or permanent address. Declarations of local connection already allow certain individuals to register to vote when they cannot reasonably be associated with a single permanent address. However, once the franchise is extended, it is important that young people are not excluded from participation simply because of the nature of their accommodation. The clause expands the circumstances in which a declaration of local connection may be made.
Members should be assured that the provision does not remove any existing eligibility requirements. It enables young people who are looked after by a local authority, who have previously been looked after, or who are kept in secure accommodation to register in a way that reflects a meaningful connection to an area. It is an important measure that ensures that young people in these circumstances are able to register in a way that reflects their living arrangements.
Clause 5 will ensure that the extension of the franchise properly supports service families. Service declarations exist to ensure that members of the armed forces, Crown servants and British Council employees are not disadvantaged in their ability to register to vote when serving overseas. However, once the franchise is extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, a gap would arise: the children of service voters who move with their families in service would not have access to the same registration mechanism.
The clause addresses that gap and enables children who reside with a service-voter parent or guardian to register using a service declaration. That registration will cease when the individual reaches the relevant age, which is 19 for UK parliamentary elections, Northern Ireland Assembly elections and local elections in England and Northern Ireland, and 18 for Scottish parliamentary elections, Senedd Cymru elections and local elections in Scotland and Wales.
David Simmonds
To some extent, I have another version of my earlier question. In respect of children in care, within the provision there will need to be a process for registration and, in due course, a process for the administration of casting the ballot. If we consider the original judgment on prisoner voting, the European convention on human rights does not trump parliamentary sovereignty.
The judgment went against the UK because, at that stage, there were no arrangements in place for prisoners to be able to vote, although the law did not specifically prohibit them from doing so. The court said, “You can’t effectively lock them up so that they can’t get to the ballot box, but at the same time say that they are still legally entitled to the vote; you have to make a choice.” Parliament made a choice and said, “We are going to ban those people from voting.”
The Government have been very clear that young people in secure accommodation will be eligible to vote. We are also aware that those in the 16 to 18-year-old category who are treated as care leavers will often be in what is known as move-on accommodation as they transition from a fostering placement or children’s home to semi-independent living.
What arrangements will the Government make to ensure that, in practice, under the terms of this legislation, those young people are not deprived of their ability to vote by virtue of moving around the country or simply lacking access to the service that they require, as opposed to being deprived of it by a deliberate decision of Parliament as part of the punishment inherent in a custodial sentence?
Samantha Dixon
The hon. Member makes an important point. The response to that is the declaration of the local connection; that must relate to an address with which the individual has a genuine connection, as set out in the Bill. For example, a person experiencing homelessness may register using the address of, or nearest to, a place where they spend a substantial amount of their time, such as a shelter or another place where they regularly stay. Similarly, a young person looked after by a local authority may register using a previous address or one connected to the local authority responsible for their care. I hope that answers the hon. Member’s point.
David Simmonds
I understand the Minister’s point in the sense that a young person can register to vote. My question is about the logistics of how the ballot is cast. One of the challenges for young people, particularly in the care leaving transition, can be the instability of placements.
Young people may move around to access the type of accommodation that they need, or they may be placed far from home to get them away from, for example, a drugs gang or a grooming gang that caused them to come into the care system in the first place. Therefore, they will find themselves in a position where, while they may wish to participate under this legislation, the logistics and practicalities of that may be different and, in practice, they may be deprived of the opportunity to vote. It may be a matter for those discussions between the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice, but it would be helpful to understand what practical arrangements have been put in place to ensure that, if the Government really want 16 and 17-year-olds to be able to vote, they can do so.
Samantha Dixon
The hon. Member raises an important point. We have to establish the principle in the first instance and, as we progress with the legislation, we can provide more detail about the practical arrangements. Clauses 4 and 5 establish the principle; we will have to come back to the detail of how we take that forward. It is a complex area, but it is essential that young people in the care of a local authority are not disenfranchised because of that.
Clause 5 is important to ensure that young people in the care of their families overseas, as they give service to our country, are treated fairly under the extended franchise.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Further provision about registration and participation in elections
Samantha Dixon
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 6, page 10, line 9, at end insert “and recall petitions”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 7.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 6 and 7.
Schedule 1.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 6 and schedule 1 consist of common-sense amendments to legislation, in line with the change to the voting age. While extending the vote to young people, the provisions align regulations about the age at which young people can act as a proxy, accompany voters to polling stations, act as a companion to a voter with a disability, and apply for a voter authority certificate.
Members may recall that clause 3 enables registration from the age of 14. Schedule 1 removes the requirement for electoral registration officers to conduct house-to-house inquiries and the ability to make telephone calls to under-16s. Further measures to safeguard young people are addressed in clauses 7 to 13. Electoral registration officers in Scotland and Wales will no longer be required to record when electors on their local register attain the age of 18, as there will no longer be a change in entitlement to vote at that age.
In addition, part 2 of schedule 1 sets up a transitional process for moving certain electors in Scotland and Wales from the local government register to the UK parliamentary register. As it stands, when the change to the voting age comes into effect, people under the age of 18 who are already registered to vote in Wales and Scotland might need to make an additional application to be added to the UK parliamentary electoral register. Electoral registration officers—EROs—however, already hold the information necessary to determine their eligibility to be registered as UK parliamentary electors. Part 2 of schedule 1 will enable EROs to add them directly across.
Members should be assured that EROs will be required to assess each individual’s eligibility, noting the differences between devolved and parliamentary elections, such as nationality requirements. By registering for devolved elections, those young people have taken steps to engage in our democratic processes, and that engagement should not be discouraged by requiring them to make another, identical application. The overall process will ensure simplicity for electors and a smooth transition, while reducing the administrative burden on EROs. It is a common-sense, transitional measure, done only at the point that our reserved votes at 16 measures take effect.
Government amendments 5 and 7 consist of consequential changes to legislation, in line with the change to the voting age. They are technical amendments, which will ensure that 16 and 17-year-old voters are included in calculating the threshold for recall petitions. They will have the right to vote in the election that a recall petition may trigger, so it is only right that they are included in such calculations.
In addition to those changes, Government amendment 6 removes the restriction that certain EU citizens on the local government register need to be 18 or over to give a notice of vacancy in the office of police and crime commissioner for a police area in Wales. The current provision exists because of the differences between the police and crime commissioner franchise and the local government franchise in Wales, and with the equalising of the voting age for these election types, the wording that is removed by this amendment is no longer needed. That brings the rights of those under the age of 18 who are registered to vote in line with other electors aged over 18, as intended with the extension of the franchise. I hope Members will accept these technical amendments, and agree that they should be made to the Bill.
Paul Holmes
It has been a while since I have done one of these Committees, Dr Allin-Khan, so forgive me if I do not say what I am talking to or anything like that. We are learning on the job, or I certainly am anyway.
The Minister emphasised that the Government amendments are technical, which is correct, and I will not challenge on or question her much about them. However, I want to ask a couple of questions about the clause’s aims in facilitating the inclusion of younger voters. We would argue or challenge that some of the provisions appear to be slightly inconsistent or insufficiently justified.
Allowing individuals aged 16 to act as companions to disabled voters and as proxy voters or to enter polling stations for certain purposes reflects an expansion of civic responsibility, which is another result of the principled argument about whether 16-year-olds should have the vote. I am not arguing against that principle, but about the physical manifestations of the change in direction. I would like to challenge the Minister by asking her to clarify why there is no guidance, training or clear rationale for those extra responsibilities for the volunteers working in elections departments across the country or for electoral registration officers and local authorities.
The provision raises a few concerns not only about the readiness of the person subject to the law change—the younger voter—but about whether our staff, EROs and the volunteers who sit in and do the various jobs at polling stations will be trained and given guidance in time to fully bring in the proposed changes. Will the Minister give us some clarification or reassurance that these changes will result in the people involved in the physical voting on the day at polling stations being given proper guidance, and that plenty of notice will be given to the volunteers who will have to implement the changes around the country?
Samantha Dixon
The short answer is yes. This is an extension of the arrangements with which EROs are most familiar, and the guidance that will be provided to them in advance of the proposals coming into effect will reflect the extension of the franchise. I suggest that EROs and our electoral administrators are very familiar with these issues, and it will simply be a matter of extending those arrangements to the newly enfranchised age group.
David Simmonds
I have another technical question to provide clarification for the Committee. We know that there are different rules for who is eligible to vote in local elections and in general elections—and council elections are imminent—and the Government website sets out those criteria. One of the consequences of this change will clearly be to extend the franchise to a large group of people who do not and cannot currently vote in UK general elections.
A question that may arise for an electoral registration officer is how to establish the age of, for example, an eligible Commonwealth citizen who arrives to register to vote, if their age is not clear. Will the Minister set out what guidance EROs might be expecting to spell out the evidence that might be sought to establish eligibility in terms of age if, for example, a citizen of Poland who has moved to the United Kingdom wishes at the age of 16 to join the electoral register for the upcoming council elections?
Samantha Dixon
Let me re-emphasise that EROs are familiar with providing such guidance already. We are simply extending the franchise to a different age group to enable them to participate in UK parliamentary elections and those other elections mentioned. The well-established route for providing that guidance will continue, extended to encompass the newly enfranchised in future elections. This is a well-trodden path, and I am happy to provide more details as required.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Further provision about registration of young voters etc
Amendments made: 6, in schedule 1, page 103, line 35, at end insert—
“Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011
14A In section 51 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (vacancy in the office of police and crime commissioner for a police area in Wales), in subsection (6C)(a)(ii) omit “, who has attained the age of 18”.”.
This amendment removes the restriction that certain EU citizens, who are registered in a register of local government electors, need to be 18 or over to give a notice of vacancy in the office of police and crime commissioner for a police area in Wales.
Amendment 7, in schedule 1, page 103, line 35, at end insert—
“Recall of MPs Act 2015
14B (1) The Recall of MPs Act 2015 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 14 (determination of whether recall petition successful), in subsection (3), for “18” substitute “16”.
(3) In section 22 (interpretation), in subsection (3)(b)—
(a) in the words before sub-paragraph (i), for “18” substitute “16”;
(b) in that sub-paragraph, for “18” substitute “16”.”.—(Samantha Dixon.)
This amendment includes 16 and 17 year olds who are registered in a register of parliamentary electors in the calculation of the threshold to be reached to determine whether a recall petition is successful.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7
Prohibition of registration officers disclosing information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 7 provides for the protection of information of individuals who register to vote in advance of reaching voting age. As noted in discussion on clause 3, the Bill provides for people to register to vote from the age of 14, so that they are ready to cast their first vote at the age of 16. This arrangement carries significant benefits, but must be accompanied with due provisions for protecting the data of these particularly young people.
The clause provides that protection by explicitly preventing electoral registration officers from publishing, supplying or otherwise disclosing the registration information of anyone under the age of 16. Registration information is defined in the clause as entries on the electoral register, including both domestic and overseas electors, and also records of absent voting arrangements.
These protections will ensure that people who wish to register to vote in advance of attaining voting age can do so safe in the knowledge that the data they provide to electoral registration officers when they register will be duly protected.
I should note that there are specific, limited circumstances in which sharing the data will be possible. These are provided for in the subsequent clauses, and I will turn to those momentarily. However, clause 7 sets out the key principle that the data of young people aged 14 and 15 warrant special protection.
Clause 8 sets out five specific circumstances in which the prohibitions put in place by clause 7 do not apply. In other words, it sets out limited scenarios in which EROs may share the registration information of 14 and 15-year-olds. These provisions are very limited in number. As I list them, I trust hon. Members will agree that each of them is proportionate and justified.
Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering clauses 8 to 14 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I have covered clause 7, so if Members will indulge me, I will turn to clause 8.
Clause 8 sets out five specific circumstances in which the prohibitions put in place by clause 7 do not apply. The first circumstance in which the registration information of an individual under the age of 16 may be shared is if that disclosure is necessary for registration or the conduct of an election, referendum, recall petition or other poll. That simply allows electoral administrators to carry out their work.
An example in action would be an electoral registration officer using the data of a 14 or 15-year-old to conduct the annual canvass. The canvass would help ensure that the young person in question is still accurately registered at the address electoral administrators have on file. Another illustration of the purpose of this provision would relate to the preparation of a poll. For example, clerks at polling stations must have an extract of the electoral register for electors who will vote at that polling station. There may be circumstances in which that extract is prepared in advance of polling day, and this provision allows it to include individuals who will turn 16 on polling day, but who at the moment of the preparation of the extract are still 15.
The second circumstance provides that the registration information of an individual under the age of 16 may be shared in accordance with one of a limited number of supply enactments—specifically, those listed in clause 11. A supply enactment is a provision to allow either the entire register or the relevant part of the register to be supplied to a certain individual or organisation. The specific supply enactments where the disclosure of the registration information of under-16s is permitted are listed in clause 11, and as such I will discuss them in detail during the debate on clause 11.
However, this clause applies two crucial limits on disclosure of the registration information of 14 and 15-year-olds as part of a relevant supply enactment, as I will now explain. First, disclosure under a relevant supply enactment may be made only for purposes relating to an election at which a given person will be entitled to vote. That will allow the information of individuals under the age of 16 to be protected, while also allowing individuals who will be old enough to vote in specific polls to be included in campaigning activities relating to that poll. For example, it will allow 15-year-olds who will be 16 in time for a given poll to be sent campaigning materials relating to that poll.
Secondly, there is a limit on disclosure under relevant supply enactments that requires that such disclosures must not contain information that would allow the date of birth of the young person in question to be learned. That provides an extra safeguard against the disclosure of any information about young people that is not absolutely necessary for the legitimate activities in question. For example, candidates have no need to know the exact age of a young person beyond the fact that they will be 16 on the date of a poll, so they will not receive such information.
The third circumstance in which the registration information of under-16s may be disclosed under clause 8 is where such information is necessary for the purpose of a criminal investigation relating to an electoral offence. The provisions in the Bill prevent under-16s from being fined for failing to register to vote, but there are other electoral offences that rightly apply regardless of age group. Those include offences such as a fraudulent application to register to vote, or the offence of personation, where someone attempts to steal another’s vote. Such serious offences should be investigated no matter who commits them, and this clause allows for those criminal investigations to take place unimpeded.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Minister outlined the criminal charge of personation. Does she think that watering down photographic ID and using bank cards for identification will make it easier or harder for someone to be convicted of electoral personation?
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I will return to that point when we debate the relevant clauses.
Samantha Dixon
The fourth circumstance allows the registration information of 14 and 15-year-olds to be disclosed to MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. That is the extension of a standard provision allowing our intelligence agencies to use electoral registration data, if necessary.
The final circumstance allows the registration information of an under-16 to be shared with an individual who has been appointed to act as that young person’s proxy voter. I am sure it is obvious that such information sharing is naturally helpful to allow the proxy voter to carry out their role.
It is important to note that three of the five circumstances in which clause 8 permits disclosure of information have further restrictions placed on them by clause 12, which I will discuss in detail shortly. Furthermore, the relevant supply enactments—the fourth circumstance—already contain restrictions on use and further disclosure. Overall, the Government consider these exceptions to the prohibition to be appropriate and proportionate in allowing young people’s registration information to be shared when, and only when, absolutely necessary.
Clause 9 provides for the way in which the data of 14 and 15-year-olds should be handled in Scotland and Wales, where the UK Government have responsibility for UK parliamentary elections, but the Scottish and Welsh Governments have devolved responsibility for local elections and elections to the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru. Where individuals in Scotland and Wales are eligible to take part in both reserved and devolved polls, their electoral records are held by electoral registration officers on a combined register.
That is a very sensible and efficient approach to managing electoral registers, but in the context of the data protection provisions put in place by clauses 8 to 16, that approach presents a challenge—namely, what should happen if devolved legislation prohibits an entry from being disclosed, but reserved legislation allows it? The Government are committed to upholding and respecting our devolution settlements, and the clause is designed to do exactly that. Devolved electoral registers and reserved electoral registers should be considered to be separate in principle. It is only a matter of practice that they happen to be held in one place.
Clause 9 provides that, where electoral registration information is held in a combined register, if clause 7 of the Bill prohibits the disclosure of information, but devolved legislation allows it, disclosure of that information is permitted. The clause also provides that if both devolved and reserved legislation permit disclosure, but only devolved legislation places restrictions on the use of that data—for example, a restriction on its onward disclosure—those restrictions do apply. The clause strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the information of those who have not yet reached voting age, and respecting the rightful responsibility that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have over their devolved elections.
I turn now to clause 10, which is a mirror image of clause 9. Whereas clause 9 ensures that the Bill works with and does not conflict with devolved legislation, clause 10 is designed to ensure that devolved legislation does not conflict with this legislation. Specifically, clause 10 provides that, where electoral registration information is held in a combined register, if relevant parts of devolved legislation prohibit disclosure of information, but clause 7 of the Bill allows it, disclosure of that information is permitted. The clause also provides that, if both devolved and reserved legislation permit disclosure, but only reserved legislation places restrictions on the use of that data—for example, a restriction on its onward disclosure—those restrictions do apply.
Taken together, clauses 9 and 10 accommodate and respect the importance of devolved responsibility, while equally ensuring that the UK Government are not constrained by the policy decisions made by the devolved Governments when legislating for our own elections.
I turn now to clause 11, which is a further part of the package of measures in the Bill designed to protect the information of 14 and 15-year-olds who register to vote ahead of reaching voting age. Specifically, clause 11 builds on clause 8, which sets out five circumstances in which the prohibition put in place by clause 7 on sharing the registration information of those under the age of 16 does not apply. Members will recall that the second circumstance listed in clause 8 provided that the registration information of an individual under the age of 16 may be shared to comply with one of a limited number of supply enactments. Clause 11 lists four supply enactments, which I will list shortly.
Before I do, it is important to note that there are already restrictions on what individuals who receive information via a supply enactment may do with that information. I also remind hon. Members of the two strict limitations that clause 8 puts on disclosure under these supply enactments. First, disclosure under a supply enactment listed in clause 11 may be made only for purposes relating to an election, referendum or recall petition at which a given person will be entitled to vote or sign. That will allow information of individuals under the age of 16 to be protected, while also allowing individuals who will be old enough to vote in specific polls to be included in campaigning activities related to that poll. Secondly, disclosure under a supply enactment listed in the clause must not contain information that would allow the date of birth of the young person in question to be learned.
Noting those key restrictions, I will now talk through the four types of supply enactment under which the registration information of an individual under the age of 16 may be shared. The first allows records of postal and proxy voters under 16 to be shared on request with a candidate. The second allows information of individuals under 16 to be shared with the Electoral Commission. The third allows information of individuals under 16 to be shared with the Boundary Commission.
The fourth allows information of individuals under 16 to be shared with candidates upon request or, in respect of the recall of an MP, that MP, political parties and official campaigners. Noting again the important restrictions placed on disclosure in these circumstances by clause 8, these provisions make it possible for individuals who are not yet of voting age, but who will be on the actual day of a specific poll, to be appropriately involved in the electoral process in the run-up to that election.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Is the Minister confident that when we collect all this data, and the Boundary Commission and Electoral Commission get it, they will be able to analyse it to make sure that all constituencies at the next general election fall within their parameters for how many electors each MP needs to represent, to make sure that none is too far outside that boundary?
Samantha Dixon
Yes, I am confident that the Electoral Commission will be able to perform that task, and I am sure that we will come back to those issues during line-by-line scrutiny.
As with the other clauses in this part of the Bill, the provisions maintain close protection on the data of 14 and 15-year-olds, allowing disclosure of that information only when absolutely necessary and appropriate.
Let me turn now to clause 12. In my explanation of clause 8, which provides for five circumstances in which the disclosure of under-16s’ information is permitted, I noted that clause 12 places further restrictions on three of those circumstances. Those restrictions apply to the following circumstances where clause 8 allows disclosure of information. The first is where information is sent to someone for the purposes of electoral registration or conduct duties. The second is where information is sent to someone for the purposes of criminal investigation into an electoral offence. The third is where information is sent to a person who has been nominated as that elector’s proxy.
Where information has been shared in one of those three circumstances, the clause prevents the person who receives it from passing it on to anyone else. The clause also provides that someone who passes the information on to another person in one of those circumstances is guilty of a criminal offence punishable by a fine. As with the five clauses that precede it, clause 12 serves to ensure that the personal information of 14 and 15-year-olds is accessed and shared only when doing so is necessary and justified.
Clause 13 is the penultimate clause in the group, which I am sure Members are glad to hear. The purpose of the clause is to provide flexibility in the regime that provides these protections, by making it possible for regulations to be made to adjust the protections. That might become necessary, for example, if new types of election or referenda are created in future, which might necessitate new groups having access to the data. Given the number and variety of changes the Bill proposes to our electoral system, such flexibility is simply good planning and avoids the risk of needing an emergency Bill to be rushed through Parliament should changes be needed. I immediately reassure hon. Members, however, that the scope of the power created by the clause is carefully limited and subject to important scrutiny requirements, as one would expect.
The regulations that may be made using the power in the clause can be divided into five types. First, the power may be used to permit the disclosure of the electoral registration information of under-16s to additional recipients beyond those provided for in clauses 8, 9 and 11. Secondly, it may be used to set out the purposes for which such information, once shared, may be used, and to attach further restrictions. Such restrictions may include whether that information can be shared with further parties.
Thirdly, the power may be used to amend clauses 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14. However, the amendments that may be made are subject to restrictions, which I will come to shortly. Fourthly, it may be used to create new offences relating to the disclosure of 14 and 15-year-olds’ electoral registration information, which are punishable by a fine, but not imprisonment. Fifthly, it may be used to apply the same restrictions that apply to disclosure by registration officers and those who currently assist them to any new categories of person who might be involved with the preparation of electoral registers and lists.
Three important restrictions are placed on that power, ensuring that the flexibility it provides to ensure our electoral system remains fit for purpose as times change does not come at the cost of appropriate scrutiny. The first and most important restriction is that although the types of information protected by clause 7 may be added to using this power, the categories of protected information cannot be reduced from what is in the Bill at the point it becomes law. That ensures that the type of data protected by this clause cannot be chipped away.
Secondly, before this power is used, the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission and anyone else that the Secretary of State feels is appropriate. Finally, regulations exercising this power are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. I hope hon. Members will agree that the regulation-making power that this clause will create strikes the appropriate balance between appropriate legislative scrutiny and crucial flexibility to allow our electoral system to respond to external changes.
Clause 14 is an interpretation clause. It simply serves to define terms used in clauses 7 to 13. None of the definitions presented in this clause is unusual or controversial. They include terms such as “voters register”, “local government election” and “recall petition” and are included simply to provide clarity and precision to the previous seven clauses of this Bill. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the Minister for giving us an extensive and very in-depth description of what those technical clauses—7 to 14—outline. I cannot claim to do those clauses credit in the way the Minister has. I will just briefly ask a number of questions on those technical clauses and then resume my seat—which I am sure many Members will be pleased to hear.
The Minister has outlined these various technical clauses, and the Opposition are not concerned that they might be controversial. As I said earlier, the issue of principle rather than pragmatism in re-engineering a system to where we basically currently are to cover the people that are being enfranchised is not controversial. However, there is a slight complication that could come out of some of these changes relating to overseas voters. We know that they are not really catered for in the Bill.
We heard a lot of evidence in the Bill Committee that a number of overseas voters are essentially disenfranchised. Looking at younger overseas voters and the precepts of these clauses applying to 14 and 15-year-olds, in some countries there may be a social media ban, for example. Similarly, in some countries it would not be easy for a candidate to access the information of people who will be eligible to vote at 16, but who are not covered by these clauses for the preparation at 14 and 15. Opposition Members would argue that this could have unintended consequences for a candidate’s ability to secure that data and approach those people as if they were living within the United Kingdom. I ask the Minister to reflect on that and whether it would be, not dangerous, but an added disincentive for an overseas voter to engage and vote within the British or UK political process.
On clause 13, as with various other Bills that the Government have put forward, I am concerned by the House’s affirmative procedure giving the Minister or the Secretary of State a huge amount of power to unilaterally bring in changes. I do not think that it makes for good democracy or scrutiny of legislation. We discussed this countless times during the Committee of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, where the Secretary of State will be given the power to make a decision through the affirmative procedure via secondary legislation, and individual Members of this House across all parties—but especially minor parties—cannot scrutinise that legislation in the way in which they should be able to. We all know how statutory instruments work in this place. Those Committees are probably among the briefer meetings that Members in this House have.
The Minister needs to reflect on the fact that the scrutiny and delivery of many of this Government’s pieces of legislation has not always achieved the right balance or tipped the scales in the right way. Members should have the opportunity to scrutinise properly and make changes to secondary legislation that the Secretary of State is empowered to bring. I ask her to look at that again and consider whether there is a better way. I understand the need to consult the Electoral Commission, but it is this place that makes the legislation and it is this place that should approve that legislation in a proper and thorough manner. I do not think that making the secondary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure is the right way to go.
However, we will not oppose any of the clauses, which, as Members can tell by my varied and wide-ranging speech, are very technical. I hope that the Minister will address my questions.
Samantha Dixon
I note the concerns of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. We are not proposing changes to the voting rights of overseas electors, but I note the complexity around the handling of the attainers situation. None the less, electoral registration officers currently handle overseas voter attainers quite effectively, so we can be confident that, using the guidance from the Electoral Commission, they will continue to be able to do so.
On the powers that clause 13 may introduce in the future, if we look at the legislation that has been introduced over time—including during those dark periods of history before we were all elected—we can tell that our democratic system changes. This clause will address changes that we have not yet envisaged; if we had, believe me, they would be on the face of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Duty to raise awareness and provide assistance: Great Britain
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 16 stand part.
New clause 44—Report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16- and 17- year-olds—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16- and 17- year-olds under this Act.
(2) The report published under subsection (1) must include consideration of proposals to—
(a) promote awareness among relevant persons of the extension of the franchise; and
(b) make any necessary changes required to strengthen civic education in schools and educational settings available to relevant persons.
(3) For the purposes of this section, relevant persons are children and young people who—
(a) are enfranchised as a result of section (1) of this Act; or
(b) are entitled to be registered as a parliamentary or local government elector before reaching voting age as a result of section (3) of this Act.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay the report before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Government to report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, through promoting awareness or making changes required to strengthen civic education.
Samantha Dixon
Before I begin, I want to respond to an important point that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner raised earlier today in the debate on clause 2. It was in relation to ensuring that young people in secure children’s homes are supported to access their rights to vote. I committed to answering that point, and am happy to do so now. It is important to note that such individuals will be able to apply to vote by post. Of course, individuals in such circumstances may find it confusing or complex to use the electoral process for the first time. These next two clauses, which were designed in close collaboration with the Department for Education, will provide support for individuals who are in precisely the circumstances set out by the hon. Member.
Clause 15 will ensure that a crucial layer of support is provided by local authorities to young people who may particularly benefit from assistance when registering to vote. This clause creates a twofold duty for local authorities in Great Britain with regard to certain young people. They must both raise awareness of the arrangements for registration as a UK parliamentary elector and provide assistance to register as a parliamentary elector. The young people who will benefit from this duty are those who are looked after by the local authority, or those who are eligible for continuing care from a local authority. The latter group are sometimes referred to as care leavers.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation in response to my earlier questions. Clause 15 says that a local authority
“must take the steps the authority considers necessary”.
One of the challenges with that is that young people will be placed in different areas of the country. The Bill gives rise to the possibility of significant inconsistency. One local authority may take the view that there need to be special arrangements for the young person to be taken to the polling station to cast their vote, or that particular arrangements are necessary for a postal vote to be exercised by someone whose station is further afield. Another authority may take the view that simply giving them a briefing note explaining it would be sufficient. Both of those sound like they would meet the test set out within the Bill.
Can the Minister set out what guidance there may be, either from her Department or from the Department for Education, to ensure that there is a degree of consistency, so that there is equality of access for young people in the care system? That is especially important where the placement they may be in is effectively controlled by a third party. For example, how will there be appropriate measures in place to ensure that a young person in foster care—particularly given the “Staying Put” policy introduced with cross-party support by the last Government, which enables those young people to stay as care leavers with a family with whom they have been fostered—has an equality and consistency of access to both the registration process and the physical ability to cast their vote?
Samantha Dixon
The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone who is entitled to vote should be able, encouraged and supported to do so. Different authorities will have different approaches that will arise in different circumstances. Our provisions allow local authorities to take the most suitable approach when assisting people to get on the register. To address the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, while the guidance will be national, the application will be appropriate to local circumstances.
Paul Holmes
As we have heard, the clause establishes a duty for local authorities in Great Britain to raise awareness and provide assistance to certain young people— particularly those who are looked after by the local authority, and those who are eligible for continuing care—in registering to vote. While the intention to support young voters is commendable, we believe that the clause has several limitations. Not only is its scope narrowly defined, but it is also vaguely defined by the words “raise awareness” and “provide assistance”. Notwithstanding what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, I want to expand on that ever so slightly.
As the clause is narrowly defined, it excludes other groups that may face barriers to registration, such as the homeless youth, young carers or those in unstable housing. The clause places significant responsibility on local authorities to determine and implement the steps necessary to fulfil the duty. While this should not be a requirement in legislation, there has also not been any signal or indication from Ministers of any Department that additional funding, staffing or guidance has been considered, which risks creating an inconsistent application process across different areas.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned earlier, we have both been lead members for children and young people’s services. It is not insulting to hard-working local authorities, lead members and officers across the country to say that there can be varying interpretations of the legal duties placed on them—whether they relate to vulnerable people in care or local authority children’s homes. Can the Minister provide reassurance that she will ensure that local authorities across the country will follow a universal interpretation? Due to the narrow scope of the people that the clause identifies, as well as the quite vague language of “provide assistance” and “raise awareness”, it risks creating a patchwork quilt across the UK and a variation in interpretation, which needs to be tightened up.
The Opposition are not opposed to the clause; it is admirable and does what is necessary. However, it needs to be tighter so that people responsible for implementing this legislation can do so in the best way possible, notwithstanding the fact that council and local authority officers dealing with young people do so every day throughout the country.
The limited resources may struggle to reach all eligible young people, particularly those who move between authority areas, or who are placed outside their home authority for extended periods. Additionally, the clause does not include measurable targets or deadlines, making it difficult to assess the effectiveness of awareness-raising and assistance efforts. Finally, the type of support provided is narrowly focused on registration itself, and does not address broader barriers, such as literacy, digital access or understanding of the electoral process. The geographical limitation of the clause to Great Britain also creates inconsistencies across the UK.
Overall, while clause 15 represents a positive step towards increasing voter registration—I hope the Minister will speak later about raising awareness and enabling younger people through the education system—it focuses only on registration of vulnerable young people. Its narrow scope, reliance on local authority capacity and clear lack of performance measures may limit its practical impact. I am looking for some reassurance from the Minister that those issues have been looked at, and I hope she can alleviate some of the Opposition’s concerns.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. The Liberal Democrats support clauses 15 and 16. I will speak to new clause 44, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. Her explanatory statement is clear that it
“requires the Government to report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, through promoting awareness or making changes required to strengthen civic education”.
Both the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner made some good points about ensuring there is not the postcode lottery that we are in danger of. I look forward to their support for this new clause.
As I said earlier, the Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of votes at 16 but enfranchisement must be meaningful. Not only does the Bill make provisions for votes at 16 and 17, but it allows for pre-registration on the electoral roll from age 14. We rightly support that, but if we are asking teenagers to enter the democratic system at that age, we must consider how we support these young people to be properly informed and prepared.
New clause 44 is modest. It does not delay enfranchisement or obstruct the Bill. It simply asks the Secretary of State to report within 12 months on how the extension of the franchise will be supported in practice. Civic education should never mean telling young people what to think. We want our young people to understand institutions and elections and to have media and democratic literacy. We need a joined-up strategy because we do not want a postcode lottery for civic education. Some schools and local authorities may do civic education really well and others may not. Young people across the country should not have significantly different levels of preparation for participation, depending on where they happen to live or study. I would include those who are in the care of a local authority very strongly in that. National enfranchisement reform deserves a national implementation plan. In the modern world, media literacy is very important alongside basic democratic literacy.
The Bill already recognises that practical support matters. Clauses 15 and 16 are important because they make clear that simply extending a legal right is not in itself enough. Placing duties on public bodies to raise awareness of voting rights and to assist certain young people with registration is a welcome step, and we support that principle. But if we are to create a new franchise, it is right to think about whether those who are newly franchised are able to exercise it. That is why new clause 44 is reasonable—it follows that principle.
Clauses 15 and 16 are welcome, and we recognise the necessity of targeting relevant young people, but it is yet to be determined which part of the system will take the lead on preparing young people for participation—schools, local authorities or national bodies. The new clause asks the Government to set out in much more detail how that responsibility will be approached.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. I rise to speak briefly in support of new clause 44, which, as the hon. Member has set out, is a very reasonable and modest proposal. As I said, I very strongly support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, but it is crucial that investment in developing political literacy and supporting civic education goes alongside that. That is a message I have heard from young people themselves; from those who have come to Parliament to campaign for this, and those in my constituency who have also called for this.
I strongly urge Ministers to make sure they take this crucial opportunity to invest in developing trusted and accessible spaces where young people can explore political ideas, through the formal education system and other structures and spaces that work with young people. The role of youth organisations and youth workers in supporting democratic participation is crucial to remember.
We need to do everything possible to build young people’s confidence in navigating democratic processes and in forming their own political ideas. We need to give them support in navigating an increasingly complex political landscape of political information, misinformation and disinformation. That civic education part is a crucial component of, and complement to, the extension of the franchise itself. New clause 44 absolutely strikes the right balance here. This is not about delaying the extension of the franchise. It is simply about saying, on the face of the Bill, that we recognise the importance of civic education alongside the extension of the franchise, and that we ensure there is transparency and sufficient attention given to developing that.
Samantha Dixon
New clause 44, tabled by the hon. Member for Guildford, would require the Government to publish a report regarding steps to support the implementation of the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, discussed on Second Reading. The report would cover proposals to increase awareness of the franchise change among 14 to 17-year-olds and changes to civic education for that age group, to support the franchise change. That report would be required to be published within 12 months of this Bill becoming an Act.
As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, extending the franchise is not simply “job done”. The Government are clear that young people must be supported and prepared to exercise their democratic rights. The new clause was clearly designed to ensure that the Government are as good as their word on this point, and it is excellent to see that hon. Members share our view on the importance of effective democratic engagement and education in delivering votes at 16. However, while the intention of the new clause is laudable, the Government do not believe that this is the right way to approach it.
On the part of the new clause concerning voter awareness, the Government will be playing an active role in this space, but will not be the only organisation to do so. The Electoral Commission, local and devolved governments, the electoral sector and civil society organisations will all be part of a team effort to spread awareness. A report from the Government on their proposals would be a partial picture at best. It would also not be right for the Government to speak on behalf of other organisations’ plans, particularly those from the Electoral Commission, whose independence from the Government is crucial.
Regarding the education-related limb of the new clause, last November the Department for Education committed to making citizenship compulsory in primary schools and to publish revised programmes of study to ensure all pupils receive a grounding in topics including democracy, government and law. It is for the Department for Education to lead this work; I have worked alongside colleagues in the Department, and I know they will be diligent in providing updates on the progress of its work.
Dr Chowns
I am sorry; I may have misunderstood, but is the Minister arguing that she does not support new clause 44 because a range of organisations will be taking part in action to raise awareness of the extended franchise and, therefore, it would not be right for the Government to provide a report only on what they were doing? That is not my reading of new clause 44, which asks the Government to do a report on proposals overall to support raising awareness and civic education. By definition, the Government are probably best placed to have that overview of all proposals, including their own, and those of the Electoral Commission and any number of other organisations, so that we can understand what is being done to support young people as they take on this new democratic responsibility.
Samantha Dixon
The Government’s view is that such a report would be partial; it would only cover the work that the Government are doing and we could not speak to other organisations and their work in this arena.
Dr Chowns
My reading of the clause is that it does not have to be partial: it calls for a report on all proposals. Therefore, perhaps the Government’s interpretation of the new clause is unnecessarily narrow. Might the Minister commit to going away and reflecting on whether this could actually be compatible and a helpful contribution to supporting the civic education of young people?
Samantha Dixon
This endeavour is an ongoing task; it is not a single point in time, which is what a report would reflect upon. The Government will move forward in partnership across the wide sector in public life, to continue to improve the education of young people. For that reason, we do not feel that the new clause is necessary.
Paul Holmes
I am pretty agnostic about new clause 44 because I think it is quite vague, but I understand the reason it has been tabled. Earlier I outlined a concern that I do not believe the education system is quite yet able to make sure that our younger people get the education that they should have before they vote in a national election, notwithstanding the fact that the education system needs to be impartial.
The Minister will know that some types of schools, such as academies, are not necessarily subject to the national curriculum. The legislation in these clauses is quite vague, as I mentioned. I am not sure that there is concrete action from the Minister’s Department and from the Department for Education on a cross-ministerial committee or something, to make sure that the two sides are being matched up to implement this legislation.
Will the Minister try to allay some of my concerns, and those of other hon. Members—perhaps the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, and the hon. Member for Guildford, who tabled the new clause—about whether the education system will be well equipped, and whether all schools are going to be required to prepare young people for the new duty that they are going to be given?
Samantha Dixon
Yes, I can offer hon. Members that reassurance. I have worked with DFE colleagues to consider the independent curriculum and assessment review. That review will take onboard democracy, government and law being part of the curriculum going forward. As I mentioned, citizenship will also be introduced in primary schools. As we go forward, the wide collaboration of not just this Government but devolved Governments, local authorities and others will support schools, colleges and youth groups to roll out practical civic education. I mentioned that this is not a singular act but an ongoing task. A report of a proposed activity offered a year after the Bill becomes law will be little more than a snapshot of a much longer-term programme of work. For that reason, the Government do not support the new clause.
Lisa Smart
I very much welcome the Minister’s comments about how we need a whole-of-society approach to ensuring that young people are equipped to exercise their right to vote. She talked about devolved Administrations, schools and others. There are non-governmental organisations and charities working on that approach: Shout Out UK and My Life My Say are two really good examples.
The Minister is right that this is an ongoing process, but the extension of the franchise will be a one-off. There will be a single point in time when the franchise is extended to 16 and 17-year-olds. The new clause, which would provide for a report after 12 months, has been tabled to ensure that the necessary work is done to look at what has happened and what needs to happen to make sure that our young people are properly equipped and empowered to use their vote.
Samantha Dixon
I accept that the hon. Member has a deep appreciation of civic education. However, we feel that a report after 12 months adds little value to the ongoing work that needs to continue over a number of years and a whole cycle of electoral events.
Samantha Dixon
I do not think that I would because it would be a bureaucratic exercise, whereas the work needs to focus outwards. The scrutiny will come from within Parliament, and from within devolved Governments, so I will not accept the new clause as it stands.
Samantha Dixon
I was going to come to the points the hon. Gentleman had raised.
Paul Holmes
I want to add another one, if that is possible. The Minister is being most generous, and she has shown utter determination not to accept new clause 44. Does she think there is merit in reviewing how this new enfranchisement will work, perhaps through existing mechanisms when there is a review of how a general election has been conducted? I know that is not every year, but when organisations look at voting and participation rates and attitude surveys at or after a general election, is there an opportunity to legislate for a review, at the end of each Parliament or the start of a new one, into the attitudes and voting habits of those new electors, as part of a wider review of behaviour in the last general election?
Samantha Dixon
With respect to hon. Members who are clearly thinking on their feet as we debate this issue, I point out that a review of every general election is done by the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is accountable to Parliament. As it has been involved in this Bill and the legislation that falls from it, I am sure that it will be particularly interested in this approach to the extension of enfranchisement.
Finally, I turn to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley’s point regarding children in care and care leavers. I am pleased to join Opposition Members in declaring I was as a former council leader with corporate responsibility for young people in local authority care. I am acutely aware of their needs and the additional support they require. I have worked with council officers who routinely assist young people, particularly care leavers, in registering to vote and supporting them in the appropriate way as they do vote. I feel that electoral registration officers, with their unique roles within local authorities, will amply be able to support looked-after children and care leavers to exercise their right to vote. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Registration without an application
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 17, page 23, line 23, at end insert—
“(f) if the person’s existence has been properly verified using three separate datasets used for national and local data matching.”
This amendment requires the registration officer to register certain electors only when their existence has been verified through three different datasets.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clauses 18 and 19 stand part.
Schedule 2.
Amendment 27, in clause 80, page 100, line 15, at end insert—
“(1A) Sections 17, 18 and 19 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State has published an independent review into the steps necessary to avoid non-qualifying EU or Commonwealth voters incorrectly being automatically added to the electoral roll.”
This amendment would prevent the provisions on automatic voter registration coming into force until the Secretary of State had published an independent review of the steps necessary to avoid non-qualifying EU or Commonwealth voters being incorrectly automatically added to the electoral roll.
Paul Holmes
I put on record my thanks to the officials in the Box for making that last set of amendments discussable, because they were so technical. We had an interesting debate, none the less.
We come to the crucial clauses that relate to automatic voter registration. I will speak on behalf of the official Opposition to amendments 26 and 27, which stand in my name. Automatic registration, which has been a clear aim of this Government from the beginning, would contradict the whole approach behind individual electoral registration—that individuals are responsible for registering and that there should be proper checks to ensure that the right people are eligible to be on the electoral roll. Automatic registration will result in more inaccurate entries and opens the door to electoral fraud, undoing the improvements delivered by individual registration.
Individual registration was implemented to stop fraudulent electoral registration, to ensure a more accurate register with fewer errors, and to remove the outdated concept that heads of household, often men, could decide who should be on the electoral roll. We argue that automatic registration would undermine those reforms. Automatic voter registration would lead to less accurate electoral registers, especially of people who have moved recently. Registration by algorithm may add people to electoral rolls who do not live in the area because of out-of-date entries on other databases; it might also add people who have a residence but are not eligible to vote, such as certain second home owners, unqualified Commonwealth voters and so on.
Lewis Cocking
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I support Opposition amendments 26 and 27 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, but I want to outline my concerns about automatic voter registration.
I think the way electors currently register themselves to vote is perfectly fine and works well across the United Kingdom, but if the Government are to push forward with automatic voter registration, they must make sure it happens all across the country at the same time for the same general election; otherwise there will be serious consequences. For example, I have two councils—Broxbourne and East Hertfordshire—that are in charge of their own electoral rolls for their own council area, but both cover my constituency. Let us say that Ministers decide to do auto-enrolment by council area, and that one of my council areas gets picked, but the other one does not. In a general election campaign, some of my electors would have been automatically enrolled and some not. That will matter. If the election is close, can that be challenged in the courts? Is it fair in a democracy? I do not think Ministers have thought through that automatic voter registration needs to happen everywhere at the same time.
The Government could say they will have pilot areas of automatic voter registration on the basis of council elections, and have automatic voter registration across a whole district for its council election, but not in the neighbouring district for its council election. That would be perfectly fair, because everybody within the same council boundary would be on the same electoral list and have the same rights to vote as everybody else. Unless this all happens at the same time for the next general election, there is a real danger of creating two groups of electors across the country.
As has been mentioned, this will affect the next boundary commission review, which is due to take place after the next general election. There will be some constituencies where auto-enrolment has happened and some where it has not, which will affect where the boundary commission draws the lines for the general election after next.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am not trying to trip the hon. Gentleman up; I am just genuinely curious to understand this. Is his contention that having mandatory automatic enrolment will increase the number of people who are registered? [Interruption.] I see the shadow Minister shaking his head. If that is not the contention, and it is not the case that auto-enrolment would increase the number of people being registered, in what sense does the hon. Member for Broxbourne think that this would create two different populations?
Lewis Cocking
Some people will be automatically enrolled who have chosen, under the current system, not to be on the electoral roll, but it is a question of fairness. If we are not having that across the country, all at the same time, it will create an unfair election result. As I understand it, it will be up to Ministers to choose whether they do it by age, by location or by demographic. If everyone is not enrolled at the same time, one could arguably gerrymander, because one could pick people based on who they are likely to vote for at the general election.
I do not think we need automatic enrolment, but if the Government are going to push forward with it, they could at least say, “We are going to make the next generation fair in terms of auto-enrolment, and we are going to do it for everybody, all at the same time, across the country for the next general election.” If the Government are worried about capacity to do that, I suggest that what is needed is more time. The Electoral Commission might say that it needs more time to do it, so it would have to happen at the next general election after that. As I have said, they could do pilots based on council elections, as long as the whole authority is covered by that pilot.
David Simmonds
Does my hon. Friend recall the evidence that we heard about the pilots in Wales? Auto-enrolment was implemented, and when that data was verified, a significant number of voters fell off who should never have been on the roll in the first place. That indicates that there is a risk that auto-enrolment distorts the electoral position at local authority or parliamentary constituency level by adding people who are not eligible to vote. It creates two risks: one is, as my hon. Friend has described, boundaries being drawn in a way that does not allocate people’s votes equally; another is that people will be offered the chance the vote when they are not eligible to participate in that election.
Lewis Cocking
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why Opposition amendments 26 and 27 are very important, because they go some way—not the whole way, but some way—to mitigating what he has just outlined.
Dr Chowns
It might be helpful if I remind the Committee of what the Electoral Commission itself says:
“Automated voter registration has the potential to significantly improve levels of accuracy and completeness of the registers and help ensure people can vote in future elections… Significant progress should be made on implementing forms of automated registration before the next UK general election… Pilots in Wales last year show how effective automatic registration can be.”
I am a little worried that, inadvertently, a false impression of the opinion of the Electoral Commission has been given.
Lewis Cocking
I am arguing that if we are going to do automatic enrolment, it should be for everybody, all at the same time, across the country. As I have pointed out, one could do pilots within council areas, as long as everyone in the whole area is being enrolled at the same time. I have given a number of examples.
In my constituency of Broxbourne, I have two registration authorities, so it could be that at a general election some people within the same constituency are auto-enrolled while others are not. I do not believe that is fair. I said at the start of this that I think the current arrangements for registering to vote in this country are perfectly fine, and that people have a choice to register or not. If someone says, “I do not wish to register to vote,” that is their choice. That is up to the individual.
Dr Chowns
If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will cite once more evidence from the Electoral Commission, which does not agree with him that the current system is fine. The Electoral Commission says that evidence from its research shows that
“as many as 8 million people across the UK are not correctly registered to vote”.
That is a huge proportion—a huge disenfranchisement. The Electoral Commission says:
“Introducing more automated forms of registration would remove barriers to voting and make it easier for people to register and vote.”
Does the hon. Member not think we should listen to the Electoral Commission?
Lewis Cocking
Some of those 8 million people may have chosen not to be on the electoral roll. Would the hon. Lady like to stand in a constituency where half of her electors are auto-enrolled and the other half are not? What are the consequences of that if the election is very close? Will it be taken through the courts?
Lisa Smart
The Liberal Democrats are in favour of automatic voter registration; it is a long-standing commitment of ours. As such, we support clauses 17 to 19, and we oppose amendments 26 and 27.
Some Opposition Members said they feel that the current system is doing okay and expressed satisfaction with it. I disagree. It is not okay that 65% of private renters are registered to vote compared with 95% of homeowners, according to Generation Rent. It is also not okay that young people or members of the global majority are far less likely to be registered—someone being black or brown should not mean they are less likely to be registered. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats support AVR.
International research by the Electoral Integrity Project found that the UK is ranked in the bottom half of countries in Europe for the extent to which elections empower citizens. Research from Manchester University shows that the UK has one of the hardest registration systems for voters of any liberal democracy. In democracies around the world, AVR is the norm, and has been proven to lead to more accurate—not less—electoral registers. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire quoted the Electoral Commission, and she was entirely right to do so. The commission said in its report:
“From the evidence available, nearly all of these additions to the register appear accurate”.
We should listen to the experts on this matter.
The Liberal Democrats always have concerns about privacy and civil liberties, and we want to ensure that any roll-out of AVR keeps control of the data with the individual. I agree with and support the point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley about people being able to opt out. One of the measures in this part of the Bill is around data-sharing powers, allowing electoral registration officers to use existing Government records to register or update voters without requiring an application. Some of the evidence we saw from Unlock Democracy recommends clear opt-out communications and privacy safeguards. People may not fully understand that they are being registered unless they are proactively informed, so we support those recommendations.
We heard from Professor Toby James from the University of East Anglia and the Electoral Integrity Project. He raised concerns that the open register means that people placed on the electoral roll may not be aware that their data can be sold to third parties. People who never sought registration to begin with may be especially unaware of that. Those are concerns we should all hold dear.
Amendment 26 seems to frame accuracy and inclusion as a trade-off. We do not agree. Triple verification would create administrative friction and disproportionately block the groups with the lowest registration levels, such as young people and private renters. We believe other safeguards are in place. The amendment is a blocker, so we do not support it.
Amendment 27 would delay the implementation of automatic voter registration. The review mentioned in it does not have a timetable, and the piloting framework in clauses 20 to 25 will already test the implementation of AVR. We do not support amendments 26 and 27; we support clauses 17 to 19.
Samantha Dixon
Voter registration is the bedrock of our democracy and is foundational to participation in elections; without it, we cannot exercise our right to vote. As hon. Members have pointed out, the Electoral Commission estimates that between 7 million and 8 million eligible citizens are either incorrectly registered or not registered to vote at all. We will address that registration gap by moving towards a more automated voter registration system.
Clause 17 will create a new process of registration without application, also known as direct registration. We believe that that will enrich our democracy by making voter registration as simple and easy as possible. It creates a new duty for electoral registration officers to add those who are unregistered directly on to the electoral register without those people having to go through the process of applying to register to vote, provided that certain conditions are met. That will be the case only if the ERO is satisfied that the person should be registered, on the basis of data obtained by the ERO. Those who are directly registered will be informed through a notice that it is happening. On the points made by the hon. Members for Broxbourne and for Hazel Grove, they will have the right to opt out of the process during the response period.
In conjunction with regulations made under clause 36 on data sharing, clause 17 will open a world of opportunities for our brilliant EROs to use new data sources, both national and local, to get unregistered but eligible citizens on to the electoral register. It should also better streamline and hopefully, in time, reduce the administrative burden on EROs—for example, by reducing the need to send invitations to register and by softening the registration surges we see around election times.
We understand that direct registration is not appropriate for every kind of voter. As mentioned, there will be exemptions for those who inform their ERO within the set response period that they do not wish to be registered in this way, or that they intend to make an application for registration. There is also an exemption for those who tell the ERO during the response period that they wish to be registered with an anonymous entry, a declaration of local connection, a service declaration or an overseas elector’s declaration. Instead, those people will be able to independently submit a relevant application. There will also be an exemption where the ERO receives an application for registration of that person during the set response period.
We are not replacing the current system of registration, but are simply providing another means of registration. That will add a new, modernised mechanism that reflects the realities of how public bodies hold and use data today, and how individuals interact with those services. Direct registration offers many opportunities, but is not an overnight process. As will be covered in relation to clauses 20 to 25, it will take time to explore and test different data sources to ensure that they best identify eligible citizens. It will also take time to pilot and test the overall effectiveness of direct registration. There are significant opportunities here to move towards a more automated registration system that narrows the registration gap and builds a fuller and fairer democracy.
Amendment 26 proposes a new condition that must be met before the ERO registers someone without an application—that the person’s existence has been properly verified using three separate datasets used for national and local data matching. I appreciate the spirit behind the amendment, and of course share the commitment of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley to ensuring that only eligible individuals are registered.
Under the Bill, an ERO must directly register someone only if they are satisfied that the person is entitled to be registered. We are robustly exploring and will rigorously test different Government datasets that could be used to aid EROs in their new direct registration duties. As part of that, we are exploring which datasets will provide EROs with sufficient assurance to determine that a person is entitled to be registered. We do not agree with specifying a minimum number of datasets that should be used to determine someone’s existence. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove pointed out, there is the potential for one or two robust and well-tested datasets to provide sufficient assurance. In those cases, it would be unnecessary and inefficient to require an ERO to consider further datasets, so I ask the hon. Member for Hamble Valley to withdraw his amendment.
Clause 18 is similar to clause 17, but focuses on a new process of direct alteration. It aims to improve the accuracy of our electoral registers in the simplest and easiest way possible for the voter. It will create a new process of alteration without application, also known as direct alteration. It creates a new duty for EROs to update people’s name or address details in their electoral register, where data shows that those have changed. Just like with direct registration, those whose details are directly altered will be informed through a notice that that is happening, and they will have the right to object during the response period.
The clause, alongside regulations made under clause 36 on data sharing, will enable EROs to use new data sources to identify people whose registration details are incorrect and update their entries without those people having to submit an application of alteration. That will help the accuracy and integrity of the register, and will make things easier for EROs, who might otherwise contact voters at the wrong addresses or using the wrong names. It will also help to prevent people from missing out on their right to vote, by ensuring that the right details are recorded for them.
As mentioned previously, there will be an exemption for those who inform their ERO within the set response period that they do not wish their entry to be altered in that way. There are other exemptions, including for those who tell their ERO during the response period that they wish to be registered with an anonymous entry, a declaration of local connection, a service declaration or an overseas elector’s declaration. Instead, those people will be able to independently submit a relevant application.
We are not removing the ability of individuals to contact their ERO to update their own details. Clause 18 will create a new, modern process that will be tested and iterated over time. It will allow EROs to use data in a common-sense way to improve the accuracy of the electoral register.
Clause 19 introduces schedule 2 and makes further provision in connection with clauses 17 and 18 for registration without an application and for the alteration of certain registers without an application. Schedule 2 makes a number of amendments to the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Representation of the People Act 1985 to allow for direct registration and alteration, and to build safeguards into the process.
I draw the Committee’s attention, in particular, to paragraphs 16 to 19 of schedule 2, which aim to ensure that if a person is an overseas elector or is applying to be one, a registration without application is disregarded if they did not ask for it to be made and they are still eligible to be an overseas elector. The clause aims to reduce the risk of a new entry being created without an application, which could then invalidate the registration or declaration of an overseas elector. That is needed to ensure that overseas electors do not inadvertently lose their right to their status as an overseas elector—for example, in the unlikely event that an ERO directly registers that person at an address at which they are not resident, and they miss the registration notice while they are overseas. We think the risk of that happening incorrectly is low, but we want to include safeguards in case it happens.
Amendment 27 proposes that direct registration and alteration duties for EROs—meaning registering someone or altering their registration details without that person submitting an application—and other, related provisions should not commence until after the Secretary of State has published an independent review. That review would look into the steps needed to avoid non-qualifying EU or Commonwealth citizens being directly registered. The amendment involves inserting a requirement for a review into clause 80, the Bill’s commencement clause.
David Simmonds
The Minister is addressing the pilots and how they will be learned from. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne set out some broad concerns about the risks to the integrity of the ballot of taking an inconsistent approach, whereby different groups of electors may be targeted for auto-enrolment in different local areas, such that we end up with inconsistency.
Another risk is around identity theft and fraud. For many people, a place on the electoral register is the start of obtaining credit or sometimes of applying for a job or benefits. I am very conscious, as I am sure we will all be from our constituency case work, that getting behind those kinds of fraud and identity theft can be extremely expensive and difficult. For example, a person may apply to go on the electoral register at someone else’s property without your permission. That person may not be genuine or even exist, but under this system, unless a response comes back saying that they do not wish to be added to the register, they will automatically be put on it. That opens a new avenue for fraudsters, and particularly identity thieves.
For the benefit of the Committee, will the Minister therefore set out what consultations there have been with colleagues across Government about evaluating the risk of identity theft that this provision creates for our constituents?
Samantha Dixon
I simply suggest that the piloting, with the work of the EROs and the access to the datasets that establish the right and the eligibility to vote, are testing precisely the point the hon. Gentleman is making about avoiding election fraud. That is the purpose of the pilots.
David Simmonds
It is not so much about election fraud off the back of this; it is more about somebody getting themselves on the electoral register and applying for a credit facility. One thing the credit provider will check is whether they are on the electoral roll. That person may not exist at all, but because of auto-enrolment they are now on the electoral register, as a result of which they obtain credit. That opens up the risk of fake registrations, which we already hear about from trading standards. It would be helpful to understand what consideration the Government have given to that risk, particularly given the impact it has on vulnerable households among our constituents.
Samantha Dixon
The point that I am attempting to make is that this piloting and the move towards auto-enrolment will enable EROs to test, based on a variety of different datasets, that the application is accurate, legitimate and not spurious or in any way fraudulent. While I note the hon. Gentleman’s point, these things are being done to avoid the scenario he has just described.
EROs will continue to exercise their knowledge and judgment to assess eligibility before they send someone a notice that they will be registered to vote. Before a person is automatically enrolled, they will be written to, but the ERO will have tested, through a variety of different datasets, whether that application is legitimate. We will test that robustly and fairly and with the guidance of partners such as the Electoral Commission.
Paul Holmes
I hope the Minister will forgive me—it is quite possible, indeed likely, that this is my ignorance—but she outlined the datasets the EROs will analyse. Will she clarify whether those will be the same datasets in each geographical area? If not, does that not risk creating a different set of parameters and methods for who would and would not be added to the register, which cannot be analysed at the end of the pilot? Does that make sense?
Samantha Dixon
Regrettably, the hon. Member may have to explain that to me again in a different way.
Paul Holmes
That is no reflection on the Minister; I do not think I explained it particularly well. The Minister outlined that the ERO will assess datasets to ascertain whether to add somebody to the electoral roll automatically. In the context of the pilots, would those datasets be the same types—the same original information sources—or could they vary, depending on who the ERO is and which geographical location they are in when adding someone to the electoral roll?
Samantha Dixon
The legislation takes forward the principle of piloting. The detail of those pilots will come through in secondary legislation. I will provide more clarity, if I can, for the hon. Member, but the principle of piloting is what we are talking about.
Paul Holmes
I am genuinely not trying to be difficult, because the concern I have is genuine; otherwise, I would be intentionally misleading the House, which I am not, I would not and I do not. The reason I asked the question is that we are about to take a significant step towards automatic registration. We have a disagreement, but that is what the Government are going to end up doing. It is therefore important that the data presents a secure and reliable way of putting people on the register. The reason I ask whether there will be different datasets or sources is that we cannot properly analyse the pilots if people are using different datasets.
How can the Minister be satisfied by saying that the principle of pilots must go ahead, but that the Government will unveil the detail in secondary legislation? We have seen this with this Government before, so it is not personal to the Minister, but that is a terrible way to draft legislation. The Minister and the Government are asking the Committee to make a significant change to the electoral registration system in this country, but they cannot tell us—we are straying into the next group, so I will reserve my comments for that—what the basic parameters will look like. How is that good public policymaking?
Samantha Dixon
To offer some comfort to the hon. Gentleman, as set out in the Government’s policy paper, “A blueprint for modern digital government”, “technology presents us with” the opportunity to
“improve the way that government delivers for the public”.
Our ambition is to transform our electoral registration system, harnessing existing data from across Government to move to an automated system. We are working closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office to ensure that appropriate safeguards are put in place. We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to assess whether the combined dataset that is already used to check registration applications and support the annual review of electoral registers could also help identify people who may not be registered. We are also working with the Home Office to explore whether its data could help to indicate whether people who are identified as eligible, but who are unregistered, appear to meet the nationality and immigration status requirements to vote. I hope that provides some comfort and clarity to the hon. Member. I respectfully ask him to withdraw his amendment and commend clauses 17 to 19 and schedule 2 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
After the Minister’s winding up, I think it is even more necessary to push amendments 26 and 27 to a vote—particularly amendment 26, which concerns data checks. The Government are proposing a major change without the detail necessary to inform our decision on whether it should happen and with a lack of detail on the system to be proposed. They also cannot comment on what the datasets are or whether they could be different in different geographical locations. For all those reasons, I feel that I have to push both amendments to a vote.
David Simmonds
Does my hon. Friend agree that ensuring full transparency and integrity following any changes is even more important at the moment, given that the integrity of our electoral system is being called into question, including by some parties represented in the House of Commons that say that we cannot rely on the fairness and integrity of elections under the existing rules? Does he agree that the avoidance of future challenge and dissonance relies on this Committee’s being clear what the changes we are being asked to vote on mean in practice? If we cannot be clear with the voters about what this means for them, we should not be doing it. We should be coming back later when we can be clear.
Paul Holmes
I do not think it will be a surprise to the Committee that I wholeheartedly agree. This is alien to me. Asking the Committee to vote on the principle of something without the detail and with absolutely no reassurance that the transparency and integrity of the system will be fundamentally better than it is now is bad law making and bad government.
Samantha Dixon
I have to challenge the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that the integrity of the process will be challenged; that is not the Government’s intention in any way. The principle is that we will use the same Government datasets in each location, but also allow local EROs to use the local datasets that they have access to in addition to Government datasets. The principle of piloting is to test robustness and integrity—that is precisely why the pilots are so important.
Paul Holmes
The Minister said that the intention is not for these things to be challenged on the basis of integrity, but that does not provide clarity or certainty at all—it does not mean that there will not be a challenge or that it will not be successful. That is because of the lack of detail and transparency. The Committee is expected to decide on a new system without the parameters being laid out clearly and to rely on the Secretary of State to determine what automatic registration should look like through secondary legislation after a pilot. The details and the systems have not been outlined clearly to the Committee. That is why we tabled amendment 26, which would ensure that an electoral returning officer has three individual forms of check.
The Minister just outlined that EROs in different locations can access different datasets to reassure themselves that they should be putting someone on the roll. That sounds very similar to an ERO being able to check the register for three datasets, which is outlined in amendment 26. It seems to me that she has accepted the principle that EROs might need to determine the security of automatically enrolling someone through a number of datasets. Why are the Government so scared to ask for three? That would ensure the integrity and security that the Minister claims she wants and that I believe she wants. However, she is resisting amendment 26, which does exactly what she claims she wants to and adds a bit more detail on how the pilots will go forward.
I am afraid that for those reasons—a complete lack of clarity and transparency, and an expectation that the Opposition should trust the Government to come forward with the right decision in secondary legislation—we will have to press both amendments to a vote.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 28, in clause 21, page 33, line 33, at end insert—
“(8) voter registration provision does not mean any provision which amends the franchise for UK parliamentary elections or local elections in England.”
This amendment prevents the voter registration pilots being used to amend the franchise.
Clauses 21 to 25 stand part.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 20 enables the Secretary of State to make pilot regulations that test new and innovative methods of electoral registration. As part of our work to strengthen the registration system, the Government are exploring new and innovative ways of electoral registration.
By harnessing existing Government data and embracing new technology, we aim to modernise the process, making registration simpler and more accessible for citizens. However, before any new methods of registration are introduced in full, it is right that they are tested in real-world conditions with real people, not merely in enclosed, controlled environments. By testing new registration methods in the real world, we will be able to ensure—to the best of our ability—that any new approaches to registration are both effective and secure. The Government are committed to strengthening our democracy and encouraging full participation by legitimate voters in our elections, and the clause forms a critical part of that work.
With the Committee’s indulgence, I will address amendment 28, notwithstanding the fact that it has not yet been spoken to. It aims to ensure that the voter registration pilots, which are provided for in the Bill, cannot be used to amend the franchise. I reassure members of the Committee that the new piloting powers, as drafted, could not be used to amend the franchise.
Clause 20 creates a new power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to pilot changes to the voter registration process, which the Bill describes as “voter registration provision”. Clause 21 defines “voter registration provision”, making clear that it is limited to registering individuals entitled, under existing franchise eligibility criteria, to be registered. It also allows for existing register entries to be amended or removed. Our intention is to make registration easier and simpler for those already eligible to register to vote; it is not to amend the eligibility criteria for entitlement to register to vote. I ask the hon. Member for Hamble Valley to withdraw his amendment, as it is unnecessary.
Clause 21 seeks to clarify what is meant in clause 20 by “voter registration provision”, in relation to pilot regulations, by providing examples of what such regulations could entail. As I have just said, before any new methods of registration are introduced in full, it is right that they are tested in real-world conditions with real people, not solely in enclosed, controlled environments. In July last year, the Government published our strategy for modern and secure elections, in which we noted that technology presents ever-expanding opportunities to improve the way in which the Government deliver for the public. Our ambition is to modernise our registration practices, harnessing data and moving towards an increasingly automated system, so that voters can be easily and simply registered to vote.
Lewis Cocking
The Minister probably knows the point I am about to make. I fully appreciate what she has just said about having to do these demos in real-world scenarios, but can she ensure that they will be conducted during elections where everybody is treated in the same way—that is, council elections—rather than at a general election, where she will create two types of elector? Can we have that reassurance?
Samantha Dixon
I note the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and I hope to address them as we go forward.
Clause 21 makes clear that piloting regulations may be used to explore this ambition further, including by testing new and innovative ways of using Government data to identify individuals and support them to register, as well as testing potential improvements to administrative processes. Our ambition is to support a modern, efficient registration system that makes participation straightforward for citizens and strengthens the foundations of our democracy. The clause plays an important role in providing the framework through which that ambition can be pursued.
Clause 22 builds on clause 21 by providing further clarity on the scope of the piloting powers set out in clause 20. It makes clear that pilots will take place in one or more areas, and that they may assess the impact of new registration methods on specific demographic groups. The clause also confirms that, in most circumstances, pilots will proceed only with the consent of the relevant electoral registration officer. It is right that those directly responsible for administering the pilot are engaged, informed and supportive of the approach being taken.
Furthermore, clause 22 allows pilot regulations, on a temporary basis, to create, suspend or disapply an offence or financial penalty where that is necessary for the effective conduct of a pilot. However, they cannot increase penalties beyond existing legal limits, nor introduce penalties or offences for individuals who fail to register or update their details. That ensures that the legal framework operates sensibly during the testing period while maintaining appropriate protections and proportionality.
Clause 22 provides breadth, flexibility and practicality to the proposed piloting framework, giving clarity to officials without imposing an overly rigid or exhaustive set of rules. In doing so, the provisions ensure that pilot schemes can be designed in a measured, proportionate and genuinely useful way, supporting the Government to realise their ambition to modernise electoral registration and make it simpler for citizens to engage with the democratic process.
I now turn to clause 23, which provides that any pilot regulations made under the new power conferred on the Secretary of State in clause 20 must be made by statutory instrument. Parliament is the proper forum for the scrutiny and oversight of such powers. Electoral registration is a matter of significant importance and sensitivity, and it is therefore right that parliamentarians have the opportunity to examine in full any proposed regulations establishing a new pilot.
Clause 23 provides that all regulations made under this piloting power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, except where the regulations do no more than extend an existing pilot for no longer than 12 months, or amend the deadline by which the Electoral Commission must publish its evaluation report—in which case the SI will be subject to the negative procedure. Requiring the affirmative procedure for the vast majority of cases reflects the long-standing convention that changes to electoral law should receive the highest level of parliamentary scrutiny. Safeguarding the security and inclusivity of our electoral registration system must remain paramount.
Clause 24 provides that the Electoral Commission will evaluate any pilots and produce a report. The Electoral Commission serves as an essential independent guardian of the integrity and transparency of our democratic processes. By upholding rigorous standards and providing impartial oversight, it helps ensure that electoral matters across the United Kingdom are conducted properly, securely and with public confidence.
By placing the Electoral Commission’s independent assessment at the heart of the evaluation of any electoral registration pilot, we ensure that Parliament, stakeholders and the public receive a clear, objective and authoritative appraisal of any pilot’s effectiveness. The clause reinforces our commitment to rigorous independent scrutiny by requiring the report to address specific issues. That includes an assessment of the extent to which a pilot has met its objectives and an evaluation of whether the changes made by the regulations represent a cost-effective means of achieving them.
Although we are ambitious about delivering a modern, more automated electoral registration system fit for the 21st century, we are equally mindful that robust processes and independent evaluation must remain integral to the testing of any new registration method. Clause 25 provides definitions for the four key terms used throughout clauses 20 to 24. This is an interpretive provision that defines key terms and is necessary for the operation of those clauses. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Dame Siobhain. I do not know why I said that—it is a habit. But it is always lovely to see you; it is reminiscent of the 2015 general election.
Paul Holmes
Thank you very much.
These amendments relate to the pilot schemes. I do believe that the Government have been slightly naughty in how they are trying to promote these pilots. Not once have they consulted the Political Parties Panel or reached out on a cross-party basis to consult on changes to the franchise or to electoral systems, or on the cancellation of local elections.
The Government are completely entitled to set out a scope for pilots, but the clauses lack any detail on what we should expect the pilots to look like and what they are supposed to be delivering. Where is the detail about the datasets they will use? The transparency and sense of integrity are not there. The Minister said she wanted to reassure us—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. I apologise for terminating the hon. Member’s contribution, but there is a Division. I suspend the Committee for 15 minutes. We will resume at 4.16 pm.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Dame Siobhain. It was a wonderful election campaign—oh, I’ve done that bit.
The clauses deal with voter pilot schemes. As I had started to outline, we are concerned that when it comes to electoral changes, voting age changes or anything to do with the electoral system, the Government have not really been transparent. They have not worked, as previous Governments did, on a cross-party basis through interaction and meetings with the parliamentary parties panel. As with the last few clauses, they have not outlined the detail necessary to satisfy us to support the clause and rely on secondary legislation.
Although I know that the Minister is a Minister of the utmost integrity—I have always believed that, so she should take that as read—she said that we should be reassured that voter pilot schemes would not be used to amend the franchise, which is the aim of my amendment 28, but the Secretary of State said in the House, two days before he cancelled local elections, that he would not cancel local elections. He was then taken to court, and it was found that the decision was not lawful. The Minister will forgive us if we are not entirely confident in the reassurances given, when Government Ministers have given reassurances on the Floor of the House and then done something else.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend refers to the recent judicial review. My understanding is that, rather than losing the judicial review, the Government actually offered no defence. They conceded because they did not wish to be transparent about the decision-making process that the Secretary of State had followed. Subsequent freedom of information requests sought to get under exactly what was happening, but clearly there was correspondence that the Government did not wish to place in the public domain. They preferred to abandon their devolution plans rather than concede on that point.
Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not a great starting point for a Government who are asking us to take them on trust about pilot schemes with a complete absence of detail and no indication of who would be prioritised for auto-enrolment, what the geographical basis would be or what the decision-making process would be? It is not a good basis for asking us to take them on trust when the Government have not been willing to be transparent about elections that they were determined would go ahead, only to cancel them within literally 24 hours.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As I say, this Minister is a Minister of integrity, but I find this out in opposition. I work for a shadow Secretary of State; the Minister works for the Secretary of State. On a number of occasions, the Secretary of State has been found to have said things in the Chamber that have turned out not to be the case. It is therefore not right for the Opposition to have confidence that we can rely on a reassurance from the Minister that the pilots will not be used to amend the franchise.
The wording of amendment 28 is so clear that there is no room for manoeuvre. Why does the Minister not accept the amendment and show us that her reassurance is worth the paper it is written on? The amendment would not fundamentally change the passage of the Bill or the parameters of the pilot, but it would provide reassurance that the Government will not use the pilots and whatever comes out of them for a reassessment through the Electoral Commission. We do not know the parameters of the pilots; their geography, as my hon. Friend says; who will be included in them; or the datasets that will be used. The Minister should accept the amendment and give us reassurance that the pilots will not be used to change the franchise.
The Opposition have repeatedly asked and challenged Ministers, particularly the Secretary of State when he took office, about whether local elections would go ahead. The Secretary of State then tried to stop those elections. We know why the Government did not want anybody to see the evidence or the correspondence. It was a pattern that this Government have shown before: putting their own political interests before the interests of the electoral system and before having a credible plan or a credible defence. That is why they were found out. That is why when I looked the Secretary of State in the eye and asked whether he would cancel the local elections, he said he would not—and then he did, on a Thursday morning when he would not get the scrutiny that he deserved from a full House of Commons.
David Simmonds
On the pattern of behaviour, the Minister has set out very clearly that the Government wish to rely on the independent Electoral Commission to appraise the outcome of the pilot schemes. But what we do not know—because the Government are not willing to set it out to this Committee, which it is asking to approve the principle of the pilots—is what it will appraise those pilot projects against. We do not know at this stage what the Government seek to achieve through the pilot projects. We therefore cannot assume that the Electoral Commission is in a position to give us the genuinely independent perspective that we expect of it.
Historically, there has been much debate about whether the Electoral Commission should be given a mandate by Parliament. One useful thing about such a mandate is that it would be able to say, for example, that a criterion for appraising pilots is the use of equality impact assessments to determine the impact of the pilots on people with learning disabilities or physical disabilities, on younger voters specifically, and on younger voters with learning disabilities, who may be a subset of such voters. Without any clear sense from the Government of what the pilots will seek to achieve and how that will be implemented consistently, it is difficult for the Committee to be confident that the pilots will genuinely contribute to the integrity of the poll.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Let us not forget that in very recent history the Government have completely ignored the view of the Electoral Commission anyway. When the Government said that they would not cancel local elections, and then did, and then got found out in court and did not defend the case, the Electoral Commission said repeatedly that it disagreed with the Government’s stance on the local elections because the Government had not consulted and had breached the general rule that EROs and local authorities should be given at least six months’ notice of a change of poll.
The Electoral Commission was very clear, and I think it went as far as condemning the Government’s decision, but the Government ignored it. The Minister can outline how the Electoral Commission will be consulted, but they have ignored it before and it is very likely—in fact, given the pattern of behaviour of the Secretary of State, it is almost certain—that the Government will find the answer that they want to find, regardless of what the Electoral Commission review says.
We remain sceptical. This is not personal against the Minister. I like the Minister intensely—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] I couldn’t think of another word. I like the Minister a lot, and I think she is a woman of integrity, but the pattern of behaviour from this Government is astounding, on consultation, on transparency and, actually, in Parliament. Ministers, who are governed by the ministerial code, have said that they will not do something and then gone ahead and done it anyway, in the cynical way that we have come to see from every Department in this Government. It is rotten from the top down.
On the pilots, the Minister has been clear that the parameters are not well established in the Bill and that she will want to come back with secondary legislation. Clause 20, “Power to pilot changes to the voter registration process”, states that the
“Secretary of State may by regulations make voter registration provision…in connection with…a register of parliamentary electors maintained under section 9 of RPA 1983”
and
“a register of local government electors”.
However, where it says that “regulations must specify”, there are certainly no parameters, and she is asking us to give the Government a blank cheque.
The Minister is asking us to approve pilots without any detail on what they may look like. She is also not saying how she will test whether those pilots are successful. When she winds up, will she outline to the Committee exactly what the parameters are for the pilots and the tests for what looks like success when they are finished?
Lewis Cocking
I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend’s impassioned speech. Does he share my concern that the pilots may be done on the basis of council areas, but that everyone should be auto-enrolled at the same time, rather than creating two lists of electors for a general election? Does he agree that that, in itself, will undermine the next general election and undermine democracy as a whole? Does he also agree that the Government must provide more detail about these demos, rather than giving Ministers carte blanche to pick and choose who they do and do not want to enrol, with this Committee and the House having no say in the matter?
Paul Holmes
I agree entirely. As I have attempted to outline, and as I think my hon. Friend is saying, without such detail why should people trust a word that the Government say? It has been the same with other legislation, as I know from being a shadow Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister, and it is pretty clear that it comes from the top of Government.
Let us look at the detail of clauses 21 and 22. Subsections (3) and (5) of clause 21 state that it
“includes provision relating to…the identification of individuals who are not registered”—
that goes without saying—and
“the identification of changes relevant to entries in the register, and…the maintenance of registers”,
as well as
“the form of the register…the procedure to be followed in the preparation of the register…the publication of the register”,
but there is no detail. If this Government are so clear about what they want to do with automatic registration, they should set out clearly the parameters for its implementation and should have an idea of what they want from it, but I must say that everything in the Bill about what they want from the pilots is fairly generic guff.
Lewis Cocking
Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that this measure could be reintroduced during the next parliamentary Session, when we can give a lot more thought to where the demos will take place and to the detail of who will be auto-enrolled first, and we can properly scrutinise the Government? As he rightly points out, this Government have made a number of U-turns. It is very difficult to trust a word that Ministers say or to know whether they will keep their word about the Bills they bring in. Does he agree that, rather than rushing the Bill through in this Session, the Government need to go away, think again and come back with fresh ideas when they put the legislation before Parliament in the next Session?
Paul Holmes
The Government have the luxury of being able to carry over this Bill. Its Report stage will be not in this Session, but in the next. Ministers have plenty of time to do this properly and not only give it proper scrutiny and listen to this Committee, but go away and think about it. Instead of bringing in amendments in secondary legislation, they could tell us what the pilots should look like and what they want to achieve from them. So far, the Bill does not do so.
My hon. Friend is correct that we do not have to finish the Bill by the end of this Session. The Committee has to finish in this Session, but Report can be held whenever the Government want after we come back for the next Session, because there is a carry-over order. There is no need to rush to Report and get the Bill through as quickly as possible. That mechanism is in place, so the Minister has time to strengthen this part of the Bill.
It is alien to me, but unfortunately it is a testament to the attitudes of this Government—and particularly this Department, when it comes to changing key indicators in terms of voting age, but also in terms of the way that people vote—that they want us to give them a blank cheque without giving us the details that any reasonable Member of this House would require.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne made the constructive suggestion that we proceed on the basis of local authority areas for the use of the electoral roll in the local poll so that everybody who is standing or voting in the election can have confidence that they will be treated equally. Earlier in our debates, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove set out her sympathy with the proposal for the pilots, but I am sure that no Member of this House would be content to lose narrowly in an election, only to discover that in their constituency—perhaps alone in the country—there had been a programme to auto-enrol a specific cohort of voters who had not been auto-enrolled in the same way in neighbouring constituencies or in the rest of the country. That would fundamentally call into question the integrity of the poll.
I know that the Government have had serious concerns and reflections internally following the allegations made at the Gorton and Denton by-election. I do not think that most of us accept that those allegations are correct. None the less, the level of doubt that has been cast on elements of the process is of concern to Members across the House. The Government should be in listening mode. They should listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and should seek to do this properly, so that all voters and candidates in elections can have confidence that they will be treated equally and consistently across the country.
Paul Holmes
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne for not responding to his very reasonable suggestion. If the Minister were to say that she wanted to base pilots across the country on a local authority area, I am sure that many local authorities would jump at the chance to be at the front of delivering it and would work with her to do so. However, it potentially calls into question the integrity of the polls when that is based on a certain characteristic, or on an area that does not necessarily cover the whole area in which people are entitled to vote.
There is a cross-boundary issue with general elections and local elections; my constituency has three local areas with three different EROs within its boundaries. The way in which the automatic registration pilots will go ahead is just not universal. I will therefore insist on pressing amendment 28 to a Division. We will also divide the Committee on clauses 20 to 25.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove set out clearly, we Liberal Democrats support the Government on automatic voter registration. I have just one question for the Minister: can she confirm which datasets the Government plan to use when piloting AVR?
Samantha Dixon
The Government’s proposal is to introduce a broad power for the Secretary of State to make regulations on pilots testing new, innovative methods of electoral registration. We want to modernise electoral registration to make it simpler for people to engage in a genuinely useful, measured and proportionate way.
The pilot design is in the developmental stage, and we have not decided where pilots will be conducted, but it is essential that Members note that for a pilot to go ahead, secondary legislation will be required. That will mean that Parliament always has the opportunity to scrutinise a proposal in detail, including on the use of datasets, which the hon. Member for Guildford mentioned. We are clear that any permanent changes to the registration process will be grounded in robust evidence and informed by thorough user research. I am confident that they will also be extremely well evaluated by the Electoral Commission.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
The existing canvass regime in Northern Ireland is unfit for purpose. The current system requires the register to be recreated from scratch every 10 years and specifies that electors must re-register as part of the canvass to remain on the register. Electors who do not respond to canvass are removed from the register even if the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland holds data to confirm that they are eligible. That means there is a risk that a significant number of eligible electors are lost from the register, impacting its integrity and accuracy. The Government are legislating to address those challenges and to reform and modernise the Northern Ireland canvass.
The aim of this reform is to move towards a more regular and lighter-touch canvass system. Crucially, it will also avoid the arbitrary removal of eligible voters and improve the accuracy of the Northern Ireland register. Reform of the Northern Ireland canvass is supported by the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, with whom we are working closely on the new system.
Paul Holmes
Can the Minister outline what political engagement she has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on what they make of these proposals, and whether she has had written communications from them on that?
Samantha Dixon
I will write to the hon. Gentleman on those points at a later date, if I may. However, the First Minister and officers attended one of our evidence sessions, and I have engaged with colleagues who attended drop-ins as a result of this legislation coming forward.
Paul Holmes
If the Bill passes, will it require a legislative consent motion?
Samantha Dixon
I will hopefully come to that point, but it will not.
The details of the new canvass system will be set out in regulations following consultation with the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission, and will be subject to piloting. This change will support increased participation in elections in Northern Ireland and bring the Northern Ireland canvass system into closer alignment with Great Britain.
Clause 27 is a consequence of clause 26. Before making any regulations under clause 26, the Secretary of State is required to consult the Electoral Commission. Where the commission has been consulted, clause 27 places a duty on it to prepare a report about a proposal to make regulations under clause 26, which is the new power to amend the canvass.
Reform of the Northern Ireland canvass is supported by the Electoral Commission, and officials will work closely with the commission on it. It is important that the commission has an opportunity to consider the details of the new canvass system to ensure that the proposed changes are effective and robust before they are implemented. The provision mirrors the role that the Electoral Commission had when the canvass system was reformed in Great Britain.
Clause 28 is also a consequence of clause 26. The Government are legislating to address current challenges and to reform and modernise the Northern Ireland canvass. The aim of this reform is to move toward a more regular and lighter-touch canvass system. However, these are technical and complex changes, and it is important that we get them right, so it is proper that the new canvass system will be subject to successful piloting. We will work closely with the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland on the design of any pilots. I commend clause 28 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for outlining clauses 26 to 29. I believe that all parties represented on the Committee agree with devolution. The Minister outlined that there has been consultation with the chief electoral officer and officials in Northern Ireland, but given that we are entering a period of devolution, and of Governments, Cabinets, First Ministers and Members of Parliament across this great United Kingdom, I am slightly concerned that we have not had any detail about which relevant Cabinet Minister in Northern Ireland has been consulted on these proposals—not only in relation to the reports from the Electoral Commission that will be required, but on the Government’s proposed pilot in Northern Ireland. We have not heard what the democratically elected Executive, local Members of Parliament or local authorities in Northern Ireland think of that, and that concerns me.
I hope that the Minister might outline, perhaps with the help of her excellent officials, whether the political leads in Northern Ireland have come back with their views on the proposals. It is okay for officials to do so, but officials advise and Ministers decide—that is my old mantra. It is one thing for the chief electoral officer, with whom I have no issue whatsoever—he is doing an admirable job—to say that he is okay with the proposals, but I would have thought that the UK Government should have the consent of the Executive. It concerns me that we have not had such an assurance from the Minister today.
David Simmonds
Although we do not have a representative from Northern Ireland on the Committee, we have had a number of debates in which a variety of these issues have been raised, and we took evidence on them specifically. The electoral system, registration system and arrangements for elections have been different in Northern Ireland for some time anyway, and that reflects part of the fairly complex political history of that part of our United Kingdom. One of the commonalities that we have with Ireland is the ability of people there to cast their vote in general elections in the United Kingdom and vice versa.
Will the Minister set out—perhaps my hon. Friend agrees with me that we need a bit more detail on this—what conversations have happened not just with the Northern Ireland Executive but with the Government of Ireland? A number of provisions mean that the Province, in which people will have the ability to vote as a United Kingdom voter and also, potentially, in Ireland, especially if they are dual electors, will have different electoral rules. It is particularly important that that is fully considered, especially before pilots, which might make further changes, are implemented without the element of local consent.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend raises a good point that I had not thought of, as is normally the case. I am concerned that the political leadership have not given their sign-off or their thoughts, and that this Committee should be given the views of the Northern Ireland Administration. Having briefly served as a shadow Northern Ireland Minister, I understand the differences and the unique nature of the politics of Northern Ireland, and he is right to say that people who live in Northern Ireland could be eligible to vote in a number of elections in different countries. When it comes to the Province, it is therefore important that we get clarity on how the pilot, and the lack of information about it, might affect the different rules in different countries.
We remain concerned. As with the last group of amendments and clauses, there is no detail on what the pilots might look like, particularly under clause 28. In her last winding-up speech, the Minister stated that the Government are designing the pilots and are looking at how to make them the best they can be, but a Government propose things, and they should know what they want a pilot to look like in order to get the policy outcome before they come to this House and expect us to approve legislation. I say gently to the Minister that if the Government have a policy they want to achieve, they should have some idea about how they will get there and what a pilot might look like.
Clause 28, on the power to pilot proposals under clause 26, does not really contain any detail as to what such pilots might look like. Under clause 29,
“If pilot regulations are made, the Electoral Commission must…prepare a report on the pilot regulations, and…before the date specified under section 28(4), give a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland.”
In none of the proposals in the Bill is the First Minister of Northern Ireland, or the relevant Cabinet Minister in the Executive, included in any reporting mechanisms; it is only the Secretary of State and the chief electoral officer. If we want to harness great cross-border relations, it is very important that the democratically elected devolved Government have some kind of say, even if it is after the fact and about whether they think it was a success.
We have a number of concerns about the holes in these clauses, and we look to see what reassurances the Minister can give us before we decide whether to press them to a Division.
Samantha Dixon
To reassure Members, we have worked very closely with the Northern Ireland Office, as well as other devolved Governments, in the development of the Bill. Elections in Northern Ireland are an entirely reserved matter for the UK Government. Notwithstanding that, colleagues from all parties across Parliament were invited to come to drop-in sessions. A number of Northern Ireland colleagues did, and I also met the leadership of those parties that wished to meet me as we developed the legislation.
I beg your indulgence, Dame Siobhain, and that of the Committee: I should have spoken to clause 29 at the same time that I addressed the other clauses in the group. Clause 29 is a consequence of clause 28, which provides for the piloting power in relation to amending the Northern Ireland canvass by regulations. As I noted earlier, it is proper that the new canvass system is subject to successful piloting. It is also important that the Electoral Commission has an opportunity to consider any canvass pilots and report on their effectiveness and robustness before they are implemented. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley and I will have to agree to disagree about the role of piloting. In my view, it is the way that we iteratively and robustly test ways in which a policy can be delivered. When we get to secondary legislation, the specifics of the piloting powers will be set out, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise those powers.
Paul Holmes
How can a policy be tested robustly if the Government have not outlined the policy position or what they want to get out of a pilot, and we do not know how robustly that is going to be tested, because the details of the pilots are not outlined in primary legislation and would come only through secondary legislation?
Samantha Dixon
We could go over and over this point. The Government have set out, in some detail, their objectives for the electoral system. In the case of the Northern Ireland canvass, we have set out the principles, we want to test them, we are taking the powers to test them, and we will come back to Parliament with specifics of those pilots so that they can be scrutinised as profoundly and deeply as Members choose to scrutinise them.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Chowns
On a point of order, Dame Siobhain. As I am a relative newbie in this House, could you clarify why it is permitted for a request to be made to vote individually on a range of grouped clauses, when everybody is voting exactly the same way on them, such that we have had five separate votes, all of which have gone the same way, and we are about to have four more? Is it possible to stop the waste of time?
The Chair
As Chair, I am completely in the hands of the Committee. Amendments and clauses are grouped to reduce the time taken—it is an administrative thing—but if anybody on the Committee wishes a vote to be taken separately, they are perfectly entitled to request that. I can give no better reason than that.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Dame Siobhain. I think it should be entirely out of order for an hon. Member to make a point of order and say that I am time-wasting. I am taking my responsibilities as shadow Minister very seriously by calling for Divisions, as is the democratic right of any Member of this House, in order to allow our constituents to see how we voted on the clauses in this very important Bill. Can you advise me whether saying that someone is time-wasting is in order in this Committee?
The Chair
I do not think the hon. Lady meant it in that way. She wanted clarification of the procedure, and I have given it. Everybody on the Committee completely accepts that you are entitled to request separate decisions.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Dame Siobhain. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said the words, from a sedentary position, “It is time-wasting.”
The Chair
I say to all Committee members: if you want to ask a question, please ask it. There is no issue with that, and we will attempt to accommodate all Members in order to get the best possible discussion and the best possible process. I think Members may be getting tired.
Clause 28
Power to pilot proposals under section 26
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we start, I need to make a number of announcements. Will everyone ensure that their electronic devices are turned off or in silent mode?
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. I remind the Committee that a Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first or, in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called to speak first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the debate by bobbing. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk or, alternatively, pass their notes to the Hansard colleague in the room.
At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, new clauses and schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the amendment or new clause to speak again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment—that includes grouped new clauses and schedules—in a group, they need to let me know. The order of decision follows the order in which amendments appear in the amendment paper. I hope that is helpful.
Clause 1
Duration of Armed Forces Act 2006
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. This clause is an essential part of each and every Armed Forces Bill, as it provides for the Armed Forces Act 2006 to be renewed for a further five-year period. Without it, the 2006 Act would expire on 14 December 2026.
For constitutional and legal reasons, an Armed Forces Act is required every five years. That requirement for Parliament’s agreement for continuation has its origin in the Bill of Rights of 1689, which provides that the raising of a standing army is against the law unless Parliament consents to it. Primary legislation, an Armed Forces Act, is therefore required every five years, this one to renew the 2006 Act to provide for the armed forces to be recruited and maintained as disciplined bodies. The most recent Armed Forces Act was the 2021 Act, which provided for annual continuation in force of the 2006 Act by an Order in Council, but not beyond the end of 2026. That means that this Armed Forces Bill must receive Royal Assent before 14 December 2026.
Clause 1 replaces section 382 of the 2006 Act with a proposed new section 382 that provides for the 2006 Act to be continued until the end of 2031. It provides specifically for the 2006 Act to expire one year after the Royal Assent of this Bill, but it also provides for it then to be continued annually—rather than expiring—by an Order in Council up to, but not beyond, the end of 2031. As a consequence of clause 1, section 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2021, which inserted existing section 382 and the expiry date of 2026 into the 2006 Act, is repealed.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
By way of some brief introductory remarks, Mr Offord—
Mr Francois
I apologise, Mr Efford. As you say, get it right!
This was not a contentious Bill on Second Reading. As we said during that debate, we think our role is primarily to act as a critical friend to the Bill. That does not mean we will not disagree on anything at all, but it does mean that, now we are in Committee, we will attempt to approach the Bill in a constructive manner. I hope we can do a lot of that in a collegial way.
I want to place on record our thanks and, I am sure, those of all right hon. and hon. Members, to the Clerks and yourself, Mr Efford, for organising some extremely effective evidence sessions—we have already taken a lot of evidence on the Bill—and in particular for organising an extremely effective visit to Portsmouth to look, among other things, at the operation of the service justice system and defence housing. That has all been a positive start and, within reason, we will attempt to continue in the same manner. We have no objection to clause 1 standing part of the Bill.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
In the same vein, we see the Bill as part of our constitutional duty, and one that will help us to deliver the best for our service personnel—an aim that we all share. I echo the shadow Minister’s thanks to the Clerks and you, Mr Efford. I, too, look forward to working collegially across the Committee to ensure that we get the best Bill possible.
Al Carns
I will triple down on what was said and say thank you very much to an amazing team, first, for putting together great evidence sessions and, secondly, for approaching this in a positive and pragmatic way. I also thank the Opposition parties for also being pragmatic in the way we move this forward in the best keeping of our armed forces.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Armed forces covenant
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
“‘due regard’ means that specified bodies should think about and place an appropriate amount of weight on the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when they consider all the key factors relevant to how they carry out their functions.”
This amendment defines due regard for the purposes of interpreting section 2 of the Armed Forces Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 5, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC National protocol for consistent access to public services
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a national protocol for consistent access to public services for service people and relevant family members.
(2) The national protocol must set out standardised procedures and expectations for the persons specified in section 343AZA(4) regarding the exercise of their functions in relation to the matters specified in section 343AZA(5).
(3) In exercising a public function to which section 343AZA applies, a person specified in section 343AZA(4) must act in accordance with the national protocol.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the national protocol before each House of Parliament no later than six months after the day on which the Armed Forces Act 2026 is passed.
(5) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise the national protocol and must publish and lay before each House of Parliament any revised version.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to create and publish a national protocol to ensure Armed Forces Families receive consistent access to essential public services.
David Reed
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. Amendment 8, standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is a straightforward but important amendment. Its purpose is simple: to place a clear and consistent definition of “due regard” on the face of the Bill. I know that many colleagues will agree with that.
At present, due regard sits at the very heart of how relevant authorities will interpret and apply their obligations under the armed forces covenant. It is the mechanism through which the intentions of Parliament will be translated into real decisions on the ground and yet, as the Bill stands, the term itself is not defined. That creates a problem. Where Parliament relies on a concept without defining it, we leave room for inconsistency, uncertainty and, ultimately, uneven delivery.
Different authorities may take different views about what due regard requires of them. Some may interpret it robustly and act with care and diligence; others may, perhaps unintentionally, adopt a narrow reading and do the minimum necessary to demonstrate compliance. That cannot be what we want. If the covenant is to mean anything in practice, it must be applied consistently across the country. Service personnel, veterans and their families should not face a postcode lottery in how their needs are considered. The principle of fairness that underpins the covenant demands that we get this right and, I hope, get it right first time.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Would the hon. Gentleman agree that due regard is a long-established legal concept that lots of public bodies already understand? It is already routinely applied in practice, and to change the definition for the purposes of the Bill would be to go down an erroneous path.
David Reed
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention; she is an expert in these areas.
National Governments have legal teams to help them interpret the concept of due regard and apply it evenly across their Departments. When we get down to the local council level—I think we have all experienced this—that might be more inconsistent because the skills might not be there to bolster that support. We need to make it clearer. It might not be a case of changing the nature of due regard but of making it more explicit so that councils can interpret it.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the Defence Committee report on the armed forces covenant, which is based on evidence from witnesses. It says:
“As the current duty of ‘due regard’ is inconsistently interpreted, the extended duty must be accompanied by clear guidance so that the duty is clearly understood and is not treated as a tick-box exercise.”
It goes on to say:
“We heard many examples where the Covenant was not working as designed, resulting in people who have served being financially disadvantaged, unable to access medical care, or unable to find an appropriate school for their children as a result of their service.”
That was all due to the wishy-washy interpretation of due regard.
David Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He has a lot of experience in local government, so I take his view on this topic and look forward to hearing his substantive speech on it.
Amendment 8 does not introduce a new or burdensome requirement. It simply reflects existing guidelines and established practice, and provides clarity, not complication. By setting out what due regard means in the Bill, we ensure that everyone is working from the same understanding from the outset. In practical terms, placing a definition in the Bill would make it clear that local authorities and other relevant bodies must consciously consider the needs of the armed forces community when making decisions in scope of the covenant. It would require more than a cursory acknowledgment; it would require proper thought, proper sentiment and a willingness to adjust decisions where appropriate. That is not an unreasonable expectation. Local authorities already operate within similar frameworks in other areas of public policy, and the duty to have due regard is well understood in some areas and councils.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that we may be jumping the gun slightly? The covenant’s statutory guidance will explain in detail what due regard means in practice.
David Reed
I would rather have it in the legislation from the outset. We could take a position where we hope that local authorities will sit down and read through the legislation but, as we have seen over the last few years, that has not been applied in the current understanding of the covenant. I would rather the definition be explicit for local authorities. That would also provide a nice feedback loop, because if it is not working, it can go straight back to the Ministry of Defence and we can work on making amendments to the overall legislation.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
When coming to a definition that everybody can agree on, it often ends up being very narrow, because that is what the group can agree on and apply. Does the hon. Member agree that if we end up defining due regard in the Bill, the definition will be narrow and, by its very nature, bodies will apply it in a very narrow sense in practice, to the detriment of veterans and service personnel?
David Reed
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and she makes a good point. But who defines “narrow”? From what we have seen with local authorities, most councils want to go above and beyond the covenant, because people in the council might have served in the military or had military families and they want to do more than what is already stated. Having the base, narrow explanation in the Bill will give everyone the base requirement, and it is a powerful thing to include—it is important to be explicit.
The amendment simply ensures that the same level of care is applied, and it is also about accountability. Without that clear definition, it becomes hard to assess whether an authority has fulfilled its duty. A defined standard provides a benchmark against which performance can be measured. It gives confidence to service families and ensures that their circumstances are properly considered; it also gives clarity to authorities about what is expected of them.
Rachel Taylor
It is a pleasure, Mr Efford, to serve under your chairmanship.
Liberal Democrat amendment 5 is well intentioned, but I find it troubling. The hon. Member for North Devon seems to be trying to create a minimum requirement that organisations might reach and then decide that they will take no further action. I am hugely concerned that it could be detrimental to delivering the best possible service to veterans and service personnel. A one-size-fits-all national protocol removes the ability for decisions to be made at a local level and tailored for local context and circumstances.
Mike Martin
Perhaps it would be helpful to explain that it is a floor, rather than a target.
Rachel Taylor
I thank the hon. Member for clarifying that, but instead we should push our local authorities and other public bodies to create tailored solutions. For example, I recently asked organisations in my constituency how they are supporting the armed forces covenant, and I was delighted with the response I received. Organisations reached out to explain the specific actions that they have taken, and how they have gone above and beyond to support armed forces personnel, veterans and their families.
Warwickshire police told me that it has achieved gold status in the defence employer recognition scheme, which is managed by the Ministry of Defence. It has developed an armed forces network that has worked hard to develop referral pathways for veterans and their families. We should encourage organisations to aspire to be the best that they can be and to achieve that gold status, rather than enforcing a basic minimum.
Rachel Taylor
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and that is exactly the point I am making. We need to encourage the best from all our services, local authorities, police, education, courts and so on. We should not lose the approach of striving for the best, in favour of having a national minimum, because that becomes a drive to the bottom. We need to allow organisations to design their own approach with their local community to do the best they can for the armed forces—veterans and serving personnel—within their communities.
Ian Roome
It is nice to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Amendment 5 would add a new section to the armed forces covenant provisions that were introduced in the Armed Forces Act 2006 to try to make access to services more consistent. This Bill requires specified persons to have due regard to the covenant for specified matters, such as the fair provision of childcare, healthcare and social care, housing and other services listed in clause 2. Some of those specified persons are national bodies, but others are local authorities, educational bodies and health bodies, many of which are much more localised.
Without a national benchmark for supporting armed forces families, we risk that due regard to the covenant will still be interpreted in very different ways by, say, neighbouring local councils. I fear that some might see it just as a paper exercise. That could be unfair on armed forces personnel in some parts of the country, but would make life especially hard for those being reposted every two years. For example, Devon has one, two or three overlapping levels of local government, depending on where someone lives. Our NHS hospital trusts, police, fire authorities and other services have different boundaries too.
The problem of a postcode lottery was identified as a weakness in the original covenant. If someone is in uniform, they could easily be reposted from a big city to RAF Lossiemouth or RNAS Culdrose—a completely different kind of community. The Defence Committee’s report on the armed forces covenant found that some councils have priority housing rules for veterans, while others still require a local connection. That can be unfair on service families who move around a lot.
Mike Martin
Does my hon. Friend agree that, since the heart of the covenant is about establishing parity and equity of service provision for all serving personnel and veterans, we must establish exactly what that means as a minimum? Without establishing what services must be provided—as a floor, not a ceiling—how can we have equity across the country?
Ian Roome
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Published guidance can be interpreted differently from authority to authority. It is about how they put that into action.
Local NHS services have a mad patchwork of transfer rules depending on where someone moves from across the country, which can make access to medical care difficult, as I am sure some of us have experienced—I have, because I have a large garrison in my constituency, and I receive casework from serving personnel about the difference that they have experienced around the country. That is part of what we are trying to fix.
We should expect the Secretary of State to put specific protocols in writing for local bodies across the country. That would be fairer to our service personnel, but it would also make the Government’s responsibilities clearer—it would end our discussion now, where we are asking what due regard means—if local bodies fail to uphold what is being asked for in the Bill. The amendment would require a standardised set of protocols to be produced by the Secretary of State within six months of the Bill passing, require local bodies to act accordingly, and require the protocols to be brought back to Parliament when the procedures need to be revised.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is an enormous pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
I want to focus my remarks on amendment 8, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East set out, seeks to provide a clear and practical definition of due regard in the Bill. If Parliament is placing a legal duty on public bodies to have due regard to the armed forces covenant, it is only right that it should be clear what that duty requires in practice.
The Bill places a duty on specified public bodies to have due regard to the principles of the armed forces covenant when exercising certain functions, as set out in proposed new section 343AZA(5) of the Armed Forces Act 2006, including in areas such as healthcare, housing, education, transport and pensions. However, the term “due regard” itself is not defined in the Bill or elsewhere, which creates a very real risk of inconsistent interpretation or application.
Amendment 8 would resolve that uncertainty by defining due regard as requiring public bodies to
“think about and place an appropriate amount of weight on the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when they consider all the key factors relevant to how they carry out their functions.”
That would not represent a change of policy; it would merely clarify how the duty is to operate. It would make explicit what many would assume is already intended, but which is not currently set out in the Bill.
The armed forces covenant itself is well understood by many. It reflects the principle that those who have served our armed forces, and their families, should not be put at a disadvantage compared with other citizens in accessing public services. It also recognises that, in some cases, special consideration may be appropriate. I think those principles are widely supported not just in this place but among the wider public. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that they are also reflected in the decision-making processes of public bodies.
The effectiveness of the duty to have due regard to the covenant depends in large part on how due regard is understood and applied. In the absence of a definition, there is scope for variation. Some public bodies may interpret the duty as requiring active and meaningful consideration of the covenant in their decision-making processes; others may take a more limited approach, treating it as a procedural requirement that can be satisfied with relatively minimal engagement. That variation matters in practice.
Members of the armed forces and their families frequently move between different parts of the country, and they rely on services provided by local authorities, healthcare systems and other public bodies. A lack of consistency in how the covenant is applied can result in uneven access to support in those circumstances. Let us take the example of a service family who move from one area to another. They may encounter different approaches to school admissions, healthcare provision and housing allocation. If due regard is interpreted differently in every area, the level of support available may itself vary significantly.
Amendment 8 would support a more consistent and coherent approach. By defining due regard clearly, it would establish a common standard that can be applied across different public bodies. The proposed definition is deliberately balanced: it would require public bodies to think about the covenant and give it appropriate weight, but it would not require a particular outcome in any given case, and it would not override other relevant considerations. It would simply ensure that decision makers exercise judgment and balance competing factors. At the same time, it would ensure that the covenant is not overlooked or treated as an afterthought. It requires active consideration—that is the way it must be interpreted.
The reference to appropriate weight would make it clear that the covenant must be taken seriously, even if it is not determinative. That reflects the approach taken in other areas of public law where due regard is applied, in which contexts the courts have been very clear that the duty involves more than simple awareness; it requires informed and timely consideration of the relevant principles as part of the decision-making process. Amendment 8 would adopt that well-established understanding and apply it in the context of the armed forces covenant, providing a much clearer framework within which public bodies can operate.
It is worth reminding ourselves that clarity is important not only for public bodies, but for those affected by their decisions. Members of the armed forces community need to know what they can reasonably expect when engaging with public services. A clearly defined duty would help provide that assurance to them and their families. It would also support accountability. Where a duty is clearly defined, it is easier to assess whether it has been properly discharged. With the proposed definition in place, Parliament and others would be better placed to scrutinise how public bodies are applying the covenant in practice. Without a definition, that scrutiny becomes much more difficult; it is less clear what standard is being applied, and therefore harder to identify when that standard has not been met. Amendment 8 would strengthen both the operation of the duty and the ability to hold public bodies to account for its delivery.
Mr Francois
Does my hon. Friend agree that the words that we have used in the amendment are taken verbatim from the Minister’s letter of 9 March 2026? We asked him to provide a definition of due regard; he duly wrote to the Committee very promptly, and we have quoted the first sentence verbatim. These are not random words; this is the Minister’s definition. All we are seeking to do is place it in the Bill.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I am grateful, as always, to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, because he has hit the nail on the head. This is not something novel; it is merely codifying—formalising in the Bill—what has already been written in evidence to us, which seems eminently sensible.
It is important to consider the practical impact of the amendment on public bodies. The definition would not impose a new or onerous requirement. Public bodies are already accustomed to taking into account statutory duties and policy considerations in their decision-making processes. A requirement to think about the covenant and give it appropriate weight would fit squarely within that existing framework. It would not require extensive additional processes or resources. It would not mandate detailed reporting or specific outcomes. Instead, it would provide a clear instruction about how the covenant should be treated alongside other relevant factors. In practice, that may involve ensuring that decision makers are aware of the covenant and understand its implications. It may involve considering how policies affect members of the armed forces community and whether adjustments are needed to avoid disadvantage. Those seem eminently sensible and wise factors to put in this piece of legislation.
In education, that could mean taking into account the particular challenges faced by a service child who moves schools frequently. In healthcare, it could involve considering continuity of care for families who relocate. In housing, it could involve recognising the impact of service-related mobility on access to accommodation. In each of those cases, the duty does not require a specific result; it requires consideration of the relevant factors, including the covenant, and a balanced decision based on those factors. Amendment 8 would therefore support decision making without constraining flexibility.
We often hear concerns that defining duties in legislation may increase the risk of legal challenge. In my view, in this case, the greater clarity that the amendment would introduce is more likely to reduce that risk and be a protective factor. Where duties are clearly defined, public bodies are better able to understand and comply with them, which reduces the likelihood of disputes arising from uncertainty about what is required. Conversely, where duties are unclear, there is a greater risk of inconsistent application and challenge.
By setting out what due regard means in this context, the amendment would provide a clearer basis for compliance. Importantly, it would reduce ambiguity. It is also relevant that the definition is framed in general terms; it does not describe details or steps that must be followed in every case. That would allow public bodies to apply the duty in a way that is proportionate to the circumstances that they face. That flexibility is important given the range of functions and decisions to which the duty will apply.
The amendment aligns with the overall purpose of the Bill. The intention is to embed the principles of the armed forces covenant in the work of public bodies. A clearly defined duty would support that objective by ensuring that the covenant is considered in a consistent and meaningful way. If the duty is left undefined, there is a risk that its impact will vary significantly between organisations, which would undermine the aim of the Bill. The amendment would strengthen the Bill by supporting a more effective and consistent implementation. It would also reflect the practical realities of service life.
Members of the armed forces and their families frequently experience moves and disruption as part of their service. They rely on public services in different parts of the country and need those services to respond in a consistent and informed way. A clear definition of due regard would help to support that consistency, providing a common framework for decision making that recognises the particular circumstances of the armed forces community. It is not about giving preferential treatment in all cases; it is about ensuring fairness in line with the principles of the covenant. That includes avoiding disadvantage and, where appropriate, providing additional support. The amendment would ensure that those principles are properly taken into account.
Amendment 8 would make a targeted and practical improvement to the Bill. It would support a more consistent application of the armed forces covenant by public bodies, provide greater clarity for decision makers and those affected by their decisions, strengthen accountability, and reduce the risk of inconsistent interpretation. Most importantly, it would help to ensure that the covenant is applied in a way that has a real effect on day-to-day decision making. For those reasons, I view the amendment as a useful and proportionate clarification that would strengthen the operation of the duty as set out in the Bill.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
I want to add further weight to the points that colleagues have already made. Service personnel themselves have said that the armed forces covenant, while incredibly well meaning, needs to be enacted and enforced properly. It also needs to be explained to the forces themselves what it means and what is on offer to them. With the duty’s extension going as far as it does, we must be absolutely clear what it means in practice, in order to ensure its enforcement. I speak as a lawyer, too, and the enforcement issue is always the biggest problem with any legislation that comes out of this place.
From the evidence sessions we know that the statutory guidance will be doing a lot of the heavy lifting, but we do not know what it will look like or what form it will take—that is not in front of us—so it is important that we discuss and consider the definition of due regard. Including a definition would bring more clarity to the Bill, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said. During the evidence sessions, many Members questioned what due regard means, so it is really important that we ensure that our local bodies know, via a definition on the face of the Bill, what we are hoping and aiming for them to achieve.
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford and the hon. Members for Exmouth and Exeter East, for Solihull West and Shirley, and for South Northamptonshire, for amendment 8, which seeks to define “due regard” in the Bill. I recognise their intent, their positivity and their commitment to the covenant, but I cannot accept the amendment.
The amendment is unnecessary because due regard is a long-established legal concept that public bodies already understand and routinely apply in practice. The existing covenant duty of due regard is already driving positive change in its current areas of housing, healthcare and education.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
Does the Minister not accept that there is inconsistent application of the covenant across public bodies, and that to try to fix that, which all of us on the Committee are seeking to do, there is strength in codifying it in the Bill?
Al Carns
I absolutely agree, and I am one of the biggest champions for shouting about the postcode lottery in the delivery of the covenant. Putting that in the Bill would not change it. It requires education, communication and, in a lot of ways, internal support within local authorities to deliver it. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East mentioned the lack of skills at local council level—that is the problem. It is not necessary to amend the Bill; the statutory guidance will be absolutely clear and concise on what the covenant means.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I am grateful to the Minister for indulging me. I do not disagree that, to a greater or lesser extent, this is a matter of education, but there is the issue of guidance being guidance and not being mandatory. If a definition were included in the Bill, it would provide a much stricter framework—alongside the education piece for local authorities—to ensure that we are getting this right. Does he agree?
Al Carns
I agree with the premise of the hon. Member’s point. Where I disagree is in how local authorities may view that and how it may restrict their ability to deliver services across other requirements, in line with local priorities. In my letter to the Committee, I wrote:
“When developing the Armed Forces Covenant Legal Duty, due regard was deliberately chosen to bring about lasting positive change…whilst at the same time retaining some flexibility for public bodies to make decisions that are right for their local context and circumstances.”
That is really important, because some of our constituencies will have different levels of need compared with others. Some may have large veteran populations; others may not. Some may have a large number of cancer patients, for example. Prioritising veterans in a very narrow, bounded line above those individuals may skew a whole list of requirements and needs across other public services, hence my point about communication and education, and then the yearly accountability in line with the covenant, which is critical to ensure a level of accountability.
Government Departments are also demonstrating how covenant considerations are driving change in practice. For example, this Government have gone further than before by removing local connection requirements for access to social housing for all veterans. I would be really interested if the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford has examples of where that local connection requirement has not been removed; if he does, I ask him, please, to highlight them to my office so that we can take them on and deal with them, because we removed the requirement last year.
Our experience of the public sector equality duty also shows that a duty of due regard, when properly supported, is sufficient to drive lasting cultural and organisational change, but I do accept that this is the first step to moving in that direction. In addition, the covenant’s statutory guidance, which we can scrutinise in due course, will include a dedicated section explaining what due regard means in practice, including the key issues faced by the armed forces community that bodies must consider. I would welcome the whole House’s view on how that can be improved—if, indeed, it thinks it should be.
Mr Francois
I do not think the Minister ever served in local government—he was serving his country in uniform, so I mean no slight by that comment—but I did for four years, albeit in the last century. I remember that primary legislation had more effect than guidance on councils, not least because even then we were drowning in such guidance—there is even more of it to drown in now. Would he accept that having something in primary legislation is more likely to get a councillor to do something about it than if it is included in reams of guidance, which they tend to drown in anyway on a weekly basis?
Al Carns
While I may not have served in local government, I absolutely acknowledge that we drown in bureaucracy across the UK. I would say that, compared with primary legislation, a councillor is far more likely to listen to and acknowledge an individual who has experience of armed forces service and who tries to enforce, educate and communicate the requirement to comply with the covenant.
There are two things that are going to bring about change. The first is armed forces champions across local councils, who do a fantastic job. They can be paid and there are no terms of reference; the role has not been standardised. The second thing, which will really change things over time, is the Valour programme, under which local field officers will help communicate and educate on compliance with the covenant over time, and help those councillors who perhaps do not understand it to deliver in line with it more effectively.
Ian Roome
I was a local armed forces champion. I was in local government for 22 years and ended up being council leader before entering this place. I can tell the Committee that, in practice, I was going around and screaming my head off to make sure that people were listening but, as it was not mandatory, they could just refer to due regard and make their interpretation of the guidance. I was a local armed forces champion for eight years, right up until I entered this place in July 2024, and I struggled to get veterans the help they needed. I just want the Minister to take that on board.
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service, both in the military and in local government, and as an armed forces champion. The honest reality is that as the duty is broadened from three areas to 12 plus two, local councils will be held to account to deliver for the armed forces community—and not just for veterans, but for families and others. The statutory guidance will be really clear. Combine that with field officers, under Op Valour, holding councils to account, with clear terms of reference that are standardised across the UK, and I think we will see a massive improvement in services, not just for veterans but for the broader armed forces community.
Mr Francois
I do not want to labour the point, but in reality, a lot often comes down to the calibre of the armed forces champion in a particular council; I am sure that the hon. Member for North Devon was an excellent one. If such a champion were in a debate in full council—on how to amend housing policy to advantage veterans, say—it would be far more effective for them to be able to point to a section in an Act of Parliament than to paragraph 212B(III) of some Government circular. An argument is far more effective in a council chamber if a person can wave an Act of Parliament; I have seen people do it. Does the Minister not accept that if we are trying to empower armed forces champions to deliver at ground level, having a definition in the Bill would be very helpful?
Al Carns
Empowering armed forces champions is not necessarily the solution; unfortunately, whether we like it or not, armed forces champions differ between councils. I am not an expert, as some members of the Committee are, but I have travelled to many local councils and seen where it works exceptionally well. For example, in Manchester, armed forces champions are paid and employed by the council and have clear terms of reference. Other areas do not even have armed forces champions. To deliver the most consistent change, the solution is not necessarily to empower armed forces champions but to provide a set of terms of reference for the accountable individuals in councils to uphold the covenant and support veterans, across the entire nation, in line with the Valour programme.
Mr Foster
On this Committee, we have veterans and former council leaders, and I am both. One of the main reasons for all the changes being made in the Bill is a recognition that, historically, the covenant has not been delivered appropriately by local authorities. However, does the Minister agree that there is evidence that it has significantly improved recently, and that including Op Valour will take that improvement a step further?
Al Carns
I completely agree. The reality is that the implementation of the covenant has been really narrow, across three different Departments. The Bill will broaden the number of policy areas it covers to 12 plus two, which will put an onus on councils and allow people to hold them to account on delivering in line with the armed forces covenant. That is a positive step in the right direction. When we combine that with Valour over time, starting small and broadening out, we will end up with a data-based solution that ensures that councils can support their armed forces community in a more effective and balanced manner.
A definition of due regard in the Bill risks being overly narrow and could unintentionally limit how bodies apply it in practice.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I promise the Minister that this will be the last time I intervene.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
That was a lawyer’s promise; the Minister can read it as he wills.
Does the Minister not think that having a definition of due regard in the Bill would assist the courts in interpreting its application in cases where a public body’s decision is challenged by a member of the armed forces community?
Al Carns
When it comes to the legal process, we must ensure that there is the flexibility in local councils to adhere to the covenant in line with the broader issues and capacity that they may have to deal with. Some council areas have a huge number of veterans, and others have very few. Many councils, including mine in Birmingham, have a huge housing problem. Should we prioritise a single mum with a child, or a veteran? If we made that too explicit, we would skew how local councils view veterans and the armed forces as a whole. That is quite dangerous.
Sarah Bool
The Minister talks about the definition being narrow, but it would actually be quite broad. The amendment says that
“‘due regard’ means that specified bodies should think about and place an appropriate amount of weight on the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when they consider all the key factors”.
That definition sets out a framework, but it is not so narrow and specified as to be problematic. On the Minister’s point, we already have problems enforcing the covenant across three areas; now we are going to 12. Even the armed forces personnel I have been speaking to have said that they have severe concerns about that. Local councils also raised that issue in the evidence sessions. While the Bill is very well intentioned, I worry that we are setting up councils to struggle, and that the postcode lottery will get even worse.
Al Carns
I disagree—the postcode lottery will get better and start to standardise over time. There is a multitude of problems with the covenant that the Bill will try to solve, one of which is education, and communication to our own armed forces personnel about what it is and what it is not. That is a problem for the Ministry of Defence, which we are taking forward.
A definition of due regard in the Bill risks being overly narrow and could unintentionally limit how bodies apply it in practice. I talked in my letter about flexibility, which is critical. Due regard is about informed decision making. It may involve training staff and putting mechanisms in place to ensure that decision making includes concise analysis of how decisions might impact members of the armed forces community.
Rachel Taylor
The Minister has been extremely generous with his time. I want to come back to this definition and whether it will help us, because what the Minister is saying is that we need to educate, inform and work with the champions in local authorities, rather than set up a system that litigates the meaning of “an appropriate amount of weight”. I fail to see how a definition that talks about an appropriate amount of weight is any more helpful for someone interpreting it than the phrase “due regard”, which, from a lot of evidence, is well understood by most of the people delivering on the armed forces covenant.
Al Carns
The public sector equality duty has been in force for 15 years and its duty of due regard is working well; we seek to replicate that as we move forward. From my perspective, the amendment risks constraining rather than strengthening that approach. As I have said many times, this is a step in the right direction. It broadens the policy areas covered by the covenant, which is a fantastic step and should be seen very positively across the armed forces, their families, our veteran community and the bereaved.
I thank the hon. Members for North Devon and for Tunbridge Wells for amendment 5, which proposes a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to
“prepare and publish a national protocol for consistent access to public services”
for personnel and their families. While I recognise the importance of consistent and reliable access to public services for the armed forces community, again I respectfully cannot accept the amendment. A national protocol setting out standardised procedures and expectations could create a minimal level of requirement that organisations might seek to meet without going any further. It therefore risks unintentionally limiting the steps taken by those organisations to support the armed forces.
Al Carns
The minimum requirement at the moment is to stay in line with the covenant principles. That needs to be balanced with the broader local issues that each local authority is facing. That will never be standardised because our local communities are different, from Cornwall to the north-east, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is the harsh truth of the postcode lottery: the covenant will broaden out to a variety of policy areas but the way to solve its implementation is through communication and education, rather than tying ourselves up in bureaucracy and legislation.
Ian Roome
We heard in the Defence Committee that a lot of people currently serving in the armed forces have never even heard of the armed forces covenant; they do not know what it is. We are discussing how to educate the public, but a lot of people serving have never heard of the armed forces covenant. Does the Minister think that the education needs to start within the Ministry of Defence on how it handles the armed forces covenant?
Al Carns
I completely agree. I served for 24 years, and I did not know what the covenant was until I left and became the Minister for Veterans and People. That is the honest reality. I am sure that others who are serving also do not know what the covenant is. There is an educational requirement within the military, but also—I say this ever so gently—they are so focused on their operational roles and responsibilities that they are not necessarily interested in what comes next, or in understanding the benefits of the covenant to their families and loved ones while they are serving, which is a crying shame. I completely agree that we must make a more conscious effort to ensure that the covenant is understood by those serving, those who have left, and importantly—perhaps in some cases more so than for any other group—the families of veterans or of those serving. There is a huge amount of support out there, but it is often untapped because of the lack of education.
The legal duty is set up so that bodies can make decisions that are right for the local context and circumstances, including the devolved Governments. I would argue that a one-size-fits-all approach could inadvertently hinder tailored solutions that best meet the needs of armed forces personnel and their families. Instead, the covenant duty is supported by robust statutory guidance that acts as a clear point of reference for public bodies. Therefore, further expectations are unnecessary. This guidance ensures that the needs of the armed forces community are properly considered, while allowing for local discretion and responsiveness. Furthermore, transparency and accountability are maintained through the armed forces covenant annual report, which monitors progress and highlights areas for improvement.
In summary, mandating a national protocol risks imposing unnecessary rigidity and could limit the ability of public bodies to respond effectively to local circumstances—a point that I keep coming back to. We believe the current approach strikes the right balance between consistency, flexibility and accountability. I hope that reassures hon. Members, and I ask them not to press amendments 8 and 5.
David Reed
Given the strength of the argument this morning, I would like to test the will of the Committee and press amendment 8 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Continuity of NHS secondary care services
(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of secondary care treatment for a person who—
(a) is a dependent of a member of the regular or reserve forces who is receiving secondary care services from a health body in one part of the United Kingdom, and
(b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when the member of the armed forces to whom that person is dependent is posted.
(2) The regulations must specify that the relevant health body must take reasonable steps to ensure that any course of secondary care treatment being provided to the dependent is appropriately transferred to an appropriate health body in the area to which the dependent relocates.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), “appropriately transferred” means—
(a) the dependent’s treatment or place on a treatment waiting list is maintained upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and
(b) the dependent will not require a new referral form from a general practitioner or other primary care professional as a condition for continuation of treatment upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.
(4) Regulations under this section must include a requirement for a national authority to issue guidance on—
(a) the transfer of patient records,
(b) the continuation of treatment pathways upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and
(c) the preservation of waiting list placement upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make provision for NHS secondary care services to be appropriately transferred where a person who is dependent on a member of the armed forces must become ordinarily resident in an area for which a different NHS body is responsible for care as a consequence of the member of the armed forces on whom they are dependent’s military posting.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Continuity of plans for Special Educational Needs
(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must make regulations to make provision for a plan for Special Educational Needs awarded to a person who—
(a) is a parent serving in the Armed Forces, and
(b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when posted.
(2) The regulations shall specify that the plan for Special Educational Needs awarded to a person in subsection (1), in respect of their child or children, must be portable when responsibility for delivering that plan is transferred from one education body or local authority to another.
(3) The regulations made under subsection (1) shall provide that, if a service family are required to move from one base to another, for operational or other reasons, any plan for Special Educational Needs awarded to them or their child via their current education body or local authority shall remain equally valid, post-transfer, with the education body or local authority which covers the area of their new posting.
(4) Serving families covered by subsection (2) shall have reasonable time to negotiate a named school for their plan in their new area with the relevant education body and local authority.
(5) In this section, “a plan for Special Educational Needs” means—
(a) in England, an Education and Health Care Plan,
(b) in Wales, an Individual Development Plan,
(c) in Scotland, a Co-ordinated Support Plan,
(d) in Northern Ireland, a Statement of Special Educational Needs.”
This amendment would allow serving families, with a child for whom they have been awarded an Education and Health Care Plan or equivalent Special Educational Needs support, to transfer that support without penalty if they are required to move bases, for operational or other reasons, from one area to another.
Amendment 12, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements
(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements for a person who—
(a) is a serving member of the Armed Forces,
(b) has entered into negotiations about potentially adopting or fostering children, and
(c) is required to move base as part of their military service.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must ensure that if a service family is required to move from one base to another, for operational or other reasons, any adoption or fostering arrangements they have made with their existing local authority should be appropriately transferred to the appropriate new local authority.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “appropriately transferred” means any adoption or fostering arrangements shall not be disrupted as a result of the transfer from one local authority to another.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for minimum residency requirements for adoption or fostering in a local authority to be waived for any service family which is required to move from one local authority jurisdiction to another, for operational or other reasons.
(5) Service families in this position shall have an opportunity to re-negotiate potential adoption or fostering arrangements with the new local authority, including prior to transfer to their new posting.”
This amendment would allow serving families who are considering adopting or fostering a child to continue that process with no disadvantage if they are required to move bases, for operational or other reasons, from one local authority area to another.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I will confine my remarks to amendment 10, concerning the continuity of NHS secondary care services for the dependants of members of the armed forces. The amendment addresses an issue that has very real consequences for the health and wellbeing of service families, and therefore for the broader integrity of the commitment we make to those who have served and do serve.
At the heart of this amendment lies a simple maxim: those who serve their country, and the families who support them, should not be placed at a disadvantage when accessing essential public services as a result of the demands placed upon them by service life. That principle is, of course, recognised in the armed forces covenant; the question is whether we are giving full and consistent effect to it in practice.
The difficulty arises from a defining feature of military service: members of the armed forces are required to move. They are often asked to move frequently, often at short notice, sometimes across significant distances within the United Kingdom, and sometimes further afield. Those moves are not discretionary; they are intrinsic to the operational readiness and effective functioning of our armed forces. And when service personnel move, invariably their families move with them.
That reality carries with it a number of challenges, but one of the most pressing, and one that is too often overlooked, is the disruption to ongoing medical treatment for their dependants. While primary care is generally able to accommodate patient movement with relative ease, the same cannot be said for secondary care. Hospital treatment, specialist pathways and waiting lists are typically organised on a regional or trust basis. When a family crosses those organisational boundaries, continuity is not guaranteed.
The consequence, in too many cases, is that dependants find themselves required to re-enter the system. A child undergoing specialist treatment, a spouse awaiting elective surgery or a family member under the care of a consultant may be told that because they have moved into a new area, they must obtain a new referral, join a new waiting list and effectively begin the process again from the start.
It is important to be clear about what that represents—not a clinical judgment or a decision taken in the interests of patient care, but an administrative consequence of the way services are structured and commissioned across different parts of the NHS. It is in effect a failure of co-ordination. For the individuals concerned, however, it has a much more significant impact. It can mean delayed diagnoses, prolonged pain, deterioration in conditions that require timely intervention, and significant anxiety for families already managing the pressures of service life. It can also undermine confidence in the system and create a perception, justified or otherwise, that service families are being treated less favourably.
The amendment seeks to address that problem in a proportionate manner. It does not attempt to redesign the structure of the NHS—that would be a fool’s errand—nor does it impose a rigid requirement on how services should be delivered.
Rachel Taylor
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument; we can all relate to the specific problems that anyone faces when they move house, and that is far more likely for service personnel. However, requiring patients to retain waiting list positions regardless of clinical urgency surely risks distorting NHS prioritisation principles, which are based on clinical need in order to ensure fairness and safety. Could he address that point?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The hon. Member makes a valid point. Of course there will need to be a degree of clinical judgment, but the premise that somebody has to start at the bottom of the system by virtue of the fact that they are a dependant of service personnel is inherently unfair, and one that needs to be addressed in the Bill.
Mike Martin
Nobody wants a serviceperson or veteran to return to the back of the list. That would be completely contrary to what we are trying to do. Equally, if they were sixth on the list in the old area, we do not want them to be sixth in the new area. Is the hon. Member saying that their degree of clinical severity or urgency, or their triage category, would transfer such that they would slot into the new list at the same level?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for his intervention. This is about placing a clear, time-bound duty on the Secretary of State to secure continuity of secondary care for dependants within six months. We want their clinical need to transfer horizontally across, as opposed to vertically downwards. That is the nuisance that amendment 10 is intended to address.
Amendment 10 sets out the substance of the regulations that I have suggested that the Secretary of State introduce. They are deliberately straightforward. First, where a patient is already receiving treatment, their status should be preserved when the responsibility for their care is transferred to a different health authority—that is, a horizontal move across. In practical terms, it would mean that a patient should not lose their place in the system because they crossed administrative boundaries. Instead, they should have a seamless transfer of care.
Secondly, the amendment would ensure that patients are not required to obtain a new referral solely by virtue of having moved, which would be ridiculous. The need for a referral is, and should remain, a clinical matter. It should not be triggered by geography and movement. Requiring a new referral in those circumstances adds delay, creates duplication and serves no meaningful clinical purpose.
Thirdly, the amendment calls for clear guidance on the practical steps necessary to support continuity, including the timely and efficient transfer of patient records, the recognition and continuation of existing treatment pathways, and the preservation of procedures that have been booked or recommended. Those are not novel concepts; in many ways, they are already part of good administrative practice. What is lacking is the consistency of application across the country.
It is perhaps worth emphasising what amendment 10 would not do, as much as what it would. It would not confer preferential treatment on service families. It would not seek to move them ahead of others in the queue, nor to secure access to services beyond what is clinically necessary. Its purpose is much more modest: to ensure that service families are not disadvantaged as a result of circumstances beyond their control. That is entirely in keeping with the armed forces covenant, which commits to removing disadvantage, not to creating advantage. In that context, the disadvantage is clear; it arises not from clinical need, but from the intersection of mobility and administrative fragmentation. Addressing it is therefore both entirely justified and absolutely necessary.
There is also a broader point about fairness and the implicit contract between the nation and those who serve. Service personnel accept a range of constraints and obligations that do not apply to the general population. They relinquish a degree of control over where they live, where they move and how they organise their family life. In return, it is entirely reasonable for them to expect that the state will take reasonable steps to ensure that those constraints do not translate into avoidable hardship for their families.
Continuity of healthcare is a particularly important aspect of that understanding. Health is not a peripheral concern; it is central to the wellbeing and stability of service families. Disruption to care can have a cascading effect on education, employment and the overall resilience of the family unit. In that sense, addressing the issue is a matter not only of fairness, but of operational effectiveness. A serviceperson who is worried about the health of their family cannot fully focus on their duties. At a time of critical need, their ability to do so is absolutely essential.
Some may raise questions about the practicalities of implementing such a system, particularly in the context of devolved health systems across the United Kingdom. It is therefore important to be clear about the scope and intent of amendment 10. It would not seek to override devolved competencies or impose a uniform model of service delivery. Rather, it would require that whatever the organisational arrangements are, mechanisms be in place to ensure continuity when patients move between them.
In many respects, the steps required are administrative rather than structural. They involve ensuring that information flows effectively, that existing clinical decisions are recognised, and that waiting positions are honoured, based on clinical need. These are matters of co-ordination, communication and guidance; they do not require wholesale reform of the system.
There are already examples of good practice in this area. In some parts of the country, arrangements have already been put in place to facilitate the transfer of patients between trusts with minimal disruption to their care. The amendment seeks to ensure that such practice becomes the norm rather than the exception.
It is also worth noting that the increasing digitalisation of healthcare records and the development of more integrated healthcare systems provide a foundation upon which this kind of continuity can be built. In many cases, the infrastructure already exists; what is needed is a clearer expectation, backed by regulation, that it should be used to support service families consistently and reliably.
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech. As he and the Committee know, there is a major reform of NHS England going on. At the ground level, it means that there will be far fewer integrated care boards. In Essex, we are going from three to one, and that approach is mirrored across the country. Is not my hon. Friend’s amendment therefore very timely, because—this should appeal to the Minister—we are trying to slim down NHS bureaucracy and give ICBs more power within the system? Would my hon. Friend’s proposal not tie in extremely well with the reorganisation of integrated care boards, which hold much of the budget within the NHS?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is about not only streamlining the process, but giving more heft to those who wield the power to ensure that we get improved patient outcomes at the end of it. That is what we should all be seeking.
Ultimately, the question before us is very straightforward: are we content to allow a situation to persist in which service families can lose their place in the healthcare system simply because they are required to move in the course of service, or do we consider it reasonable to take targeted steps to prevent that outcome? In my view, the answer is clear. Where treatment has begun, it should continue. Where a place on a waiting list has been earned, it should be respected. Administrative boundaries should not dictate clinical outcomes. They certainly should not impose additional burdens on those who have little choice but to cross them.
The amendment provides a measured and practical mechanism to achieve that objective. It respects the structure of the NHS, acknowledges the reality of devolution and focuses squarely on the removal of a specific and identifiable disadvantage. In doing so, it gives tangible effect to the principles of the covenant. It recognises that our obligations to service families are not merely symbolic; they require a practical expression in the design and operation of public services.
Rachel Taylor
Although the amendments are well-intentioned, they are somewhat problematic because they target health, education, adoption and fostering, which are all devolved to the respective Governments. They risk recklessly breaching our devolution conventions, including the Sewel convention. The purpose of the Bill is not to strain relationships with the devolved Governments; instead, it seeks to empower them to design the right solutions for each nation.
The covenant duty is intentionally flexible and is supported by guidance and existing frameworks. It allows each Government to design their response. I believe that this Government should seek to work collaboratively with the devolved Governments on supporting our armed forces, rather than prescribing duties to them in legislation.
Furthermore, our NHS already works effectively with the covenant duty to support continuity. The amendments would risk governance and clinical risks. Instead, the Government are focusing on initiatives that aim to promote awareness of the armed forces community.
The Ministry of Defence already provides comprehensive guidance for service families through the adoption and fostering defence instruction notice, which embeds the MOD’s role firmly within existing civilian-led systems. These long-standing frameworks already ensure continuity for families when they move. In combination with the strengthened covenant duty, they will provide a far more practical and effective approach than is proposed in the amendment.
Mr Francois
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East is leading for the Opposition on clause 2, I nevertheless want to make a particular point in relation to special educational needs and to adoption and fostering. I want to emphasise some issues related to educational aspects of the armed forces covenant. I shall therefore speak to amendment 11, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends, which relates to the continuity of special educational needs plans, and to amendment 12, tabled by the same Members, which relates to fostering and adoption.
I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members on the Committee will be familiar from their constituency casework with the challenges presented by the special educational needs issue. I therefore rather hope they might have some sympathy with amendment 11, the essence of which is to allow serving families with a child who has been awarded an education, health and care plan, or its equivalent in the other nations of the United Kingdom, to transfer that support without penalty if they are required to move between bases, for operational or other reasons, from one area of the country to another.
In the modern parlance, I have been on a journey in relation to this issue, so let me explain briefly to the Committee why I feel so strongly about it. Over the past few years, multiple parents have come to my constituency advice surgeries in connection with this issue. In a number of cases, they have been through what I admit is a bureaucratic assault course, sometimes lasting two years or longer, to establish an EHCP for their child or children. Having been through that gruelling experience, which can sometimes even involve attending an appeal hearing in front of a judge, they have often been confronted with the further challenge—even having won such a valuable document, which provides important additional support for their child—that they still cannot find a special needs place. Their child therefore has to be accommodated somehow in mainstream education, even if their condition is such that mainstream education is simply not appropriate in their case.
Mr Francois
I was hoping to approach this in a relatively non-partisan manner, but if the hon. Lady wants to mix it, I am happy to do so.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
Mr Francois
Let me just reply to the first intervention, and then I will be happy to take another. It is definitely true that there is a backlog in granting EHCPs in Essex, for a number of contractual reasons. To be fair to the county council, it now has a new contract and has invested heavily in catching up, but let me get back to the service personnel aspect.
Jayne Kirkham
I have great sympathy with what the right hon. Member is saying. We face this issue all over the country, particularly in Cornwall. However, he will be aware that the amendment may be out of date soon because the Government are introducing new SEN reforms that will introduce national standards, so hopefully it will no longer be needed.
Mr Francois
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point. Having looked at the White Paper in a fair bit of detail, I have tried to incorporate how the system will change into what I am going to say. There is still a fundamental problem, however, which I hope I can explain to her satisfaction.
I have come to understand at least a bit about the complexities of the situation, including the important fact that some 99% of appeals to SEN tribunals for an EHCP to be granted are eventually approved anyway. That is a phenomenally high percentage. It struck me that the system was expending a tremendous amount of resource in trying to exercise the judgment of Solomon as to whether child A was marginally more entitled to a scarce SEN school place than child B. That can apply to the children of service personnel as well. It therefore seemed to me, after some years of experience, that the only way to cut the Gordian knot was to increase the supply of special needs education. With all the SEN schools in south Essex already heavily oversubscribed, that meant creating a new special needs school from scratch. I spent three years trying to do exactly that.
I am delighted to tell the Committee that Wolsey Park school, the first ever SEN school in the Rochford district, is now under construction and will hopefully open in the spring of next year for 150 children with severe or profound learning difficulties—the most challenging SEN cases—in Rayleigh. There will also be an annexe with a further 100 places on the former Chetwood primary school site in South Woodham Ferrers. The school will be called Wolsey Park, although light-heartedly I thought “Francois academy” had a certain ring to it. Others, unfortunately, disagreed. It should provide high-quality education for those very special children.
As a result of that process, I have been on an educational journey that has taught me quite a lot about the complexities and challenges of the whole area, which of course also applies to service personnel who have a child, or in some cases children, with special educational needs. I know that this can sometimes be an emotive subject, not least for parents, but I hope I can convince the Committee that what I am attempting to do is not any kind of partisan initiative, but will hopefully be to the benefit of all service personnel and their families in this category.
The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth raised the new White Paper. In February 2026, the Government published a long-awaited White Paper on this subject, “Every child achieving and thriving”. There are a number of positive suggestions in that document, and I should like to touch on them, as they potentially affect armed forces personnel.
According to the latest estimates, by which I mean the gov.uk statistics concerning SEN and EHCP provision in England for the academic year 2024-25, there are 482,640 children with an education, health and care plan in England. Obviously, the number increases when Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are included in the total; they have different names for the document, but they are essentially quite similar.
The definition of special educational needs, which is included in the SEND code of practice for England, is brief and very clear:
“A child or young person has SEN if they have a learning difficulty or disability which calls for special educational provision to be made for him or her.”
At present, that provision, whether it is in a mainstream educational setting or a dedicated SEN school, is often supported in the most challenging cases by an EHCP. The White Paper estimates that around 5.3% of children in England, or just over one in 20, currently qualify for an EHCP. Although I have not seen specific statistics relating to the military community, it seems logical that the proportion is unlikely to be lower, so at least one in 20 service children, and perhaps even more, qualify for an EHCP.
One of the challenges of dealing with SEN children—this point relates directly to amendment 11—is that providing the additional support they require is often relatively resource-intensive. Local education authorities are therefore often reluctant to speedily grant EHCPs because of the financial pressure that it adds to their budgets, even though 99% of those cases tend to be settled in favour of the parents and the child concerned anyway, sometimes after a gruelling and time-consuming appeal process.
Because of the funding pressures placed on local authorities by the growing demand for SEN support and for EHCPs in particular, several years ago the then Conservative Government introduced what was known as the statutory override for local authority budgets. In essence, it meant that although local authorities are required by law to set a balanced budget each year—would that central Government had to live by such discipline!—the one exception whereby they are allowed to run a deficit deliberately is the case of costs arising from SEN education.
As we have local elections approaching, it is fair to say—without being partisan or going into the cases of individual councils—that rising SEN costs have placed a number of local authorities that are also local education authorities, such as county councils or metropolitan or London boroughs, under considerable financial strain in recent years. As a result, under the Conservative Government, the statutory override that was introduced in March 2020 and was initially meant to run until March 2023 was extended to the end of March 2026.
Now I am about to give this Labour Government some credit. The question of what would happen when the statutory override ran out is obviously still pertinent. In June 2025, they announced that the statutory override would stay in place until the end of the financial year 2027-28—so they extended it. Moreover, in autumn 2025, the Treasury announced that the Government would absorb the cost of the statutory override through central budgets—in other words, via general taxation—once the override expires in 2028.
As the Library briefing notes on this subject point out:
“Future funding implications will be managed within the overall government DEL envelope, such that the government would not expect local authorities to need to fund future special educational needs costs from general funds, once the Statutory Override ends at the end of 2027-28.”
In February this year—last month—the Government further announced that they would be writing off 90% of councils’ historic SEND-related deficits, at least up to the year 2025-26. All of that is very costly in terms of general taxation, and I have yet to see a comprehensive estimate of exactly how it will be paid for, but the Committee might feel that, in these very particular and emotive cases, the money is none the less well spent.
Jayne Kirkham
Looking at amendment 11’s proposed new section 343AZC of the 2006 Act, I am not sure whether there may be a drafting error. EHCPs are normally given to the child, not the parent, and the proposed new section is drafted as if the plan will be awarded to the parent.
Mr Francois
I accept the hon. Lady’s point, but in effect the EHCP relates to the child, and the parents have to fight the system to get it. I am very happy to take her advice on board if I bring the amendment back on Report.
Nevertheless—this is why I have placed an emphasis on budgets—the cost of SEN still places a significant in-year pressure on local authorities that are trying to set realistic budgets. Of course, there is the related issue that many Committee members will be familiar with—the cost of home-to-school transport for SEN children, some of whom are driven from home to school, in some cases over quite long distances, often effectively in taxis provided by the local authority.
Amendment 11 relates specifically to the portability of EHCPs, but it is important to understand that in the February 2026 White Paper, the Government delineated three tiers of SEN support, which I will briefly summarise. The first or lower tier is targeted support. That is defined as providing targeted support in the child’s education setting, which is set out in an individual support plan—an ISP, as opposed to an EHCP. That could include small group interventions to develop language skills or pre-teaching key vocabulary to help access the curriculum.
The second tier is targeted plus, through which support from the setting will have input from education and health professionals, and may include access to a support base. That will involve time-limited support in an alternative provision or specialist setting.
The third and highest tier is specialist support, where support is provided through an EHCP, whether in a mainstream or specialist setting. It may also be provided through a specialist base at this level. Once reforms are completed, EHCPs will be provided only at this level of support. In other words, they will be more difficult to get. According to the White Paper, these layers will be guided by national inclusion standards to be developed in the coming years, which will set out what the layers should look like in practice. Again, as so often, we await further Government guidance.
I have deliberately gone into this level of detail because, at the moment, the amendment is drafted only to include EHCPs. To be clear, it is my intention today to deal with this effectively as a probing amendment to promote debate. Depending on the Committee’s reaction, I would like to bring back a refined amendment for discussion in Committee of the whole House or on Report. I am signalling in advance that I might withdraw the amendment today and tweak it to bring in those other levels of support.
Rachel Taylor
The right hon. Member makes a very valid point. I invite him to submit his speech to the consultation on the Government’s White Paper on special educational needs. If he is going to withdraw the amendment, perhaps he would consider that, and then we could move on.
Mr Francois
Having been a Member of Parliament for 25 years in June, I have learned not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I say that in the nicest possible way, so I will take the hint, and having gone to the trouble of writing the speech, I will definitely submit it.
To continue, if a service family were based at Tidworth and, perhaps after some considerable time, had secured an EHCP from Wiltshire as the local education authority, but were then posted to Catterick, they would potentially have to go through the process all over again in Yorkshire. It could be another two years of agony to get back to where they already were before they moved.
As the Minister pointed out in his helpful letter to the Committee of 9 March, the Department for Education has produced—here is that word again—“guidelines” that should help facilitate the passporting, in effect, of EHCPs from one military garrison or equivalent airbase or naval base to another in a different LEA area, so there is already a process in place to do that. The problem, however, is that those guidelines are facilitative rather than mandatory. In other words, if the receiving LEA—in Yorkshire, in our example—was already under serious financial pressure and already had delays in its system for granting EHCPs, it is possible that, despite the armed forces covenant, the receiving LEA might yet be unreasonable and still force the service family to go back to square one and start all over again. Without taking the Committee for granted in any way, I strongly suspect that Members from all parties would find that situation highly undesirable.
Mr Foster
Is it not the case that a civilian family who lived in Wiltshire and moved to Yorkshire would face exactly the same challenges as the service family? The covenant is about service personnel and families not being at a disadvantage compared with their civilian counterparts. Actually, they are already not at a disadvantage because both are dealt with in exactly the same way.
Mr Francois
The hon. Member is making my point for me. In the civilian context they might not be ordered to move, but in a military context their whole unit might move, so they do not have a choice. If they are going to follow the drum—follow the flag—they have to go from Tidworth to Catterick. If, therefore, the LEA covering Catterick were difficult about it, they would have to start the journey all over again. When I was doing the “Stick or Twist?” report, I spoke to a number of service personnel, so we had anecdotal evidence, although I am afraid not a league table. We certainly spoke to people who were contemplating leaving the military because they were in exactly that situation and simply could not face the challenge of having to move and start all over again. They would rather leave the service of the Crown and keep the bird in the hand—for want of a better phrase—staying with the EHCP that they had, than move to a new location, roll the dice and start all over again. That is the fundamental difference.
An absolute principle of the covenant—as, to be fair, the hon. Member for South Ribble rightly elucidated—is that service personnel and their families should suffer no disadvantage as a result of their military service. This is a very specific example of where they do, and we called the report “Stick or Twist?” because, in this case, that is the dilemma that they would face. I have done my best, I hope, to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, so I will try to move towards a conclusion without trying your patience, Mr Efford.
In essence, amendment 11 seeks to make provision for the Secretary of State to produce guidelines within six months such that the receiving authority must accept that transfer as legitimate and seek to passport across whatever benefits were provided for in the EHCP, or in the national equivalent in the devolved Administrations. On a point of detail, as an EHCP usually includes a named school for that child to go to, whether mainstream or specialist, the service family should also be given a reasonable period of time in order to help negotiate and select a named school in the receiving area, ideally before their posting comes into effect, so that the child could, as it were, know their fate and begin to establish links in the new school. I hope Committee members appreciate that for children with certain SEN conditions, moving educational settings can be a disturbing experience. That is why I put that provision into the amendment.
I hope the Committee will forgive me for having gone into considerable detail about all this, but special educational needs is perforce a rather complicated subject. Nevertheless, I hope that the Committee can understand what I and my hon. Friends seek to achieve here, and I hope that we might somehow be able to co-opt the Committee on a cross-party basis to bring it through. The spirit is simple: one of the key principles of the armed forces covenant is that service personnel should suffer no disadvantage relative to their civilian counterparts by virtue of their service, and I believe that that should apply equally in the field of special needs education as elsewhere.
Having presented my case, and so as not to try the Committee’s patience, I genuinely look forward to hearing other members of the Committee, especially the Minister when he sums up, and their views of amendment 11. I shall not discuss amendment 12 now, but will let someone else have a go. Perhaps, Mr Efford, you will call me to speak briefly to that amendment later. Other than that, I rest my case.
Mr Francois
I did not want to push my luck, but briefly, amendment 12 is similar in spirit and relates to portability and adoption. In this instance, I want to raise a specific case of two serving officers. They asked not to be identified, but perhaps the Minister will take my word that it is a genuine case; if he wants me to provide the details privately afterwards, I am happy to do so.
This married couple, both serving majors based at Shrivenham, have been looking to adopt. They are both due to be posted to PJHQ—permanent joint headquarters —in Northwood at the conclusion of their course, in under six months. They reached out to their future local authority to start the adoption process, but they were told that they could not start the process unless they had been living in that local authority area for at least a year. Also, they would have to commit to staying in the new local authority area for a minimum of two to three years after they had adopted—a potential total of more than five years. That is clearly not feasible for a military family, used to two-year posting cycles.
Our amendment 12 would therefore simply give military families the same rights as civilian families, who do not have to move wherever the nation needs them. It is very similar in essence to the point about EHCPs, but representations have been made to me by that family and others, so I undertook to draft a parallel amendment that specifically covers fostering and adoption. I hope the Committee can understand the spirit of what I am trying to achieve. With that, I rest my case.
Al Carns
I begin by addressing amendment 10. I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for his views on the Bill, and for raising the important issue of continuity of NHS secondary care for armed forces families. Although the amendment is well-intentioned, the Government cannot support it, for a relatively simple reason.
Healthcare, education, adoption and fostering arrangements are devolved matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The amendment risks overstepping devolved powers, and could breach the Sewel convention by imposing UK-wide operational requirements from Westminster, potentially straining relationships within the devolved Governments. It is counterintuitive.
The amendment also raises significant concerns about clinical prioritisation and patient safety. Requiring patients to retain waiting-list positions regardless of clinical urgency risks distorting NHS prioritisation principles, which are based on clinical need, ensuring fairness and safety. Similarly, transferring care without appropriate referral processes could undermine clinical governance, particularly given variations in treatment pathways and IT systems across NHS regions. For a long time, we have known that that creates a set of complexities that is difficult to navigate.
The armed forces covenant already provides a strong, flexible framework for addressing those challenges. The NHS has embedded the covenant principles into its constitution. It delivers bespoke pathways for the armed forces community, such as Op Restore and Op Courage, and it has a central armed forces commissioning team, which works to retain NHS waiting-list positions where clinically appropriate. I have met them, and they are exceptionally proficient at what they do.
In addition, existing programmes and ongoing electronic record integration already address many of the challenges associated with frequent moves and continuity of care, without the need for additional statutory requirements. A clear example of that collaborative approach is the work that is under way with the devolved Administrations. Wales and Scotland have today confirmed that following the cross-border work that has been led by the Government, they are actively considering updating their policies to better reflect cross-border arrangements and the maintenance of waiting times.
The current approach is based on close co-operation between the MOD, NHS, devolved Governments and local health bodies, supported by the armed forces covenant duty, rather than by rigid primary legislation. That allows for locally tailored solutions that respect clinical priorities and patient safety and avoid unintended consequences, such as disruption and delay. Extensive consultation and co-operation with devolved Administrations and stakeholders is essential to maintaining effective healthcare provision, and that could be undermined by prescriptive regulation and unrealistic deadlines. The objectives of the amendment are therefore largely met through existing statutory guidance and NHS policies, which provide a more flexible and effective framework for supporting armed forces families.
Generally, the difficulties and complexity of triaging patients across devolved Governments, different NHS trusts and secondary care are not lost on me. Separately from discussing the amendment, I would welcome a discussion with the Minister for Veterans and People about how we can continue to improve the existing process. I understand the positive and forward-looking intent behind the amendment.
Amendment 11 seeks to mandate the transfer of special educational needs plans between the devolved Governments. While well-meaning, that approach is unlikely to work in practice. Each nation operates a distinct statutory system for identifying need, assessing children and delivering support. Imposing a legal requirement for portability across those frameworks risks creating delay, duplication and additional bureaucracy for some families.
The more effective route is continued joint working with bodies in scope, building on the existing protections that are already provided by the covenant. The duty requires public bodies to consider the specific impacts of service mobility, including for children with SEND, and to ensure that support remains responsive as families move.
The Government are already taking significant steps in this space. The Department for Education is consulting on SEND reforms that explicitly recognise the challenges faced by service children. A central part of this work is developing digital, streamlined plans that can be easily transferred, reducing delays during moves.
In England, local authorities already have a statutory duty to manage and transfer education, health and care plans when a child moves between areas. The Ministry of Defence has been fully engaged with the Department for Education’s consultation on SEND reform, highlighting the importance of minimising disruption to service personnel and families and ensuring quicker access to support in new locations. Reforms under consideration by this Government include digital EHCPs and individual support plans, which go a long way towards sorting out some of the bureaucracy, and are designed to support smoother transitions for highly mobile children. The MOD is also working with the Department for Education on the Best Start in Life programme and family hubs, providing integrated, accessible support from pregnancy onwards. Guidance to help the hubs to support service families effectively is expected this spring.
Mr Francois
I am not quite convinced by the Minister’s argument. I understand what he is saying, but if Corporal Tommy Atkins, his wife and their special needs child in Wiltshire are posted to Edinburgh castle, Fort George, Leuchars or wherever in Scotland, that is not their fault. The amendment would help to reduce bureaucracy by requiring the receiving LEA to take the EHCP. The fact that it was created in England does not mean that it should not be valid in Scotland. The currency we use is valid in both nations, so I am not quite convinced by the Minister’s argument—and either way, it does not help the service personnel or the child much, does it?
Al Carns
We continue to discuss with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales how best to enhance the cross-pollination of EHCPs and individual support plans. We will continue to do so and, in particular, will try to speed up the transition and make it smoother for highly mobile children.
To legislate in the way the shadow Minister suggests, when a White Paper is already out and changes in legislation are coming, could result in the incorrect solution for armed forces families. What I would recommend is a discussion with the Minister for Veterans and People to update the right hon. Member in full and ensure that any ideas or insights that he has are pulled into that work, so that we come up with the best collaborative solution. The Government’s preferred approach is collaboration within existing frameworks, underpinned by the covenant duty, which will deliver the practical benefits without the unintended consequences.
Amendment 12, which seeks to continue adoption and fostering arrangements automatically across local authority boundaries, would raise significant practical difficulties. Each local authority operates with its own procedures, safeguarding requirements and legal frameworks. A single, one-size-fits-all statutory requirement risks creating confusion, administrative burden and potential delays, which is precisely the kind of disruption that the amendment seeks to avoid.
The Ministry of Defence already provides comprehensive guidance for service families through the adoption and fostering defence instruction notice, which embeds the MOD’s role firmly within existing civilian-led systems. These long-standing civilian frameworks already ensure continuity for families when they move. In combination with the strengthened covenant duty, they provide a far more practical and effective approach than the amendment process.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford raised a specific case. I am more than happy to take it offline. If we can help directly where the system has not worked, or help with the process, I will pass it on to the Minister for Veterans and People, and we will get after that problem set.
The covenant’s statutory guidance provides a flexible and practical framework that respects local authority responsibilities while directly addressing the challenges faced by service families. It ensures that individual circumstances can be properly considered without imposing rigid requirements that may not fit every complex case.
For those reasons, the Government consider the amendment unnecessary and duplicative. We remain fully committed to supporting healthcare needs for armed forces families, improving SEN provision and ensuring robust support for those involved in adoption and fostering. We will continue to work collaboratively with delivery partners and improve guidance where needed, rather than impose inflexible statutory mandates that risk unintended consequences. I hope that that provides reassurance. I ask hon. Members not to press amendments 10, 11 or 12.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out his broad support for the intent of my amendment, if not for its practical workings. I am grateful for the invitation to meet him and his ministerial colleague to see how we can reach a settlement to ensure equality for armed forces personnel on this issue. On the basis of his reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Order. I was not calling the shadow Minister to make a speech; I was just asking whether he would press amendment 11.
Mr Francois
No, Mr Efford, and I was just going to say why not. I tipped my hand earlier and said that I probably would not press it. I will accept the Minister’s kind offer of a meeting to discuss the issues in amendments 11 and 12. I hope I have managed to convince the Committee that I have done my homework, if nothing else. I will not press either amendment.
David Reed
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Armed Forces Covenant Action Plans
(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must make regulations requiring a local authority to which the Armed Forces Covenant duty applies to prepare and publish an Armed Forces Action Plan.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify that an Armed Forces Action Plan set out—
(a) the steps the authority intends to take to fulfil its duties under the Armed Forces Covenant,
(b) how the authority will assess local need within the Armed Forces community, and
(c) how resources will be allocated to support delivery of those duties.
(3) A relevant local authority must, at least once in each reporting period, publish a report on progress made against its action plan.
(4) In preparing an action plan and report under this section, a relevant local authority must have regard to any guidance or outcomes issued by the Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of State may issue guidance, including indicative outcomes or measures, for the purposes of supporting consistent implementation and assessment of the Armed Forces Covenant duty.”
This amendment would require local authorities subject to the Covenant duty to prepare and publish an Action Plan setting out how they will deliver the duty.
The amendment, which stands in my name and in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends, would place a clear and consistent obligation on local authorities to produce an armed forces covenant action plan. At present, there is no standardised mechanism for assessing how local authorities are delivering their covenant duties, nor is there a consistent framework for evaluating the effectiveness of delivery in practice. The absence of such a structure makes it difficult to form a clear picture of how the covenant is being implemented across the country. Without a defined framework, delivery is likely to vary among authorities, a point that has been raised today in relation to other amendments.
Some local authorities, particularly those with an established focus on armed forces issues, may continue to provide strong and proactive support. They may already have effective partnerships in place with local services charities, good engagement with their armed forces communities, and a clear understanding of local need. In some areas, local authorities are already producing plans or strategies, often working closely with the local armed forces network and charities. The amendment would build on that existing good practice, rather than starting from scratch.
Other authorities, facing a wide range of competing pressures, may find it more difficult to give their covenant commitments the same level of attention. That is not necessarily due to a lack of willingness; rather, it reflects the reality of limited capacity and competing priorities.
The result can be a variation in provision across different areas, whereby the consistency of available support may depend in part on where an individual lives. That sits uneasily with the intention behind the armed forces covenant, which is to provide a consistent commitment to those who serve or have served and to their families. The amendment is intended to support the duty by helping to ensure that the covenant is delivered in a more consistent and transparent way at a local level.
In practical terms, the absence of a structured approach presents some challenges. First, it can limit the ability of local authorities to assess the scale and nature of their armed forces community. Without a clear expectation that information will be gathered and analysed, there is a risk that need will not be fully identified. That may relate to housing, access to healthcare, employment support or the specific needs of service families who move frequently. It may also include the needs of veterans who are less visible and are therefore less likely to come into contact with services unless there is a proactive effort to reach them. If need is not clearly understood, it becomes more difficult to design services that respond effectively.
Secondly, without a clear planning framework, resource allocations can become less strategic. Decisions may be taken on a reactive basis, responding to immediate issues as they arise rather than being guided by a longer-term assessment of the need. Given the financial pressures facing local authorities, that is understandable. However, it increases the risk that covenant-related activity will not be prioritised consistently, particularly when it is not clearly set out alongside other statutory responsibilities. A more structured approach would allow better co-ordination of support between services, including housing, healthcare and employment support, where needs often overlap and require a joined-up response.
Thirdly, the absence of a requirement to set priorities or to publish reports on progress makes it harder to assess how covenant duties are being delivered in practice. It becomes more difficult for central Government to understand what is happening at a local level; it is also more difficult for local stakeholders, including service charities and armed forces families, to see what support is available and how it is being developed. Those issues were reflected in earlier evidence sessions, in which concerns were raised about the lack of consistent metrics and the difficulty of comparing delivery between authorities.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Does he not consider one advantage of these action plans to be shared learning across local authorities, as those with more experience can aid those with less experience in improving the standard and delivery of support for veterans and the armed forces community?
David Reed
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Looking across the Committee, I see Members who have served in local government, some of whom may have had military experience before doing so. They would have been able to apply their experience, and that of their families, to their work as elected councillors. However, that is not standard across the country, which takes us back to my central point: given the financial pressures and other statutory pressures, we can see why, without a requirement for a clear plan, implementation becomes difficult for a local authority that does not have experience.
The lack of comparability limits our ability to identify where approaches are working well and where improvements may be needed. It also makes it harder to share learning among areas. Amendment 13 seeks to address those points in a proportionate and practical way. It would not impose a detailed or overly prescriptive model, as it is not bureaucratic in nature, and it would not remove flexibility from local authorities; authorities that want to do a lot more could do so, which would perhaps be fed back into central Government. Instead, it would establish a clear expectation that each authority take a structured approach to delivering its covenant responsibilities.
It is important to be clear about what the amendment would not do. It would not impose a complex or resource-intensive new burden. Many local authorities are already undertaking elements of this work; the amendment would simply bring that activity into a clearer and more consistent framework. It would require local authorities to produce an armed forces covenant action plan, which I am sure would be developed in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence, bringing together experience from where it is being done well in local government. That plan would set out in clear terms the steps that the authority intends to take to meet its obligations. It would provide a more coherent framework for delivery, bringing together activity that might otherwise be spread across different services.
Importantly, amendment 13 would also require authorities to assess the level and nature of the need within their local armed forces community. This key element would ensure that planning is informed by evidence, rather than assumptions. It would also encourage engagement with those directly affected, including service personnel, veterans and their families, as well as the organisations that support them. In addition, the amendment would require authorities to set out how resources would be allocated to meet that identified need, helping to create a clearer link between assessment and delivery. It would support more transparent decision making and would help to ensure that commitments are reflected in practice.
The requirement to report on progress is another important part of the amendment. It would introduce greater transparency, allowing central Government, local partners and the armed forces community to understand how the covenant is being delivered in particular areas. That transparency would support activity and accountability; allow local authorities to demonstrate the work that they are undertaking, including where progress has been made and where further development is needed; and provide a basis for identifying effective approaches and sharing good practice.
I will wrap up, because I am conscious of time. Amendment 13 is an important amendment. It would give local authorities a framework to work with central Government to carry out their new statutory duties, while managing their workload across competing priorities.
Al Carns
Amendment 13 would require local authorities to prepare and publish detailed action plans within six months of the passing of the Act. The Government are fully committed to strengthening the delivery of the covenant at a local level. The Bill represents a significant step forward by placing the duty on an improved statutory footing, extending the policy areas that are in scope from three to 12.
Mandating detailed action plans risks imposing a rigid bureaucratic process that may not reflect the diverse circumstances of local government, geography or the composition of armed forces communities across the country. For example, mandating an action plan for areas with little to no armed forces footprint could divert valuable resources away from practical support and into compliance activity.
Delivery of the covenant at a local level is already supported through established mechanisms, including the Covenant Community Action Group, the annual covenant conference and a dedicated covenant website that promotes good practice, shared learning and engagement across the system, which are areas that the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East mentioned. We are also investing in improved awareness and understanding of the covenant across both the armed forces and service providers, including through the new regional Valour centres and field officers.
Rather than mandating prescriptive local action plans, we are taking a proportionate and flexible approach, supporting bodies in scope with extensive guidance and practical tools aimed at improving outcomes for the armed forces community. My officials are creating a suite of materials for service providers to give clear guidance and practical support. The Valour regional officers will be able to provide tailored advice at a local level up and down the United Kingdom.
Al Carns
That is a really good question. I will come back to the Committee with the exact detail, but lots of councils have engaged and have gold, silver and bronze standards. Some of them are exceptional. Some of them—this goes back to the point about the postcode lottery—do not necessarily need to sign up, because their community does not have a huge number of veterans or armed forces. I will endeavour to come back to the Committee with the detail.
There is already an established statutory duty to report to Parliament on the delivery of the covenant. There is therefore no need to establish a new reporting mechanism. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East is welcome to come and have a discussion with the Minister for Veterans and People and me about what that report looks like so that we can move it in the right direction. However, we believe that a proportionate, flexible approach, supported by guidance and ongoing engagement, is the best way to ensure that local authorities deliver meaningful support to the armed forces community without unnecessary administrative burdens.
I hope I have clarified the situation, reassured the Committee and offered up a brief for the Minister for Veterans and People and me on the annual report and what it consists of. I ask the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East to withdraw amendment 13.
David Reed
I thank the Minister for his wind-up. In the light of his answer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Christian Wakeford.)
Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 343C (Establishment and functions of veterans advisory and pensions committees) insert—
‘343CA Establishment and functions of a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer
(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to be the Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer.
(2) The general function of the Officer is to oversee the mental health care and treatment provided to veterans by the health bodies specified in section 343AZB.
(3) In exercising their function, the Officer must, in particular, monitor and assess the extent to which health bodies are complying with the duty imposed by section 343AZA (Duty to have due regard to the covenant) in relation to the mental health and well-being of veterans.
(4) The Officer may require a health body to provide such information as the Officer considers reasonably necessary to discharge their functions under this section.
(5) The Officer must prepare an annual report on the exercise of their functions and the general state of veterans’ mental health care and treatment in the United Kingdom.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Officer’s annual report before each House of Parliament.
(7) In this section, “veteran” means a person who has at any time been a service member.’”
This new clause establishes the statutory role of a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer.
New clause 6—National Veterans’ Commissioner (England)—
“After section 366 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 insert—
‘366A National Veterans’ Commissioner (England): establishment
(1) Within 12 months of the passing of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England (“the Commissioner”).
(2) The Commissioner shall act independently in carrying out the functions of the office.
(3) The Commissioner shall, amongst others, perform the following functions—
(a) promote the interests of veterans in England;
(b) monitor the operation and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Covenant in England;
(c) review the effect of public policy and public services on veterans and their families;
(d) identify barriers faced by veterans in accessing housing, healthcare, employment, education, and other public services;
(e) make recommendations to the Secretary of State and to public authorities on improving support for veterans.
(4) In exercising these functions the Commissioner may—
(a) carry out reviews and investigations into matters affecting veterans;
(b) consult veterans, service charities, public authorities, and other relevant organisations;
(c) publish reports and recommendations.
(5) The Commissioner shall prepare an annual report on the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.
(6) The Commissioner may at any time prepare a report on any matter relating to the interests of veterans in England.
(7) The Secretary of State shall lay any report prepared under this section before both Houses of Parliament.
(8) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for—
(a) the provision of such staff, accommodation, and other resources as they consider necessary for the Commissioner to carry out their functions;
(b) the publication of the Commissioner’s reports.
(9) The Commissioner is to be appointed for a term of three years and may be reappointed for a further term.
(10) The Secretary of State may remove the Commissioner from office only on grounds of—
(a) incapacity,
(b) misbehaviour, or
(c) failure to discharge the functions of the office.
(11) In this section—
“public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998;
“veteran” means a person who has served in His Majesty’s armed forces.’”
This new clause would require the Government to appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England and sets out its functions.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank everyone for our progressive and balanced debates so far.
I am delighted to introduce clause 2, which extends the armed forces covenant legal duty, delivering a manifesto commitment to strengthen support for our armed forces. The clause will amend part 16A of the Armed Forces Act 2006 by inserting two new sections that will extend the statutory duty to have due regard to the principles of the armed forces covenant. They will do so by applying the duty to public bodies across the UK and additional policy areas, as I shall explain.
Proposed new section 343AZA introduces the principles of the armed forces covenant. It states that bodies subject to the duty must have due regard to the unique obligations of, and the sacrifices made by, members of our armed forces. Those principles include the principle that it is desirable to remove disadvantage faced by servicepeople as a result of their current or former service, and the principle that in some cases special provisions may be justified for the armed forces community because of the impact of their service.
Proposed new section 343AZB will impose the duty on national authorities, local authorities, education bodies and health bodies across the United Kingdom. For the first time, in recognition of the breadth of the covenant, the devolved Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and UK Government Departments will be subject to the duty. It applies when those bodies exercise public functions in relation to the following matters: childcare, education and training, employment, health and social care, housing, social security benefits, personal taxation, criminal justice, transport, pensions, immigration and citizenship, and armed forces compensation.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. New clause 6 would introduce a veterans commissioner for England. We have three excellent veterans commissioners —the commissioners for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales—but they represent just 15% of veterans living in the UK. Some 85% of veterans live in England, yet there is no equivalent dedicated commissioner. As Members will recall, when the Minister asked at our evidence session on 25 February whether there should be a veterans commissioner for England, the three commissioners all expressed their support for such an appointment.
This is not a new campaign or issue. On 1 May 2024, after a campaign by the Royal British Legion, which included a petition that received 1,400 signatures, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs under the last Conservative Government said that it would appoint a national veterans commissioner. It started recruiting for the role, and the job advert stated:
“This role will cover England and any veterans matters which are reserved to the UK Government and are not in the remit of the Devolved Administrations.”
At the time, the RBL was delighted that England would have the same key public role of an independent advocate and voice for the armed forces community as Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, which have had veterans commissioners since 2014, 2020 and 2022 respectively.
The national veterans commissioner was intended to replace the Government’s independent veterans adviser. The IVA was a UK-wide advisory role with informal influence; the national veterans commissioner, by contrast, was to be a public commissioner with formal oversight and scrutiny, looking at England and UK-wide reserved matters to improve veteran support and accountability. However, the post has never been filled.
Following the general election in July 2024, the new Labour Government moved the Office for Veterans’ Affairs from the Cabinet Office to the Ministry of Defence. The Prime Minister explained in a written statement that the change would
“enable the Minister for Veterans and People to have complete oversight for the entirety of service life; from training to veterans working with all government departments to deliver for our service personnel.”
In February 2025, at Defence questions, I asked the then Minister for Veterans and People whether he planned to appoint a veterans commissioner for England. His response was:
“I reassure the hon. Member that I work closely with my Northern Ireland, Welsh and Scottish commissioners. We are currently looking at the structures by which we support veterans across the whole tapestry of the United Kingdom, and we really want to put in place an institutional resilience system that gives the best care at the right time and in the right place to the right people. That primarily involves working with thousands of charities collaboratively and coherently to ensure that we can get the best bang for our buck from all the amazing volunteers and charitable services out there. A bigger review is going on. It is on hold at the moment, and we will let the House know more in due course.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 16.]
However, the new veterans strategy published in November 2025 made no reference or commitment to the creation of such a role.
I appreciate that Op Valour is ongoing. It was announced last year and was described as the first ever UK-wide, Government-led approach to veterans support. It is said that the programme, backed by £50 million of funding, will deliver easier access to care and support for our veterans, connecting housing, employment and health services across the UK. It has three parts: Valour-recognised support centres, Valour field officers and the Valour HQ. However, it does not provide the single point of overarching advocacy that a commissioner would provide. Neither would the Armed Forces Commissioner, which was established in legislation in 2025. I note that there has still not been an official announcement, nearly a year after the application deadline closed, of who that will be, but perhaps the Minister can provide an update.
The role of the Armed Forces Commissioner is to investigate general welfare matters in the armed forces. The office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman would be abolished, with its functions and responsibilities transferred to the newly established commissioner. A veteran would fall under the commissioner’s remit only where their complaint relates to their time in service when they were subject to civil law. There are time limits for submitting a complaint; only those veterans who recently left the armed forces will generally fall within the provision.
New clause 6 proposes that a veterans commissioner for England be appointed within 12 months of the passing of the Act. We have used the word “appoint”, because this is not a statutory role but a public appointment. That would mirror the position for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, which all have non-statutory commissioners. I note that the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, while technically non-statutory, operates much closer to the statutory model than those in Wales or Northern Ireland. It is treated like an arm’s length public body, with a defined budget, a permanent staff, a published governance framework and annual reporting requirements. Although that is not the exact model proposed here, perhaps it is one that the Minister might consider.
Proposed new section 366A(3) sets out the commissioner’s core functions, which are to
“promote the interests of veterans in England…monitor the operation and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Covenant in England…review the effect of public policy and public services on veterans and their families…identify barriers faced by veterans in accessing housing, healthcare, employment, education, and other public services…make recommendations to the Secretary of State and to public authorities on improving support for veterans.”
In doing so, the commissioner may
“carry out reviews and investigations into matters affecting veterans …consult veterans, service charities, public authorities, and other relevant organisations…publish reports and recommendations.”
Given the proposed extension of the armed forces covenant, and the issues and concerns that many people have, the oversight role of a commissioner is vital. To date, as the local government representatives indicated to us, the covenant has been delivered through enthusiasm, but we now need robust implementation.
Any report prepared by the veterans commissioner would be laid before Parliament. The role would operate for three years at a time, with a further chance to be reappointed.
I believe that all members of the Committee understand the value of a veterans commissioner for England. As the existing commissioners are calling for it, I implore everyone to consider carefully how vital it will be.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I rise to speak to new clause 6, which seeks to appoint a national veterans commissioner for England.
Although the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire has raised important issues about the needs of our veterans, it appears that the role of the national veterans commissioner for England would duplicate the role of the armed forces covenant. The covenant ensures that we acknowledge and understand that those who serve or have served in the armed forces, and their families, including the bereaved, should be treated with fairness and respect in the communities, the economy and the society that they serve with their lives. It fulfils that role, alongside Op Valour and the armed forces champions. The Government are also investing in improving awareness and understanding of the covenant across the armed forces and service providers. In combination, those things alleviate the need for a national veterans commissioner.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is a pleasure, after lunch, to continue serving under your chairship, Mr Efford. [Laughter.] That was not meant to be funny, but I suppose the best way to be funny is to be unintentionally funny.
I rise to speak in support of new clause 2, which would legislate for the establishment of a veterans’ mental health oversight officer. I will come to some statistics later, but I think everyone in this room understands that veterans’ mental health is poor. That does not apply to all veterans, of course—many veterans, including the Minister and many Members in this room, take great agency from their service, so I do not wish to paint veterans as victims—but there are veterans who suffer with mental health challenges. Those challenges often start in service, whether they arise through the pressures of service, the vagaries of service life or the trauma experienced in combat.
Under the new clause, the veterans’ mental health oversight officer, who would be appointed by the Secretary of State, would essentially have a remit to oversee the care offered to veterans across the nation. It is doubly important that we seek, as we did this morning, not just to regularise and establish parity of care for veterans across the entire country, but to understand that people with mental health problems often find it hard to reach out. It is easier to forget people with mental health problems, which is why the establishment of the position is particularly important.
I will touch a little on my own experiences. I spent a couple of years in southern Afghanistan, including some periods in combat. I was lucky enough not to experience extreme trauma. Naturally, you do see some things in combat, but that was not my problem when I came back from Afghanistan. What I experienced was a deep sense of frustration and anger at what was effectively a failed mission. I know that some people in this room, including the Minister, served in Afghanistan. We were sent there to do the sharp end of Government policy. We do so willingly, of course—that is what we sign up for—but that policy was ill thought out and often put servicepeople in very difficult positions in which they had to make judgments in extremely grey areas. If the strategy had been slightly more clearly thought out, perhaps some of us who were there might not have experienced that moral injury.
Moral injury, which is actually a term that came out of the conflict in Afghanistan, happens where what you hear about the conflict is very different from what you experience on the ground, and the decisions that you have to make are very discordant. It is a bit separate from the “classic” trauma that we might understand as PTSD, but all these things come to the same. Personally, I wrote books, articles and pamphlets, which was my way of achieving catharsis and balance. I donated the proceeds of my first book to Combat Stress, a charity that supports the mental health of veterans and servicepeople.
I emphasise that many veterans, myself included, take great agency from their service and the qualities and skills that it taught them, but there is a significant minority of veterans who struggle with their mental health, and that journey starts when they are in service. Between 2019 and 2023, mental health diagnoses among active duty personnel increased by 40%. Anxiety and PTSD diagnoses doubled. Those are stark figures. In 2023, mental health disorders accounted for more days in hospital beds for service personnel than physical problems. There is a preponderance of mental health injuries over physical health injuries among our service personnel. Women under 30 in the military are more than twice as likely as civilians to report divorce. We can see the burden on our service personnel.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I am loath to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because he is making an extremely powerful speech. I pay tribute to his service. When I was the Veterans Minister a decade ago, I looked at the issue. One thing that we looked at closely was the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, which is that some veterans leave in very good mental shape—they have an exit medical and they are fine—but a few years later there can be a trigger event, such as the sudden death of a parent, and suddenly all the suppressed anxieties and difficulties seen in combat can come out very quickly. That person can deteriorate extremely fast. Is the hon. Gentleman’s proposed appointment partly intended to address that problem?
Mike Martin
The shadow Minister is exactly right. We have used a few metaphors today, including that of mental health as a journey. Another metaphor is that mental health is a garden that has to be tended. Each of us has a responsibility to introspect and check in with ourselves to see how we are doing, but the garden also needs to be tended by gardeners. The oversight position in new clause 2 is the chief gardener, if you like.
We have all heard stories in our constituency casework about how mental health services are being pared to the bone. By offering reports to Parliament, the veterans’ mental health oversight officer would be able to illustrate some of the particular problems that veterans who suffer with mental health problems have. They would report to Parliament and illustrate the problems in a way that would enable Parliament to adequately oversee the issue and make sure that our veterans are cared for.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I completely agree with everything the hon. Member says about the need for robust mental and physical health support for veterans, and I bow to his personal experience on the matter. Does he agree that, through Operation Courage, we are providing specialist NHS-based mental health support to veterans, and, through Operation Restore, we are providing additional physical health support? It is my understanding that, to date, up to 36,000 veterans have been supported by those two initiatives.
Mike Martin
I agree with the hon. Lady. In the spirit of cross-party working, I say that we all support our veterans, and I think that the strides that the Government have made are fantastic. The previous Government had a Minister who was passionate about this issue, and he also made strides in this area. We are all trying to move in the same direction; it is not either/or. We have used the phrase “postcode lottery”. We all accept that veterans or people with mental health injuries do not reach out—often people who are depressed or anxious retreat inside themselves—so it is a good thing to have somebody who is able to survey veterans, understand their concerns and see how well linked they are to the fantastic mental health services that are being rolled out by the Government.
Let me highlight a couple of statistics about veterans. Suicide rates are four times higher for veterans under the age of 25 than for the same group in the civilian population, and 52% of veterans have had a mental health problem compared with 45% in the general population. On the point about belonging that I mentioned, a third of veterans reported feeling loneliness compared with just 7% of the civilian population. Veterans experience PTSD at twice the rate of the civilian population. We do not have any figures for the moral injury concept that I spoke about because it is hard to define and band.
The particular case of veterans and mental health is a well-recognised problem—we do not need to over-make the case; we understand it. Veterans often do not reach out when they have mental health issues, so there is a case for a sort-of chief gardener to help us make sure that we all tend the garden of our mental health.
Al Carns
I thank hon. Members for their contributions on clause 2 and the new clauses. They are based on the right intent, and Members are trying to do the best by our serving and ex-serving population.
I will leave the script and step back to look at where we have come on this journey. Under the previous Government, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs sat outside the Ministry of Defence. I sort of understand why that happened in some cases. I analysed this to and fro for a long time before making the decision to bring it back in. With hindsight, after a year and a half, the ability to amalgamate all the different parts of the veterans portfolio, including pensions, injury claims, records and the resource that Defence brings, has brought us far further forward. Would that have happened if the OVA had not been outside in the first place? I cannot comment, but its position in Defence, where it is safeguarded as an organisation, means that it harnesses all the bureaucratic power that Defence can bring to move stuff forward.
I will come in a second to the issues of veterans’ mental health and having a veterans commissioner. But if we step back and look at Afghanistan—where some Committee members here served; I did five tours there—there was a palpable feel among the population that the Government were not doing enough, or that the system was not flat and fast enough to deal with the scale of the problem that Afghanistan was kicking out on rotations. We therefore saw an explosion in the number of veterans charities, and the reality is that we now have more than 1,000 veterans charities in the UK. That number is growing every day. Some are the best, most well-meaning people, doing an amazing job and dealing flat and fast with veterans in our communities at the grassroots level. They do an outstanding job, and we have to harness the best charities. Some big charities, too, do a fantastic job of analysing data and providing the Government with clear advice on how to support veterans. There is also everything in between. I will be clear: there are the most amazing charities, very good charities, average charities and a very small minority that do not deliver as efficiently as perhaps they should.
In the veterans portfolio, how do we help the charities cohere their capacity, the £1 billion market that is the veterans charity sector, to deliver it more effectively? And how do we do that in conjunction with local government, while understanding the good, the bad and the other group that sits to the right of that mark? That will stem from Valour. It has taken small steps, but it is moving forward relatively quickly. The first one was about the establishment of an OC—officer commanding—Valour, the head of Valour. Who will run this programme, which is not just about England, but about England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
The reason why we need one central point of contact is that we have devolved Administrations that do things differently. We have a plethora of datasets that sit within big charitable organisations, sometimes feeding the output of the charities and at other times providing us with good, balanced analysis. The trouble is that we do not have a collective dataset to give us a clear understanding of the various issues across our veterans space. In fact, the RBL did a fantastic study on perception versus reality, on the statistics and the view of the population versus the actual realities for veterans at the grassroots level. It pointed to one thing: with so many charities needing to generate and raise funds, in some cases they had to champion the requirement for money to go to the most needy or individuals in most need of support.
When we look at the realities, most veterans leave the military and do not have an issue. A proportion have medium-level needs, and a proportion have some really acute needs. The reality and the perception, however, are different. Some of that is skewed, because we have created a charitable sector network that must generate an income from championing or sometimes pushing the most injured and the individuals who need the most support to the very front of the limelight. That creates a national narrative that turns veterans into victims, and I tell the Committee now that it is 110% not the case. Some individuals need lots of support, some need some support and other people go on to contribute to society with no impact whatever.
Mr Francois
To reinforce what the Minister is saying, Lieutenant General Sir Andrew Gregory, who for many years was the controller of SSAFA, always used to make the point that while clearly some people suffer as a result of their military career, as the Minister admits, the vast bulk emerge in good shape, remain in good shape and benefit immensely from their time in service. I put on record what Lieutenant General Gregory, the head of SSAFA until recently, said, if only to back up absolutely everything the Minister is saying.
Al Carns
Sir Andrew is an exceptionally good man, and few are more knowledgeable than him on veterans matters. We have a position where, in some cases, veterans are seen as victims, but we have no central body that understands the totality of veterans issues across the United Kingdom. Head Valour is therefore coming into place in the next month or two, with a new headquarters. What does a headquarters mean? It means pulling in all the data sources to provide us with a comprehensive view of the issues that veterans face in this country—a balanced, analytical view, not one that is sometimes skewed by institutional organisations or other bodies. That is not because it is in their interests to do so, but it might be a passion project. It is about providing a balanced, analytical view, which must be data-led and have the horsepower to do that across all the devolved nations.
There is, of course, no point pooling data feeds if they come in all sorts of different forms. That brings in the Valour centres. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells talked about camaraderie. One of the issues at the moment is that when a veteran has a mental health issue, they have to go to eight different charities before they land on the right one. They usually start with family or a friend, and they will then go from one charity to another, having to bounce around, retelling the story, reliving the trauma. Sometimes, by the time they get three or four down the line, they give up. That is where we have some pretty catastrophic consequences.
The Valour centres are about taking some of the existing centres—we have more than 700, and growing, across the country—finding the very best ones, providing them with long-term Government funding, and standardising the services and engagement. We will ensure that they understand their local networks of the good, the bad and the ugly charities, and can then distribute resources down to them, to provide a set of standard-ish services as best we can—that goes back to the postcode issue. Secondly, we will ensure that the data flows back up to the headquarters in a manner that can be digested and analysed in the most effective way. On top of the Valour centres, field officers in local councils will help to control the centres, as well as to hold councils to account should they not fall in line with the covenant and some of the principles we have talked about today. We are in the foothills; in the future, we should have a far better, greater dataset for us collectively to analyse.
I do not believe that putting one individual in charge of veterans’ mental health would provide us with the systemic jump to deal effectively with that issue. Courage is a programme from the previous Government. We have taken it on and kept it going, because it is working well. For everything we have talked about today—mental health, housing, education, and special educational needs and disabilities—we need the data flowing in, proper analysis and then proper, comprehensive solutions flowing back down. That is one of the reasons why I cannot support new clause 2.
When I was Minister for Veterans and People and dealt with the veterans commissioners, I did not really know whether they were in the right place, in the wrong place or doing the right things. They were brought in from a devolved Government perspective to ensure that we could continue to check and balance the devolved Governments in line with central Westminster policy. Interestingly, 85% of all veterans, which equates to about 1.7 million people, live in England—a veterans commissioner for England would be a huge role.
I have been clear, I think on the record, that once Valour is up and running and we establish the framework for how the hubs will work, we then need to deal with whether we need a veterans commissioner for England. I would suggest that it may be positive, depending on the veterans architecture out there. Why do I say that? At the moment, we have armed forces champions, at different levels and with different terms of reference—some part time, some full time, some employed by councils and some not—and we have Valour field officers going into councils. We have veterans commissioners in the devolved Governments, and then we have the head of Valour, who will have a whole set of data, with the Valour centre network sitting below them. Throwing a commissioner on top of that, at the same time, would perhaps dilute the hierarchy and centralised control. I absolutely understand the utility of having a fourth commissioner in place over time and, although I have to oppose new clause 6, I would like to take on this discussion. I have a feeling that, in the next 24 months or so, we will be moving in the right direction with regard to the measure.
Mr Francois
The Minister has made a strong argument. I place on the record my admiration for the three veterans commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, all of whom are excellent at what they do. I seem to recall—I do not have the Hansard here—that when we were debating the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, I asked the Minister when we would get an English veterans commissioner, and he was pretty clear that we would get one. The Minister today has intimated that we will probably still get one, so he is being consistent, but can he give us some idea of the timing?
Al Carns
Once we analyse the tapestry of veterans support, I would like to come to a solution on the English veterans commissioner to align with and amplify what we do on Valour. I think that Valour will take 36 months to be properly embedded in our local councils, with the structures and data network in place. It has taken us longer than I expected to get the Valour OC in place, but perhaps that is one for the bar downstairs.
The Chair
Before I put the Question, I remind colleagues that I will not be putting the Questions on the new clauses. We take them in the order as on the amendment paper; they are at the end of the amendment paper, so we will not vote on them as part of this group.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Christian Wakeford.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sudden Unexpected Death in Childhood
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and to open this important debate. Today we are discussing a category of child death that has previously been described in this room as
“one of the most serious medical phenomena in our country”.—[Official Report, 17 January 2023; Vol. 726, c. 88WH.]
Sudden unexplained death in childhood is the fourth leading cause of death in children aged one to 18. Since Parliament last debated this issue in 2023, in the UK around 120 children who appeared perfectly healthy have died suddenly. That is the equivalent of four full classrooms of pre-school and school-aged children—four classrooms of lives cut short without explanation.
For families, the devastation after a child dies is immediate and lifelong. What makes SUDC uniquely cruel is not only the loss, but the absence of answers. Why did those children die? I can only imagine the pain of that. When we lost our daughter Mallorie to Edwards’ syndrome, we at least had the comfort of knowing why and what was coming. We knew there was nothing more we could do. Families experiencing SUDC have none of that. It is brutal. We cannot continue to tell grieving parents, “I am sorry; we simply don’t know why your child died.” As a society we have a responsibility to do all we can to find the answers to prevent future deaths. That is why today we ask the Government to lead the search for answers through a co-ordinated national plan.
First, let us be clear about what SUDC is and what it is not. Sudden unexplained death in childhood is the sudden unexpected death of a child over one year old that remains unexplained after a full investigation. Cases do not involve crime, terminal illness, diagnosed epilepsy, cardiac conditions or tragic accidents. The children appear healthy. They fall suddenly ill or go to sleep and never wake up. Parents, grandparents and siblings are left asking, “Why did this happen? Could it happen again? Is there a genetic risk? Will my other children die? Should we risk another pregnancy?” Those are questions that currently no one can answer.
At the heart of today’s debate and our discussion is a little boy named Frankie Grogan. Frankie was three years old: bright, curious and full of energy with a particular love of giraffes. His family had every reason to believe that they would watch him grow and thrive. Instead, he went to sleep and did not wake up. The night before, Frankie was excited that his father would be running the Manchester 10k the next day. He briefly woke at 4.30 am asking for water. A few hours later, he was found to be still and unresponsive. Despite a thorough investigation, no cause of death could be identified. That happened in 2019 and Frankie’s family, who are here today, still do not know why.
In the midst of unimaginable grief, Frankie’s grandfather, Brian Topping, came to see me. He did not ask for sympathy; he asked for structure, leadership, co-ordination and a plan. Frankie’s story reminds us that behind every statistic is a child with a name, a personality and a future that should have been. It is because of Frankie and the determination of his family that the debate is taking place today. Through SUDC UK, families, clinicians and researchers have united around the conviction that unexplained should never mean unexamined. We know that research and awareness raising, backed up by national leadership, can make a profound difference. In other areas of childhood death, when priorities are clear, progress follows.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this important debate and for his very moving speech. I recently had the honour of meeting Eleanor Wroath, who is here in the Gallery today with her son Sam. Eleanor lost her daughter Miranda, aged 18 months, in 2008. Since then, she has been a tireless campaigner for raising awareness of sudden unexplained death in childhood. She and Sam will be running the Great North Run in support of the charity. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as highlighted by campaigners such as Eleanor and Sam, there is an urgent need for more specialist research to understand the causes of and the risk factors underlying SUDC?
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. Given the seriousness of the subject and of the hon. Lady’s intervention, I let that go, but interventions should generally be slightly more pithy.
Andy MacNae
Yes, of course I agree, and I am coming on to the research. We simply owe families answers and our best efforts to find those answers.
As I was saying, we know that research and awareness raising, backed up by national leadership, can make a profound difference, as it has in other areas. When priorities are clear, progress does follow. For example, research and safer sleep campaigns have significantly reduced unexplained infant deaths—known as sudden infant death syndrome, formerly cot death. About 200 babies die from SIDS each year compared with 40 older children from SUDC, yet there has been 100 times more research into SIDS than SUDC, which receives only a fraction of the attention.
Peter Fleming CBE, the clinical lead for the SIDS Back to Sleep campaign and a scientific adviser to SUDC UK, has said:
“Research into unexpected deaths in infancy has led to an 80% reduction in such deaths over the past 30 years in the UK. Unexpected deaths in older children are less common, much less well understood, and to date little research has been conducted in the UK to try to understand or prevent such deaths… I am convinced that with the right research we will soon be able to prevent many deaths”
of older children. The families here today are not asking for guarantees—they understand that science takes time—but simply asking for this issue to be treated with the urgency it deserves.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate on what is an incredibly emotional topic. It is difficult to imagine parents having grief beyond what he is describing. On the research, does he agree that while no guarantees can be given, if Governments put more money into it, families will understand that and will see progress and, we hope, a better outcome?
Andy MacNae
Precisely, and that would be to treat this issue with the importance, urgency and focus that it deserves. The very fact that most research is now charity-led is quite revealing.
This research includes the Pioneer study—a population-based investigation to reduce sudden unexplained deaths in childhood—at the University of Bristol, which is beginning to analyse national mortality data and incorporate family-led research priorities. Science has advanced: genomics, cardiology, neuropathology and data science now offer real hope that the causes that were once thought unknowable may finally be within reach. However, scientific possibility alone is not enough. Findings from the UK’s Pioneer study, alongside the growing body of global evidence on SUDC, must be properly considered and applied. They should inform linked datasets and guide action by organisations such as Genomics England, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS.
The opportunity is there, but right now we rely far too much on this limited charity-funded research. If we are ever to shift the dial, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said, we need a national plan delivering co-ordinated, planned actions that enable and accelerate meaningful projects.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward such an important debate. Constituents of mine have asked me to attend not just to thank him, but to support his calls for a co-ordinated strategy. They lost their son when he was three, so they share all such families’ feelings that more needs to be done to get to the bottom of understanding the unimaginable tragedy that many parents have suffered, so there is a bit more closure.
Andy MacNae
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which again focuses on the need for co-ordination in the effort to meet the scale of this challenge.
One of the most compelling issues requiring investigation is the association between SUDC and febrile seizures. National and international data show that 30% of SUDC cases involve a history of febrile seizures—10 times higher than in the general population. Frankie Grogan had 12 seizures before he died, but he was never reviewed by a specialist. At this point, it is really important to stress that febrile seizures are very common and SUDC is rare, but the persistence of this correlation—known before the last debate—demands investigation. A national plan must accelerate understanding of the link and determine whether children who have repeated febrile seizures, or a particular subset of affected children, need different pathways of care.
We must also improve public information. Information for families is inconsistent and, at times, invisible. Leaflets on febrile seizures vary significantly across NHS trusts; some fail to mention that seizures can occur during sleep or that monitoring options exist. SUDC itself—including the 60% of cases with no seizure history—is missing from the NHS website. After the 2023 debate, a token reference was added to the SIDS page, but then removed. Imagine a family receiving a post-mortem conclusion of SUDC but finding nothing when they search the NHS website. That is clearly unacceptable, but something that the Government can easily fix.
There has been welcome progress in other areas. The national child mortality database is a world-leading resource. Since the previous debate, the NCMD has created SUDC-specific forms and launched pathways for genomics and cardiac screening. SUDC UK, a charity founded only in 2017, has helped to ensure that families have access to whole genome sequencing through the R441 pathway. That advocacy was born out of what Nikki Speed, chief executive of SUDC UK, describes as the “paralysing fear” that she and many families carry every day. She explained to me that for years after her loss, she got little sleep, because she was constantly having to have a hand on her surviving children to be sure they were alive and well.
That fear leads families to delay trying for another child, even though a new life could be a source of hope and healing amid loss. It is completely rational for a parent to fear, if one of their seemingly healthy children has died without explanation, that their other seemingly healthy children could also be at risk. That is why genomic and cardiac screening is so important: it not only informs research but protects surviving siblings. For some families, genetic analysis has revealed risks requiring vital preventive treatment, yet those crucial tests are currently available only after the post-mortem process concludes, which brings me to the next point.
Paediatric pathology is in crisis, as summarised in a recent report by the Royal College of Pathologists. Families experiencing SUDC routinely wait nine to 12 months, or sometimes longer, for a post-mortem conclusion. During that time, they live in fear—fear for their surviving children, fear of future pregnancies, fear of the unknown. Their grief is suspended and their lives are on hold. Only after that traumatic wait can they finally access genomic testing or cardiac screening to safeguard their children.
After speaking with Brian and with Nikki, I would like to outline the typical timeline for a family affected by SUDC. Your child is fine. Then they die, leaving you traumatised and in shock. The child is taken away from you, and you have no control over what is happening. The ensuing process is statutory, but the response is based on evidence from infant death and so is suboptimal. After scary interactions with the police and in deep shock, you return home to deafening silence or to the child’s siblings, to whom you must tell the very worst news. Then you wait. You do not wait one week or two. You do not wait a month or even six. You most likely wait nine to 12 months. If the pathology is complex, you wait even longer. Throughout the whole wait, you are scared for your other children and scared to get pregnant again. You put your life and your grief on hold. Only then, often about a year later, do you receive the post-mortem report. You have been desperately waiting for this moment, but now it is here it brings back all the trauma of losing your child, and only now are you eligible to see whether anything hereditary is putting other family members at risk.
This is inhumane. When we lost our daughter, we had the answers right away, yet the trauma is still with us. I cannot fathom what it would be like to sit in deafening silence for months, and the long-term damage that that could do. This must change. A national plan should establish faster pathways for cases in which timely information directly affects vulnerable bereaved families and child safety.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Member is certainly making a very powerful speech on this issue. On 7 January 2024, Teddy Jason Williamson, aged just seven weeks and from my constituency, died of sudden infant death syndrome. Does the hon. Member agree that more practical support is required? Yes, we need research, but we also need there to be practical support: bereavement nurses, dedicated suites in hospitals, and counselling support post the death of the child.
Andy MacNae
Yes. I will touch on that in a moment. It is part of a wider picture of bereavement support and bereavement pathways nationally. From baby or infant loss to unexplained death in childhood, bereavement services are patchy and in many cases far below the standards that we need to see. We need to make that service universal.
Let us move on to another cause of trauma: child death investigations. This issue is wider than SUDC but has profound impacts. Current national guidelines—the statutory guidance and joint agency guidelines—are built on historical evidence from infant deaths and have not been updated since the new pathways for genetics and cardiology were launched. That is important as it may affect inequity of care and access to these important tests. Guidelines should be updated to reflect new evidence and current pathology timeframes, and any consultation on those updates should include charities such as SUDC UK, which supports families of children up to 18 years old.
From investigation to family support, NCMD data tells us that 30% of all child deaths are sudden and unexpected, and a fifth of families leave A&E with no understanding of why their child has died. While consistency has improved since the last debate, the quality of bereavement support remains deeply uneven, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) has raised. Families affected by SUDC often experience complicated grief with severe and long-lasting consequences for parents and siblings, and this requires specialist support. The NIHR-funded Quintet project and the wider strategic partnership for sudden child death will soon provide evidence-based recommendations for supporting those families. These should be incorporated into a national plan.
To conclude, what is lacking is not expertise nor compassion; rather, it is co-ordination and leadership. I am calling for a Government-led national plan for sudden unexplained death in childhood. That would turn the issues that I have raised into strategic objectives with clear timelines, milestones and measurable outcomes. It should be developed alongside families, clinicians and researchers, and report back to Parliament every two years. Such a plan would send a powerful message: these children matter, their deaths are not footnotes, and unexplained does not mean unimportant. My thanks to Brian Topping, Nikki Speed, the courageous families here today and all those who have worked tirelessly for progress and understanding. I hope that this debate can play a part in delivering that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I remind Members to bob—and I can see that they are doing so. A number have indicated that they desire to speak. Given the seriousness and sensitivity of the subject, I want to be able to get them all in. Please bear that in mind when you contribute.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this really important debate.
There are a few meetings that Members of Parliament never forget. Over three years ago, in January 2023, I met my constituents Cheryl and Darren Midgley for the first time. On Christmas day 2022, Cheryl and Darren put their loving, happy and healthy 16-month-old son Jack to bed. The family had enjoyed the best Christmas, but when Darren, the father, went into Jack’s room the following morning, he quickly realised he had gone. He said that, that day, their “world fell apart”.
Christmas in the Midgley household is never just a day. Jack, with his brother Louis, saw Santa four times. They had had the best Christmas. On Boxing day, when Darren cracked open Jack’s door and went into the room, he said there was perfect silence. He walked over to his son’s cot, but as soon as Darren put his hand on his back, it was cool. From what Darren saw at that point, he knew that his baby son Jack had gone.
Jack was taken to Martin House children’s hospice in Wetherby, where he was cared for in one of its special cooled bedrooms. Darren described the hospice’s services as an anchor for the family. The fact that Jack could stay in one of the cooled bedrooms meant the world. Darren said:
“It was a huge comfort to us to know Jack was being looked after in a bedroom, in his Christmas pyjamas, and the staff would be there to talk to him and put his night light on.”
The family spent five days at Martin House until the post-mortem could take place, but the results were inconclusive.
Since meeting Cheryl and Darren three years ago, I have kept in touch with them, and I have been truly blown away by their resilience and mental fortitude, as well as that of their eldest son Louis. They have worked tirelessly to raise awareness to help others, despite their own grief, including by completing a 127-mile bike ride along the Leeds to Liverpool canal path, raising over £6,000 for the Airedale Hospital & Community Charity, where Cheryl works as a nurse.
I went to see them just this last weekend to catch up with them and check in, and I reiterated to them that I will continue, as their Member of Parliament, to do all I can to raise this issue on their behalf. I was glad to see that they are working united as a family to keep this issue going. Over the last three years, they have worked together to raise over £220,000 in total for local good causes.
Sudden unexplained death in childhood is the fourth leading category of death in children aged one to four in England and Wales. Approximately 40 children are affected by SUDC in the UK each year: one to two seemingly healthy children pass away every fortnight, often going to sleep and never waking up again. As seen in cases such as Jack’s, SUDC does not just affect young children under one year old; more one to nine-year-olds die of sudden unexplained death than as a result of road traffic accidents, drowning or fires.
Published epidemiology data suggests a common profile for children affected by SUDC. Most commonly, they are one to two years old and male. Most worryingly, they die unwitnessed and alone as they sleep. The children’s development is often normal, and their vaccinations are normally up to date.
The death of a child is always a tragedy. Sudden unexplained death in childhood is one of the most under-recognised medical tragedies, and simply not enough support is provided for many of the affected families. Cheryl and Darren received a year of support from the NHS following Jack’s death. They have both sought counselling, and the trauma still lives with them today.
I commend the work done by charities such as SUDC UK and Martin House children’s hospice in providing support for those impacted by sudden unexplained death in childhood. However, we cannot just rely on the good work of charities and volunteers. Despite their efforts, the delays in small charity-funded research into preventing these deaths remains completely unacceptable. One hundred and twenty seemingly healthy children have died without explanation since the last SUDC debate three years ago, which I took part in.
Although we are a long way from prevention, it is vital to develop a well-defined and co-ordinated national plan to gain better insight into the causes of SUDC and to raise awareness. There have been 13,000 publications on SIDS—unexplained deaths under 12 months—versus 100 publications on SUDC. There needs to be a co-ordinated and planned movement because, as I am sure the Minister is aware, a small amount of research will not move the dial. There also needs to be better and longer-term support, available free of charge, for families such as Cheryl, Darren and Louis, to help them to come to terms with the deep sense of loss, anguish and grief that comes with the death of a child.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John.
The death of a child is something that no parent should ever have to endure. It is every parent’s worst nightmare. There are no words that can make sense of it, and no pain more unimaginable. For many families, understanding why their child died is an important part of beginning to process their grief. It does not take the pain away, but it can bring some sense of clarity. For families affected by sudden unexplained death in childhood, the answers never come, and that absence—that not knowing; that lack of clarity—brings its own trauma.
SUDC is the sudden and unexpected death of a child between the ages of one and 18, where no cause can be found, even after investigation. It is one of the leading categories of death for children aged one to four in England and Wales. Yet despite that, we still do not know why it happens. We cannot predict it, we cannot prevent it and we do not understand it.
I first came to this issue through a family in my constituency. At one of my surgeries, I met a grandmother whose 13-month-old grandson had died suddenly. The family asked me to share their story in the hope that no other family would have to go through what they have gone through. I pay tribute to the grandmother and her daughter for that courage. At their request, I will not use their names today.
It was an ordinary morning like any other day. Mum put her toddler down for his nap. He was well, and there were no signs of illness—no warning—but he never woke up. That is the reality of SUDC: there is no build-up or explanation, just a moment that changes everything. The impact on that family has been devastating. Alongside the shock and grief came something else: the cruelty of not knowing why. That uncertainty compounded their trauma, and the emotional toll became so overwhelming that it caused severe mental health challenges.
At the very point the family needed care, clarity and compassion, the system repeatedly let them down. They endured 13 months of pain awaiting a post-mortem. They received phone calls from medical professionals without warning, the day after their child died. Professionals used insensitive language, causing further harm. They were given inconsistent and incorrect information. At one stage, they were told the post-mortem had been completed while the child was still in the hospital’s care.
This is not just about delay; it is about dignity. Sadly, that family’s experience is far from unique. Families across the country report similar patterns: long periods of silence followed by a sudden, distressing and poorly timed communication. They find themselves chasing answers when they should be supported, and in some cases having to explain SUDC to professionals. At a time of profound trauma, families are left to carry the burden alone. As is so often the case, those with less financial resources face even greater barriers, whether in accessing counselling, navigating systems or challenging poor care.
Traumatic grief demands trauma-informed care, but too often it is missing. Organisations such as SUDC UK are stepping in to support families, raise awareness and push for answers, but the reality is that they are doing so in the absence of a clear, co-ordinated national approach. That gap should concern us all.
At its heart, this points to a wider issue. SUDC remains one of the most unrecognised medical tragedies we face. Awareness is low, research is limited, and without understanding there can be no prevention. We cannot accept that. Families deserve answers, consistency and to be treated with care at every step. That means a system that is joined up, where knowledge is shared, professionals are trained and support is not dependent on postcode or circumstance.
It also means addressing the workforce challenges we face. There is a severe shortage of paediatric pathologists in this country, and in some regions there are none at all. That is a key reason why families are waiting for months, and sometimes more than a year, for answers. After hearing about my constituent’s experience, I met with the Royal College of Pathologists, and I continue to support its work on recruitment, training and retention.
The truth is that families should not face further trauma because the system does not have the capacity to respond, so I ask the Minister to take four steps: to develop a national plan for SUDC, formulated by Ministers working with officials and scientific experts, as a matter of urgency; to commit to regular reporting at a minimum of every two years, so that we can track progress and hold ourselves accountable; to ensure that clear, accessible information for families is available through the NHS website and other portals, including the NHS knowledge and library hub for professionals; and to move quickly on implementing the recommendations of the paediatric and perinatal pathology workforce report, so that we can achieve quicker post-mortem times and safeguard genetic information and other data to support further research.
This is about every family, in Warrington South and across the country, who are living with unimaginable loss and deserve better from the system around them. We cannot change what has happened to them, but we can change what happens next. On behalf of my constituents, and on behalf of every family who has endured the unimaginable agony of losing a child suddenly and without explanation, I urge the Minister to act now.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this very important debate.
First, I would like to recognise the work done by organisations such as SUDC UK that have campaigned on this issue to raise awareness of a very tragic problem. Their work is even more admirable given that so many of the people involved have themselves been affected by SUDC. The loss of a child is one of the worst things that can happen to a parent, but to lose a child and never know why they passed away must be agonising.
Sadly, SUDC is an issue that hits many families across the UK—around 40 children are lost to it every year. At the start of this year, I met two constituents whose son passed away from sudden unexpected death in childhood in 2024. I was struck by their bravery to share their story with me in the face of such tragedy. Hearing about the pain of losing their child and not knowing why, I was struck again by their strength and determination that something needed to be done. In my meeting with them, it was made clear that a serious lack of research and awareness around SUDC has left parents without support or answers.
The parents are calling for research to focus: on detailed post-mortem studies; assessing hidden biological vulnerabilities by focusing on genomic sequencing and family history; neurology and sleep-related mechanisms; and environmental and situational factors. Sadly, most active research appears to be taking place in the US, with very little happening here in the UK. I call on the Government to remove barriers to global research talent coming to the UK, and commit to a decade-long programme of public investment in research and development.
Shockingly, SUDC UK found that just half of the families affected by SUDC were assigned a bereavement key worker. Many parents had distressing experiences when dealing with authorities who offered little support. To increase support for families, Liberal Democrats are calling for the funding for bereavement support payments to be doubled, reversing cuts by the previous Government.
I would like to end by again thanking my constituents for giving me their time to share their story with me and highlighting the clear need for urgent change.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this important debate.
I pay tribute to my constituents Nathan and Fiona Robinson, whose son Alfie tragically passed away. I first met them before I was elected, and I have since met them again and heard their story. I am standing here today to speak on their behalf, and on behalf of other families who have suffered the same. I want to endorse everything that has been said in today’s debate—I will not repeat a lot of it, due to the time limit. I have some specific asks over and above those from SUDC UK, which are incredibly important and which I endorse; but based on Nathan and Fiona’s experience, I want to make sure that their voices and asks are also heard.
First, I ask the Minister to consider working with the Department for Business and Trade on expanding bereavement pay. Fiona had to return to work only two weeks after her son passed away. I know that the Department is looking at bereavement pay very closely as part of its review, but if the Health Minister could also contribute it would add extra weight, emphasising how important that is.
Fiona had to return to work prior to Alfie’s funeral and then had to take just a single day of annual leave to attend it. I think we can all agree that, in such horrific circumstances, that is not an acceptable position. I hope that the Government will consider intervening on this as part of the review. It is so important, because families often have to wait six to eight weeks for a post-mortem. That they should have to return to work before they have had that outcome is something we can no longer accept.
Secondly, as we have heard today, police training can often be quite patchy. We all accept that the police have a job to do, but it is so important that there is a dedicated family liaison officer, so that in the initial moments, hours, days and weeks, families are properly supported by the police. It is important to have someone there who can deliver difficult news and factual information in a sensitive way for the people who are suffering—whether that is graphic coroner’s phone calls or anything else. I hope the Minister will consider working with the Home Office and the Policing Minister to deliver a more holistic approach to how families are treated in the early days and weeks of this unimaginable loss.
Thirdly, Nathan and Fiona relayed to me that they would like to see better training in schools, and even a dedicated teacher or teaching assistant in every school who is trained to support a child if they have a sibling who passes away in these circumstances. Again, that support can be quite patchy, based on whether the school has a teacher, teaching assistant or member of staff who has similar experience or training in dealing with this issue. It is such a small change, which would not cost a lot of money but would make such a big difference to families who suffer with child loss.
Inquest dates have already been covered by other Members, but Nathan and Fiona had to wait more than six months for an inquest, which is completely agonising. That gets added on to the other things I have raised, about the need for better police liaison and having to return to work after two weeks, which means having to continue with life while waiting that long for an inquest. I really think we can do better than that.
I pay tribute to Nathan and Fiona for sharing their story with me, and all the families in the Public Gallery today. It is incredibly brave and it takes a huge amount of strength to share stories like theirs. I hope that the Minister will see today as a new dawn and the start of change in this area, to help families today and in the future.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this debate. I also recognise my predecessor as the Member of Parliament for Spelthorne, Kwasi Kwarteng, who sponsored this debate back in 2023.
All Members have expressed that they simply cannot imagine what it is like to be a parent sitting in the Public Gallery or watching our proceedings at home. I am struck by the fact that many of those parents would have been sitting there in 2023, hearing, “This is raising awareness,” and, “We have to get going on this.” They have seen the personnel round here change a bit, and have seen us swap sides, but they are still sitting there, and very little has been done since 2023. I hope the Minister can give us some reassurance about what action can actually happen, so that when we have another Westminster Hall debate in three years’ time, and the same people are sat in the Public Gallery, they are not just looking at a different group of people saying the same things and not doing anything.
I have come here to speak on behalf of two of my constituents, Louis Rogers and Harry Pitts. They cannot be here today because they are dead, and their death is unexplained. We can all forgive the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen for doing so, but he said that sudden unexplained death in children is the fourth largest “cause” of death, and of course it is not. He did not mean it, and we all know that. It is just a categorisation, and that is important. I am deeply suspicious whenever I see a pie chart that says, “There is this thing and that thing, and that thing is caused by that thing. Oh, and this huge chunk is ‘others’. We haven’t been able to do that big chunk; that is just ‘others’.” It makes me very suspicious, and suggests to me that someone somewhere is not trying hard enough to make that chunk much more explainable.
There are one or two other things that sudden unexplained death in children is not. It is not sudden infant death syndrome, and the crucial word there is “syndrome”. SIDS is a thing that has been identified; research has been done, preventive measures have been put in place, and deaths from SIDS have been drastically reduced—more power to their elbow. SIDS should show us a way forward about how we might approach this issue with more effort and research. Sudden unexplained death in children also has no respect for persons. It is not to do with socioeconomic circumstances; it is as likely or unlikely to happen to princes as to paupers. It is important that people slay that dragon in their minds.
I want to come to the notion of it being unexplained. It will not come as a massive surprise to hon. Members to hear that I was once in the Army; I have mentioned it on the odd occasion. If I asked someone a question in the Army, they were perfectly within their rights to say, “I don’t know, sir”—but it was a crime if they finished the answer at that point, because everyone in the Army would only say one thing when asked that question: “I don’t know sir, but I will find out.” What we have done hitherto is say to parents, “I don’t know,” and not gone to the crucial second bit of saying, “but I will go away and find out.”
As other hon. Members have mentioned, we need to raise awareness within the NHS—and it would be hugely beneficial if the NHS could do what it said it would do in 2003 and put it on the website—as well as raise awareness in society more broadly. It is awful to think that some parents who have suffered unimaginable and unexplained loss could also suffer stigmatisation within their communities—that they could suffer from suspicion because, obviously, babies don’t just die for no reason, do they?
Equally, it would be hugely beneficial to raise awareness among the police so that they can handle cases far more sensitively. I have heard stories of great practice, but also of not great practice. I also cannot imagine the concern over siblings that must affect so many families affected by sudden unexplained death in childhood. Will the Minister commit to coming up with a plan for sudden unexplained death in childhood? To begin with, we have to get a plan, because without a plan, we cannot change it. Once someone says, “We have got a plan,” we are beholden to report back at a periodicity—let us say, every two years—to see whether we are doing what we said we would.
I have mentioned it already, but the NHS website and raising awareness more broadly is equally important. We in this House and in this Chamber should not be satisfied with one Westminster Hall debate. We have raised awareness generally. We really owe it to our young children—to Louis and Harry and all the other children whose deaths are unexplained—to do the work to give an explanation and reduce the number of deaths in the future.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this debate and speaking so powerfully, as he always does, about loss on these issues.
Frankie James Grogan lived in my constituency. He was three years old, and would have been 10 in January. Frankie was adored by his family, and everyone who met him said the same thing: that he was a joy to be around—always smiling, always laughing and always making his mum and dad proud. Frankie loved giraffes, as he loved most animals, and the only thing that could compete with them for his attention was his Lego.
Frankie was a special little boy, but in many other ways he was a normal little boy, like the millions of other toddlers who have just started nursery and have everything in life to look forward to. Then, one night, Frankie went to sleep and did not wake up: no explanation, no answers and, frankly, very little support—just an unimaginable loss. How does any parent come to terms with that? That is a question most of us cannot bring ourselves to even think about, but my constituent Sarah, who is with us today, had to face that reality. In a completely inspiring way, she turned her trauma into a movement for change, and working with SUDC UK she created Friends of Frankie, a brilliant local charity with a giraffe for its logo. The charity is dedicated to not just Frankie’s memory but his legacy, and that is the key point I want to raise today: Frankie’s legacy. When I have spoken to Sarah, she has articulated it better than I ever could: Frankie’s role now is to save other children and other parents too.
We need to make sudden unexplained death in childhood predictable, because when we can start to predict it, we can start to prevent it. First, as other Members have this morning, we need to recognise the scale of the issue and that these are not just isolated tragedies. We lose almost two children a fortnight to SUDC—in other words, more children than we lose to traffic accidents, fires and drowning. We work to keep children safe from those things—we have speed limits and fire alarms, and we teach children how to swim—but we do little to talk and think about or to research sudden unexplained death in childhood.
That is why we need action. As Members on both sides of the Chamber have discussed, we need a national plan with clear milestones for success that everyone can be held accountable for and that is based on research informed by quicker post-mortems, genetic data gathering and consistent, high-quality reviews. We can then start to understand, predict and prevent these deaths.
Take, for example, the link between febrile seizures and unexplained death. Frankie suffered 12 observed febrile seizures, yet the care he received for them was not informed by detailed research. One paramedic googled what a febrile seizure was in front of Sarah, shortly after Frankie had had one. I say to the Minister that we would not accept that lack of information—that ignorance—in any other part of children’s medicine, and we should not tolerate it when the consequences can be as tragic as these. Other Members have talked about how effective research has been when dealing with SIDS. If we had the same success here, we could save the lives of 32 children a year, which is surely as good a call to action as anyone can make.
It is great to see the Minister here so early in her new role, and I warmly welcome her to it. I urge her to meet SUDC UK as soon as possible and to pull the scientific experts together to agree a national plan that provides safety for every child and answers for every parent. That must be Frankie’s legacy—it is what Sarah and all friends of Frankie deserve.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for raising this issue and pay tribute to him for his bravery in exposing his own devastating grief at the loss of his precious daughter to try to bring about the change in research and support that is so desperately needed.
This is an incredibly difficult subject; indeed, it is often whispered about, if it is spoken of at all. SUDC is a tragedy that strikes without warning, leaving families across our communities in a state of profound, unanswered grief. Over the years, I have met too many families whose joy has gone, and my heart aches for them as well.
In Northern Ireland, we pride ourselves on our close-knit communities, our resilience and our ability to respond to things in a family way. However, when a family faces SUDC, that resilience is tested by the unique pain caused by having no answers. Unlike sudden infant death syndrome, which affects babies under one year old, SUDC claims the lives of children aged from one to 18.
I will look at the reality at home and, as I always do, give a Northern Ireland perspective. According to recent data from the Lullaby Trust, although the number of children who die is small, the impact is immeasurable and is felt not only by the parents and siblings but by the extended family, in schools and churches, and throughout the community. When that stone hits the water, the ripples go far.
In 2023, 16 unexpected deaths of babies and young children were recorded in Northern Ireland. While thorough investigations may eventually find explanations for many of those, those that remain unexplained leave a permanent void. Northern Ireland has historically seen the highest infant mortality rate in the United Kingdom, and it is currently at 4.2 deaths per 1,000 live births. The trends are quite worrying. Although SUDC is distinct from infant mortality, those figures highlight the broader, urgent need to prioritise child health and research in Northern Ireland.
For children aged one to four, SUDC is one of the leading causes of death across the United Kingdom, often ranking higher than traffic accidents or fire, yet it remains one of the most under-recognised medical tragedies of our time. When we ask the Minister for help, that is what we are asking about.
Carla Lockhart
Will my hon. Friend join me in commending Dr Julie Rankin, a consultant in emergency medicine, who has been instrumental in working with the Williamson family from my constituency to create a bereavement suite in Craigavon Area hospital in memory of those little children who have died suddenly in unexplained circumstances? As we speak today, they are actually at a research event at Queen’s University Belfast, which demonstrates that Northern Ireland is advancing these things for families who are impacted.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She and I, and probably everyone else in the Chamber, would recognise the importance of parents having someone there to comfort them when such an awful tragedy takes place, and it is vital that my hon. Friend underlined that. One of my three asks of the Minister—which I will come to shortly—will be for research, and Queen’s University is to the fore on that.
For a child aged one to four, SUDC is one of the leading causes of death across the United Kingdom, yet it remains one of the most under-recognised medical tragedies. That is really the point I want to make: this is a medical tragedy and we are not doing enough, so we need to do more, as I think everybody has said.
The unexplained nature of these deaths is perhaps the cruellest part. Families go to wake their child for school or for a day of play, only to find the unthinkable. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency continues to track these tragedies, noting that they can affect any family, regardless of background.
But we are not here today simply to acknowledge or indeed to remember; we are here to advocate for change. When he set the scene, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen was very clear about what he wanted, which is probably what we all want. First, we need more research, and that is one of my three asks of the Minister. I am very pleased to see her in her place; it has been a pleasure to work alongside her on many subjects over the years we have been here, and I wish her well—I wished her well last time and I wish her well again—in the role she plays. We need more research in order to move beyond the unexplained and find the “why” of the problem. Secondly, we need better support for families navigating the complex joint agency response that follows a sudden death. Thirdly, we need something that today’s debate will help to raise: awareness.
Those are my three asks, so that no parent in Glasgow, Newtownards, Swansea or Somerset feels that they are the only one in the world that this has happened to. We owe it to the children we have lost and to the families they have left behind—[Interruption.]
Lincoln Jopp
As ever, the hon. Member is making an incredibly powerful speech. I know he feels these things incredibly strongly. I am sure we are all looking forward to his closing remarks.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Jim, why don’t you bring your remarks to a conclusion?
Jim Shannon
I will do that. Let us work together to make sure every child has the chance to grow up, and every family has the answers they deserve. While we do not mourn as those do who have no hope, I always treasure the fact that Jesus wept with Mary in her grief, even though he had a plan. God has a plan; sometimes we do not understand what it is, but we have to trust. So we weep together and we hold on to the hope we have. Today, we express our determination to do more for those grieving in our families, in our towns and in our great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I call Michelle Welsh. Michelle, I want to start the winding-up speeches at around 10.30 am.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this important debate.
There can be no greater devastation than the death of a child, but for many families the pain is made even more unbearable by one word: unexplained. When a child dies without answers, the grief does not settle. It lingers, it questions and it haunts. Parents are left asking themselves the same questions over and over: “What happened, and why don’t we know?”
I have spoken to a local family living with that reality—a family who are not just grieving, but searching for answers, understanding and peace. When this happens, families encounter a system that is broken and fragmented, investigations that take too long, communication that is unclear and support that falls away when it is needed the most. We must do better.
We need a national plan and improved data collection to identify patterns and risk factors. Every unexplained death in childhood must be treated with the seriousness it deserves—not just as a case to be closed but as a life that mattered, with a family who need answers. That means timely, thorough and transparent investigations; clear communication with families at every stage; ensuring that bereavement support is not an afterthought but a core part of care; and providing training for healthcare professionals, coroners and the police. This is not just about understanding why a child died; it is about helping families with such a tragic loss.
We owe it to those children and families to learn everything we can, to be honest about what we find and to ensure that no parent is left alone in their search for answers. We can, and must, ensure that no family is left in the dark. When a child dies, the silence that follows should never be from a system that was meant to provide the answers.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for his brilliant opening speech setting out the frame of our conversation.
I am mindful of the families in the Public Gallery, who have had unimaginable loss and who represent just a fraction of the families across the United Kingdom who have gone through this tragedy. I also know that some hon. Members who have met families who have lost a child through sudden unexplained death in childhood could not be here today, and they have asked me to extend their thanks to SUDC UK for the advocacy and support it has provided for those families.
As hon. Members have said, losing a child is one of the most devastating experiences a parent can face. For parents to lose a child suddenly and to not know why is even harder to comprehend, leaving them without answers and wondering endlessly whether anything could have been done. That is a burden no parent should have to carry alone, yet that is the reality for families affected by sudden unexplained death in childhood.
As we have heard this morning, the experience for families is far from what we would hope. According to research by SUDC UK, only about half of families who experienced an unexplained child death were assigned a bereavement key worker. Many parents reported distressing and at times traumatic experiences when dealing with authorities in the aftermath of their child’s death. At the very moment families need compassion, clarity and support, too many are instead met with confusion, delays and even suspicion. We must do better than that.
Of course, that is a reflection not of the incredible staff across the NHS and other services but of a wider system that is failing. When a child dies unexpectedly, there is meant to be a structured review process. Families should be guided, supported and treated with care and dignity. Not only do more than half of NHS areas in England not have a specialist bereavement nurse available to visit parents after such a death, but as the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen set out, there is a shocking shortage of paediatric and perinatal pathologists across the United Kingdom. I am going to spend the next few minutes focusing on that often overlooked profession.
I recently met the president of the Royal College of Pathologists, Dr Bernie Croal. He explained that with vacancies for this specialism running at 37%, bereaved families are suffering. Let me set out the scale and consequences of the situation. In December last year, there were only 52 paediatric and perinatal pathologists, or PPP consultants, working in the United Kingdom. There were no PPP consultants working in Northern Ireland, none in the south-west and none in the midlands. The royal college says that that has led to
“total service collapse in these areas.”
In Northern Ireland, there has not been a paediatric and perinatal consultant in post since 2019. For children from Northern Ireland, post-mortem examinations are being carried out on an interim basis at Alder Hey children’s NHS foundation trust in Liverpool. Bluntly, if a baby or child needs a post-mortem, their body must be transported from Northern Ireland by ferry or plane to England.
Right across the UK, the lack of PPP consultants is having a harrowing effect on bereaved families, with one in five families having to wait six months or more, and some waiting more than 12 months. This matters because the support and expertise of paediatric and perinatal pathologists can give families answers where they exist, and in many cases, a diagnosis can help to screen other family members who might be affected by a certain condition. They can also potentially give information that aids treatment should a family decide to try for another baby.
I have three questions for the Minister. The first is on the root causes; namely, the shortage in the paediatric and perinatal pathology workforce. Given that the royal college recommends that training posts should be expanded to 37 places by 2030, what concrete, funded plans do the Government have to deliver those to ensure a sustainable pipeline of paediatric and perinatal pathologists?
Secondly, on the delays affecting families, will the Minister commit today to bringing forward a plan to improve the resilience of paediatric pathology services so that bereaved families receive timely answers when they are trying to understand the shocking and unexpected loss of their child?
Thirdly, on investment in the wider pathology workforce, what investment will be made in the multidisciplinary workforce, such as biomedical scientists and pathology technicians, to ensure that paediatric pathology services can function effectively? Even with more doctors, services fail without the supporting team.
A sudden unexplained death in childhood is truly shocking; it happens to around 40 children each year. Those deaths will never be explained, as things stand, and could not have been anticipated, but we have a moral obligation to make sure that what we can control—the right people with the right training in the right places—is there for families. Paediatric and perinatal pathology services is just one specialism where there are gaps in provision, and as we have heard from other hon. Members, there are other specialisms, too. More can be done, and so more must be done.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir John. I declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician and as a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing today’s important debate.
The death of a child is every parent’s worst nightmare. It is perhaps even more horrific when such a death happens suddenly, without warning and when no explanation can be found. I would like to convey my condolences to the family of Frankie Grogan, to Cheryl, Darren and Louis, to Nathan and Fiona, to the Rogers, Pitts and Williamson families, and to all other families grieving such a profound loss.
Childhood death is thankfully rare. However, more than 3,400 children aged nought to 17 die in England each year, and in around 40 cases the death cannot be explained. Parents are left with more questions than answers. Why has this happened? Why now? Since many cases are unwitnessed, did the child suffer? What was the cause? Could it have been prevented? Will it happen again to a sibling or a future child?
I want to focus on two questions today: how do we identify the cause of death in more cases? And how can we use that information to prevent future deaths? We can do that because we have done it before. In the 1980s, 2.35 children per 1,000 live births died within between a week and two years. That has been reduced by over 90%. The key factors were research, the Back to Sleep campaign, general safe sleeping advice and the avoidance of cigarette smoke. There is more to be done, but with the right plan, we have shown that lives can be saved.
I would first like to acknowledge some progress, including through the work of Baroness Kennedy, whose 2004 report and subsequent work with the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health led to the introduction in 2008 of a standard set of clinical samples, called Kennedy samples, that must be taken in the event of a sudden child or infant death. In most of the trusts I have worked in, there is now a box in each emergency department with all the samples and a list of what needs to be taken so that nothing is missed in any cases.
Child death overview panels, which were also established in 2008, are multidisciplinary panels to review the deaths of all children aged nought to 17. That process was further updated in 2018. When a child dies, all registrars must inform the child death overview panel, of which there are currently 58 in England. An expected death goes to a review meeting to look at the detail of the causes and whether it can be prevented in the future. In an unexpected death, there is an urgent joint agency response meeting including police and education, and a review meeting takes place later. All that information then feeds into the national child mortality database, set up in 2019, which is there to spot patterns and aims to prevent future deaths. It produces several reports each year with detailed guidance for Government on how deaths can be prevented.
It might be helpful to discuss an example. In December 2024, the NCMD published a report on child deaths due to asthma or anaphylaxis. I commend those who produced that report, including my medical colleague Dr Emilia Wawrzkowicz. They found that certain factors increased the risks of asthma or anaphylactic death in children, and that milk was most likely to trigger a fatal reaction. They found problems with auto-injectors that were forgotten, out of date or not with the child, or that the training had not been adequate, particularly in schools. They found issues with indoor air pollution, a failure to recognise life-threatening asthma and that children did not have asthma action plans.
Work has been done in many of those areas, which will have saved children’s lives since. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) has been promoting Benedict’s law, which hon. Members voted for just last week, to ensure that children at school are protected from anaphylaxis. Can the Minister update the House on progress in delivering the recommendations of the national child mortality database’s report? At the moment, the Government are not obliged to produce a response to the recommendations of the national child mortality database’s reports, unlike many other reports, and I think they should be. A more recent report was on the effect of consanguineous marriage on the rate of child deaths. It would be helpful to have Government responses to show that those reports are being read and acknowledged, and that the work that has been done is leading to change.
I worry about the effect of the imminent abolition of NHS England on the national child mortality database’s work. Child death overview panels do very good work in investigating each child death individually, but ICB funding cuts mean that not only bereavement staff, but investigatory staff, are being cut. The mergers of ICBs mean that local knowledge may be lost as the areas become very large. That is not in line with the statutory guidance in the Children Acts. Can the Minister update us on the Government’s plans in that area?
Whole genome sequencing offers an increased likelihood of finding children’s causes of death, but there is a long wait for results; it can take six months. Families are in great distress while they wait for those results, as we have heard. The Government suggest that they want to expand genome sequencing work, but it has already taken a very long time and the workforce plan has not yet been published. What are the Government doing to make sure we have the right staff and the right capacity to deliver that ambition?
Skin biopsies can be very helpful, particularly in diagnosing inborn errors of metabolism, which in children can cause illness and death, but they are not yet available everywhere. Can the Minister update the House on what is being done to roll out these tests so that, where possible, all causes can be found?
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), mentioned the fact that there are not enough pathologists. That is very important because it causes distress and delays, including to post-mortems, and it means that families have to wait much longer for results. Also, some children tragically die overseas, as happened to one of my patients relatively recently. In such cases, SUDC panels rely on being told about it and find it more difficult to investigate. Does the Minister have any comments on that?
Hon. Members talked about research. The Lullaby Trust has been doing gene sequencing on tissue samples from children who died of sudden unexplained death. In four of 20 cases, the tests were able to find evidence of infection, so there is hope that people who have been bereaved by a sudden unexplained death in the past can, with more modern techniques and retained tissue samples, discover the cause in the future. However, that will only happen if the research takes place. This research is charitably funded. We heard about the charity-funded research being done in Bristol, but the Government also need to fund research so that we get as much information as possible to prevent these deaths.
Lastly, I will talk about bereavement support. We have heard about the vital role that it plays in helping families, including siblings, in their time of grief, but I have heard about cuts to that as a result of mergers and funding changes to ICBs. In one case, a phone line has been taken away, meaning that families who want to approach bereavement support have to email and wait for a response—I can see hon. Members frowning. This is clearly not good enough, so I urge the Minister to look carefully at it and take the time to find out what is going on in each ICB regarding the commissioning of these services, so that we are not leaving families without the support they need during the most awful time they could ever experience.
What we have heard today is a call for action. We have heard a call to explain the unexplained, support families better, improve on research and, ultimately, to prevent the deaths of children.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
In calling my long-standing friend, Mrs Hodgson, I let hon. Members know that she has agreed to leave a couple of minutes at the end for Mr MacNae to wind-up. In turn, he is about to agree to leave a couple of moments at the end for me to move the motion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing a debate on such an important issue. I am grateful to him for opening the debate during SUDC Awareness Month, a time dedicated to remembering children who have died suddenly and without explanation.
I also thank my hon. Friend for sharing Frankie’s story; it was profoundly moving to hear about it, as it was to hear all the contributions this morning. I want to acknowledge the courage of Frankie’s family in turning such devastating loss into a call for understanding and change. Frankie was clearly a much-loved little boy, as are all the children who are lost to SUDC, and no family should have to live with unanswered questions about why their child died. I am grateful to Frankie’s grandfather and SUDC UK for their determination in making sure that unexplained never means unexamined. I recognise the importance of the leadership, co-ordination and clarity that they are asking for.
It is important to me that we strengthen our understanding of SUDC and ensure that families can access the right support when they need it. This Government set out an ambitious commitment to raise the healthiest generation of children ever. To achieve that, we must ensure that families receive the best support and advice on all matters relating to child health, including SUDC.
I thank all hon. Members for their powerful and moving speeches and interventions today. I turn to some of the specific issues raised. I recognise the calls from a number of Members for a national plan. That is why we are strengthening pathology services, ensuring high-quality bereavement support and a growing research base. As that works progresses, we will continue listening to families, clinicians and researchers about where further improvements are needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) asked me about bereavement leave, and made a very strong case. I will commit to raising that with Department for Business and Trade Ministers as a priority. I will also raise the issue of police and paramedic training, which my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) raised, with the relevant Departments and Ministers. Both my hon. Friends raised very important issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) asked about the implementation of the recommendations in the paediatric and perinatal pathology workforce report. I will write to her on that, and on the four points she called for in particular.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen for highlighting that information on SUDC was taken down from the NHS website. Parents who have lost a child to SUDC should be able to access the advice and support that they need. I have already asked my officials to investigate that and explore opportunities to include signposting on the NHS website.
No family should ever have to experience the loss of a child, as so many of us in this Chamber today have. It is vital all of us have access to compassionate and timely support when the worst happens. The child death review process ensures that every child’s death is understood sensitively and thoroughly, and is vital in helping families to understand what happened to their child. While bereavement support is commissioned locally to reflect the needs of each community, there is clear national best practice that sets out that every bereaved family should have a key worker to guide them through a time of inconceivable loss and heartbreak. That key worker helps to provide clarity, information and kindness, and helps families to access further sources of support where needed. We also encourage anyone seeking help to contact their GP, who can also guide them to appropriate services.
I also want to thank some of the wonderful organisations and charities across the country, such as SUDC UK, the Lullaby Trust, Cruse Bereavement Support and the Good Grief Trust, which provide exceptional support to families experiencing this devastating loss. Alongside that, the National Bereavement Alliance has published updated voluntary service standards to support continuous improvement in the quality of care. Putting the needs of children and their families first is at the heart of everything I will do in my role as a Minister. We will continue working with partners to ensure that bereaved families receive the compassion and support they deserve.
As we have heard today in detail, pathology waiting times can add to the distress experienced by families at a critical time when they need answers quickly. As was highlighted by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, there is a nationwide shortage of paediatric pathologists in England and Wales, which can affect the time taken to complete pathology testing following a coronial post-mortem. To address that, NHS England has launched a national programme to strengthen perinatal and paediatric pathology services. The Government have made more than £2 million-worth of additional funding available to increase post-mortem capacity. That has increased training posts and the number of trainee doctors and new pathologists.
Alongside that, genomic testing for SUDC is available through the NHS genomic medicine service. Decisions about whether genomic testing is appropriate are made after the post-mortem and through careful discussions with specialist multidisciplinary teams. NHS England closely monitors how genomic testing is delivered across the country, so that it can spot where services differ and work with local teams to improve services. That helps to ensure families can benefit from high-quality, consistent services where they live. Taken together, these steps will help to ensure that families receive timely, high-quality investigations at moments of profound difficulty, while supporting the workforce who deliver this critical service.
As hon. Members have said, SUDC remains an under-researched area, and I agree that we must do more to deepen our understanding. The Government remain open to funding high-quality research into SUDC through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and we welcome applications on any aspect of child health, including SUDC.
For example, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen for raising the great work of Bristol University in hosting the national child mortality database and child mortality analysis unit. The Government’s support for the national child mortality database has already made a meaningful difference by bringing together national-level data on all child deaths in England and allowing a far greater understanding of deaths in children over the age of one.
I am encouraged to see that, building on that foundation, the University of Bristol has secured funding from SUDC UK for the Pioneer SUDC study. This will help to shape future research questions and contribute to deeper learning in this under-explored area. As this growing body of evidence develops, it will allow experts to identify where research can have the greatest impact and where gaps remain, including in areas such as febrile seizures. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that area today, because it is definitely one we need to look at.
Jim Shannon
On research, I will make a plea for Queen’s University Belfast, as I always do in such debates, because it does incredible work. It is not the only university that does so; many universities across this United Kingdom do so as well. Will the Minister engage with Queen’s University Belfast and other universities to ensure that the necessary research can be achieved and thereby save lives?
Mrs Hodgson
Yes. I thank the hon. Member for his very moving speech; he often moves me to tears in moments such as this. I will take that away, and ask my officials to look at the work of Queen’s University Belfast, because he makes a very important point.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), made a couple of points. I will write to her on the Government’s responses to recommendations, because it is a valid point and one that we should be aware of in future. On the point about ICBs making services more effective by cutting duplication and making sure we have the right people in the right places to deliver quality services, that is something I will also be paying particular attention to, as the Minister with responsibility for children’s health.
Dr Caroline Johnson
My point was less that mergers of ICBs would make services more efficient, but more that that is leading to services being cut, which may make them less good, and that the principle that CDOPs look at the local area is diluted if the local area becomes very large.
Mrs Hodgson
I take on board what the hon. Lady says. When I write to her on the point about responses to recommendations, I will elaborate further on that point, having made sure that I have understood it correctly.
Lincoln Jopp
The Minister is very generous with her time, and I am grateful to her for that. She welcomed the research funded by the SUDC UK in Bristol, but I do not think we have heard any commitment to Government-funded research into this area. Will she clarify whether she will take that forward?
Mrs Hodgson
I think I may have mentioned some Government-funded research, but I will commit to write to the hon. Gentleman on that point, rather than try to guess what I may have said.
In closing, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen for bringing forward this debate, and all hon. Members for their heartbreaking speeches. Those of us here today who have had the privilege of taking part in this debate will never forget them and the names of the children either: Frankie, Miranda, Jack, Louis and Harry—as well as all the other precious children who we have lost to SUDC. The names, families and circumstances mentioned today are all in Hansard now forever. I want to thank all the families in the Public Gallery for being with us today and for their campaigning for change, research and better support.
A number of Members here today recognise that drive because it is what drove us here ourselves. I take on board the plea from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) to ensure that we see progress and do not all find ourselves back here in a few years’ time having the same debate. We will continue to work with clinicians, researchers, charities and—above all else—families to deepen our understanding, strengthen the support available, and ensure that every child’s death is fully examined and that their life is never forgotten.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Thank you, Minister. Before I call on Andy to wind up, I echo the thanks to all Members for contributing to this important debate. I also particularly thank all those who have taken time to attend in the Public Gallery. Thank you so much.
Andy MacNae
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), for bringing her depth of professional experience. I also thank the Minister for her comprehensive response to the points raised.
I want to reflect on a couple of the issues that were raised. First, I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for taking me to task on describing SUDC as a cause of death. He is absolutely right: it is not; it is simply a category of the unknown. That is worth reflecting on, because it puts into context the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) that we focus on understanding, predicting and preventing. When we combine that great unknown with that appeal to simply understand, we recognise the challenge, but also the imperative to make progress in this area. It is clear that there is an absolute consensus across both sides of the House in calling for a plan and the prioritisation of this issue. It was good to hear the Minister recognising the importance of that.
Bereavement support came up several times. We have so much terminology: bereavement support, bereavement care and longer-term mental health support. The moment at which a family needs support to deal with the trauma of loss can vary greatly. It can be a day, week or year after the loss and having the right support at the right time remains absolutely vital. I very much hope and believe that it is something that the parent services and maternity safety investigation and the ongoing taskforce will grasp as a priority in their work.
To reflect on some of the commitments made by the Minister, I think she has recognised that some things can be done quickly and effectively—simply getting good information about SUDC up on the website seems to be an obvious imperative that we can be acting on. However, Members have raised a range of opportunities, in particular the opportunity to build on the charity-funded research done so far and move it into Government-funded research. I would be grateful if the Minister agreed to meet with me and SUDC UK to discuss how we can take this debate forward, because as hon. Members have said, it cannot stop here. This must be the start of an ongoing process where we build understanding, take action and get real change to create a genuine legacy—a legacy for Frankie and all the families affected.
Again, I finish by thanking everyone in the Public Gallery for being here. It really matters, and I am so grateful for your presence.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood.
Water Supply and Housing Targets: West Kent
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Tom Tugendhat will move the motion and the Minister will respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. I have had notice that one Member will intervene, which is fine. Unfortunately there will not be an opportunity, Tom, to wind up. That is the custom in these short debates.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered water supply and housing targets in west Kent.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John—not for the first time or, I certainly hope, the last. What is less pleasurable is having no water coming out of your taps. Sadly, that could be the reality for more than 13,000 new homes in Tonbridge and Malling if the Government get their way. Planning decisions in the community are, I think we would all agree, best left to local councillors. After all, it is right that those elected at the most local level have responsibility for shaping the place they live in and represent. However, this Government’s planning policies are taking us away from that principle.
Since the general election, we have seen mandatory housing targets reintroduced and increased enormously. They are up by 34% in Tonbridge and Malling and by 63% in Sevenoaks district. Then, of course, there is the grey-belt policy. I have been getting used to Green party and Labour MPs going through the voting Lobbies and making things easier for development to merge towns and villages and create one single, homogeneous, blended whole and for development on previously protected grey-belt land. However, water seems not to have been considered. There are many aspects of water locally that I could focus on, including the excellent work done in Edenbridge on water quality by NEDRA—the New Edenbridge District Residents’ Association—but in the interests of time, I will focus my comments today on water supply only.
This is now a very salient issue for those of us in west Kent. Although Tunbridge Wells has been the worst affected, towns and villages such as Tonbridge, Edenbridge and across the north downs have lost water supply this winter and last winter. Why is that? It is because there is not enough water in the system to supply houses in our area. I am aware that the Water Industry Act 1991 in effect places a legal requirement on water suppliers to ensure that running water appears when the tap is turned on. Although South East Water is not very good at doing that right now, we also need to focus on the future. That means asking fundamental questions. Where is the water—now and in the future? Do housing targets accurately reflect the water infrastructure in west Kent?
I will focus on two authorities in the area that I represent: Tonbridge and Malling borough council and Sevenoaks district council. I emphasise to the Minister that they are two of the very best run councils in the whole country and have been for a number of years. We are very lucky to have brilliant people at both councils, and both are trying to do the right thing for future development and adopt a local plan. In both cases, however, that has been delayed from 2024 because of the Government changing planning policy. It is not the fault of either council that they do not have an adopted local plan; that is because of tinkering and meddling by the Government and, historically, the Planning Inspectorate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue; he is absolutely right. He outlines a case in his own constituency, which is very pertinent to him. Unfortunately, what he describes is the case across the whole of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, I have the very same problem. Northern Ireland Water seems to be discouraging planned housing, as it cannot meet the need. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must step in with direct action and fund the deficit while enforcing the obligations on water companies to hold up their end of the deal?
Tom Tugendhat
It is no surprise to me that this issue applies across the whole of the United Kingdom. I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
One thing that the Government have not changed, but ought to change, is the position of water companies in planning. Somewhat strangely, water companies are statutory consultees on the local plan process, but not on planning applications. I invite the Minister in her response to explain whether she agrees that this is peculiar.
There are four water supply companies across Sevenoaks district. Two cover the area that I am privileged to represent: SES Water in and around Edenbridge, and South East Water elsewhere. In advance of this debate, I asked the new leader of Sevenoaks district council, Kevin Maskell, to outline what engagement on local plan and infrastructure delivery matters the council has received from water companies. The answer was that only two of the four water companies had even replied, and the replies received were very limited. Indeed, the experience from Sevenoaks is that water companies see their role as not being a priority.
There is no detailed modelling for housing projections against water resources management plans, especially for site allocations. All infrastructure planning is deferred to the planning application stage, where the water companies are not even a statutory consultee. That makes it impossible to plan for the cumulative impact of developments on the water network. How is that good for planning? Well, it isn’t.
If the situation with water suppliers is a problem in Sevenoaks district, however, it is critically urgent and potentially disastrous in Tonbridge and Malling. For the benefit of the Minister, I will explain what has happened in recent months. Tonbridge and Malling borough council agreed to its regulation 18 local plan consultation in the autumn. It received unanimous cross-party support, which was a huge vote of confidence in the leadership of Matt Boughton and the work of Mike Taylor, the cabinet member for planning. Both of them have contributed enormously to the life of our community.
The TMBC cabinet member for infrastructure, Adem Mehmet, approached infrastructure providers for consultation responses, including South East Water, which is the drinking water supplier for almost all of the borough—and the whole of the part that I am lucky enough to represent. I have a copy of the response here, dated 17 December 2025. In it, South East Water tells Tonbridge and Malling borough council that the maximum number of additional homes it can supply between now and 2042 is 6,318. The Government housing target for the council is 19,620.
What is Tonbridge and Malling borough council expected to do? Is it supposed to allocate sites for 13,302 new homes, despite having been told that there is no infrastructure for water to be supplied to those properties? I am sure that the Minister agrees that this would not be appropriate or wise. Having received the response, and being the excellent councillor he is, Adem Mehmet wrote to South East Water on 15 January this year, which happened to be in the middle of the water outages we were facing. South East Water responded on 3 February.
Three simple questions were put to South East Water. First, does South East Water agree that it cannot provide sufficient water to cope with a significant increase in housing targets? South East Water agrees that it cannot. Secondly, do the current targets mean that there will be more water shortages? Again, South East Water agrees that the probability of water outages is higher. Thirdly, would the planned increases identified in the water resources management plan allow South East Water to cope with the Government housing targets for Tonbridge and Malling? South East Water says that the increases will not be sufficient to meet the Government housing targets.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend on securing this debate and on the speech he is making about the challenge of supplying water to Tonbridge and Malling, now and in the future with such a huge number of developments planned. Given the difficulty of supplying water to his constituency, where there are 19,000 more homes planned, how on earth can there be enough water for the 20,000 homes in the pipeline for my constituency? We are already suffering with water outages and having to rely on water being tankered, so there is very poor resilience. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should think again about the scale of the housing plan for rural constituencies like mine and his, particularly given the lack of adequate infrastructure?
Tom Tugendhat
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her comments, which I completely agree with. I am sure that they have generated enormous response to her current petition, which is at signhelenspetition.com, should you wish to sign it, Sir John. I understand that it will be increasingly popular at this time, and rightly so, given how badly areas of east Maidstone were affected during the water outages a few weeks ago.
What I and my hon. Friend have said will be no doubt familiar to the Minister, who has been aware of this for a number of weeks. She received a letter from Tonbridge and Malling borough council leader Matt Boughton on 16 January, and another on 11 February—I have both of them here. There was one reply received on 12 February from Baroness Taylor in the Minister’s Department, which frankly does not answer the question and does not mention South East Water’s comments at all. The council has chased for a proper reply, but is still waiting. I am sure that the Minister will update me on where that is.
I have been told that officials in the Minister’s Department have met with the planning department from the council, but again there has been no progress. It is that lack of urgency that motivated me to apply for this debate, because, frankly, this cannot go on. I have all the evidence of the council being proactive in raising this issue, and it clearly wants the same as the Department: a local plan. However, the Department is not giving this the attention it needs. I request that the Minister and her officials meet me and senior representatives from the council to resolve this issue urgently.
Why so soon? It is quite obvious that there is not enough water to cope with the current housing targets. The Minister has told the council to submit a local plan for the new high housing targets this year. The applications are coming in—ask residents in Hadlow and Wateringbury, or Edenbridge in Sevenoaks district—but I have been told that Tonbridge and Malling now cannot determine planning applications for new development because of these water issues, even on sites it wants to develop. Right now, there is effectively a moratorium on development in Tonbridge and Malling because of the Minister’s Department. How does that help the Government meet their ambition for 1.5 million homes a year? The Government clearly need to sort this out for our community now, and make changes to prevent this from happening elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Why did the Government not take account of the water resources management plans when determining housing targets for our councils in 2024? Why are water resources management plans not developed using up-to-date housing targets? It is pretty absurd that the 2007 housing target is used to inform the 2024 plan for water infrastructure in our community. It is no wonder that there is deep opposition to housing targets and deeper distrust of water companies.
Why can Sevenoaks not get any meaningful engagement with water providers on the local plan? Why has Tonbridge and Malling been placed in this position by a completely unrealistic Government policy? The Government are telling them that they must meet their housing targets, and they have no choice, yet the housing target has 13,000 more homes than the water supplier has the ability to cater for. It is not even close to being realistic either way.
What is the solution? There are only two possibilities: one is to get more water into the system, and the other is to reduce the housing target. The water resources management plan 2024 identifies a lot of schemes: new pumping stations, upgrading waste water treatment works, a new pipeline in Tonbridge and new drinking water storage tanks. We could do all the above and we would still be 13,000 homes away.
The question remains: where is the water coming from to fill the extra capacity in the water network? A new reservoir would help, but where would that be in our community, given our proximity to Bewl Water and Bough Beech? The truth is that there simply cannot be enough water for the scale of development that the Government are insisting be accommodated in our area. That means that there is only one way out of the issue: the Government must urgently and immediately reduce the housing target for Tonbridge and Malling borough council, and do the same for other councils in South East Water’s area, including Sevenoaks district council.
It would be completely irresponsible for the Government to proceed with the current housing targets for both councils while this issue remains unresolved. The Minister knows that I agree that we need more homes; in my community, we particularly need homes for people to live as families with their relatives. Our community should not only take its fair share but be part of that opportunity. However, new homes must be built only if we can actually supply them with water, and at the moment we cannot. I urge the Minister to consider the points I have raised and, on the Tonbridge and Malling issue, agree to meet Matt Boughton and me as a matter of urgency.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I thank the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) for securing this debate and other hon. Members for their contributions. I appreciate the concerns raised around the challenges of meeting the housing target and the appalling situation with the water company and water shortages.
I share the frustration of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge at the lack of adequate provision—water is a basic thing that we should be able to provide to all homes in every part of the country. We know that the status quo is not good enough, and I will set out the steps that we are taking in response. Let me be clear at the outset that the water supply disruption that South East Water customers have faced is wholly unacceptable. My colleagues, both in my Department and in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, have been robust on that, and Ofwat will do its job by holding South East Water to account.
DEFRA has also set up the water delivery taskforce to do the job of holding companies to account on the questions of existing capacity to deliver water to homes and future capacity to deliver for the future homes that we need. To date, the taskforce has led work across the Government, regulators and the water sector to resolve blockers where water scarcity issues have stalled development, for example in Oxford, Cambridgeshire and north Sussex. That work has unblocked 10,000 new homes. David Hinton, the chief executive of South East Water, will be appearing before the April taskforce, which will scrutinise the company’s performance, ask the very questions that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge has asked today and demand improvements in delivery.
We are alive to the issues that have been raised in this debate. Alongside action taken through the taskforce, officials across DEFRA and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are working in partnership with Tonbridge and Malling borough council to explore short-term interventions to progress both current planning applications and local plan development. They will draw on our experience in north Sussex and Cambridge, where we have achieved progress, and explore options to commission an independent review of groundwater headroom, new home building standards and retrofitting existing buildings.
Helen Whately
The Minister mentioned that the water taskforce will be meeting with David Hinton, the chief executive of South East Water, to hold him to account for its abysmal performance in the recent outages. If that taskforce finds that South East Water’s response has been inadequate, as I believe it was, what action will the taskforce be able to take? I believe that David Hinton should no longer be the chief executive because of those failures.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
In the short term, the priority is to make sure that the company has a viable plan so that we can deliver the homes that we want. The approach that the taskforce has taken in other areas is to sit alongside the company to stress-test its proposals and propose improvements to them so that we can get the building happening. As the hon. Member will know, we are driving through bigger reforms of the water sector because we recognise that the status quo is suboptimal and that we need to hold companies and their bosses to account where they are not delivering for their customers.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Minister refers to the changes made in Sussex; I assume she means the changes made around Horsham, which relate to Southern Water, rather than South East Water. Nothing that has changed there has increased water supply; it has merely unlocked the restrictions on house building. My concern is that the timescales for the water delivery workforce are very long, but those for delivering district plans and the Government’s housing targets are very short. Surely the challenge is that they are totally at odds with each other.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is a challenge, but our job is to work across Government and the different agencies, and with the water companies, to rise to the challenge. I gently point out that over the past decade and a half, the Conservative party could have introduced reforms to bring our water sector up to scratch and deliver what our communities need for the housing they also need. That was not done, so we are working on it at record speed. Our commitment is to work holistically across the piece to resolve the challenge, but we absolutely recognise that it is a challenge.
Hon. Members have questioned the validity of our housing targets. It is absolutely right that the Government are taking bold action to overhaul the planning system and carry out the reforms necessary to deliver the homes and infrastructure that every single community needs. There is consensus across the House that the status quo in terms of housing development is not adequate for the needs in our communities, so we have to step up.
We believe that our revised standard method strikes the right balance between meeting the scale of need across the country and focusing additional growth on the places facing the biggest affordability pressures. While those targets are ambitious, we have always been clear that they are necessary, given our inheritance. The key is to ensure we work consistently across the different parts of the system to deliver that objective and ambition.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make more progress.
The lack of water infrastructure is blocking our capacity to deliver more homes and is resulting in water outages such as those in west Kent. That is a clear signal that we need wholesale reform and that the system is not doing what needs to be done.
We believe that we can secure water supplies for the future only by managing water demand, reducing leakages and creating new water assets. We have to do all three of those things, and we are working with the water industry and the regulator to do that.
Tom Tugendhat
I understand that the Minister is talking about very short-term interventions, but this is about 13,000 homes over a period running up to 2042. I was not going to be partisan about it, but this has come about because of the removal of planning requirements from cities such as London and their imposition on areas such as west Kent. That is a Government decision, and they have a mandate to execute it. They and the Green party voted through the change of green belt into this imaginary grey belt—again, they have the mandate to do that—but let us not pretend that it is not a political choice. The political choice that her Government have made has resulted in increased pressure on water companies, which did not exist before. We can play political games if she wishes, but the reality is that this is a very clear political reallocation from the need in London to the need in rural areas.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me address that point directly. We are clear that we are not building enough homes across every part of the country, and we are trying to ensure that the system delivers. Whether it is my community in London or the right hon. Gentleman’s community in Tonbridge, the reality is that there are not enough affordable homes for people to live in—a situation none of us wants. It is absolutely right to have housing targets commensurate with the need. I do not believe that politics is being played here; we are trying to deal with the need in parts of the country where there is both demand and the capacity to deliver more homes.
I acknowledge that there is a problem with the wider system and the infrastructure that we are building, and we are addressing it, but that is made harder by the fact that, candidly, a lot of these problems have been here for a decade and a half. They could have been addressed, but they were not, so we are trying to do that. We are having to do it all at the same time, but nobody can ask us to resile from our ambition to build enough homes for people to live in.
Helen Whately
I thank the Minister very much for taking a second intervention from me. I do not disagree that the country needs more homes; that is an accepted fact. However, what we have seen under her Government is housing targets being shifted out of London, so that London’s numbers have fallen and the numbers in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and in my constituency of Faversham and Mid Kent have gone up. Against that backdrop, I have not seen London homes having large outages where they have not had enough water for days on end, whereas in Kent we have had them on multiple occasions. Yet still her Government persist in reducing the housing ambitions for London and putting more housing in rural areas, such as our constituencies, where we simply do not have the infrastructure that is needed. Surely she must recognise that the Government need to change tack.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
On that specific point, our methodology is trying to strike a balance, where we think there is both need for homes and the capacity to build those homes. I absolutely acknowledge that the water sector and some of our other infrastructure providers are not where they need to be. All the reforms we are trying to drive through in planning reform and the water sector, and the robust action that we are taking to work across the piece, are in response to that very problem.
For example, in the context of the investment required to build our water assets, the Government are ensuring that £104 billion of private sector investment is going into the water sector over five years to enable that building of assets. I want to reassure the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and hon. Members that the Government will introduce the water reform Bill when parliamentary time allows, working in partnership with water companies, investors and communities to make sure that we have a system that is fit for purpose.
An important part of that reform, which pertains to this very debate, is the establishment of regional water planning function, which will enable a more holistic, co-ordinated approach to water, environment and supply planning and support the delivery of national strategic objectives such as economic growth, meeting house building targets and nature recovery, while enabling regional and local priorities to be realised. That more joined-up approach will deliver a more resilient and future-proof water system—that is our hope and our intention—better able to absorb shocks, which will hopefully prevent situations such as those we have seen in west Kent from ever happening again. I think there is consensus that such situations are appalling and that we absolutely must mitigate them in the future.
To answer the direct questions put by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge about the water companies and their role in the planning system, we are just going through the responses to a consultation on statutory consultees. The Government intend to list water companies and sewage companies as consultation bodies for new plan-making, so that they are involved right up front in the system. However, we are also looking at their relationship with regard to planning applications in particular, for the reasons that he set out.
Critically, the right hon. Gentleman also asked me to sit down and discuss this issue with my team and other Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) is the Minister for Housing and Planning, but I will take that suggestion away and get that meeting in the diary as a priority, because we appreciate and understand the specific issues. I come back to the fact that we know there is a systemic problem; we are working hard to deal with it, but we recognise the urgency of the situation, because the plan-making process is happening.
To conclude, I again commend the right hon. Member for Tonbridge for securing this important debate and shining a spotlight on the particular issues and concerns in his constituency. I return to the fact that the status quo is appalling; the water shortages that we have are absolutely unacceptable, and the Government are committed to working with him and with his local council to make sure that we are resolving this situation.
We all agree that we need more homes. We also all agree that the water sector has to be reformed, so that we can deliver the infrastructure we need to service those homes. This Government are committed, as we have been from day one, to driving through whole-system reform to ensure that the interaction between planning, house building and the wider infrastructure sector is right and fit for purpose, in order to deliver what we need. I look forward to continuing our engagement and to making sure that we resolve the specific issue with the plan and the capacity within the plan. My Department is ready and willing to work very closely with the council to do that, and we will take the plan forward.
I again thank the right hon. Member for securing this debate and you, Sir John, for chairing it.
Question put and agreed to.
Endometriosis Services
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to endometriosis services.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her place. Many people will recognise that she is a long-time champion of women and women’s health, so it is especially fitting that she is responding today. I am particularly grateful to have secured a debate during Endometriosis Awareness Month to discuss, as a matter of deep importance to women in Ipswich and across the country, access to local specialist endometriosis services.
Endometriosis affects one in 10 women. That means that more than 1.5 million women in the UK are living with a condition that causes chronic pain and infertility, and has profound effects on mental health. Yet for women in Ipswich, specialist care is out of reach. There is no specialist endometriosis clinic at Ipswich hospital, so women who are already living with debilitating pain and who have often waited years for a diagnosis, never mind treatment, are forced to travel to access the care that they desperately need. That is clearly wrong on so many levels.
I want to share the story of one of my constituents, Monica Thomas, who is here with us in the Public Gallery—that sounds very formal, but Monica was in the year below me at Earl Soham primary school 25 years ago. She has battled symptoms for nearly that long; it was 17 years before she finally got a diagnosis. She is now waiting for lung surgery due to having thoracic—as well as pelvic—endometriosis. Despite years of chest pain and breathing difficulties, she was refused referrals to a thoracic specialist and ended up seeking a private opinion. She lives in daily pelvic and chest pain, constantly deals with breathlessness and spends many days bedbound—thankfully not today, Monica.
Monica took her suffering and turned it into determination, resilience and strength. She founded Women’s Health Hope, an award-winning charity dedicated to supporting, advocating for and educating people about women’s health. It shines a light on the unique challenges that women face and creates a safe space in which no one feels alone on their journey. Monica really is a powerhouse and we should all be inspired by her, but also by all the women who have come down from Ipswich today, including Faye Ramsey and so many others. They are battling not just for themselves, but for so many of their friends and family members and many women yet to come—thank you for making the journey here today.
An almost unifying experience for women with endometriosis is having their symptoms overlooked, ignored and dismissed. They are told that they are overreacting and that pain is normal for women. A recent survey by Endometriosis UK found that 82% of respondents had been told by a healthcare practitioner that they were making a fuss about nothing, or had heard similar comments. It takes on average 10 visits to a GP before someone mentions endometriosis. In England, the average waiting time from first visiting a GP with symptoms to getting an endometriosis diagnosis is nine years and four months. Let that sink in: it takes nearly a decade just to get a diagnosis, never mind treatment.
Women are waiting to be diagnosed with a relatively common reproductive health condition and are suffering preventable adverse effects. A key reason for that is the normalisation of symptoms of reproductive ill health and particularly of severe period pain, the severity of which is often not believed. From a young age, women are taught to expect painful, heavy periods and that experiencing severe pain is nothing noteworthy and just par for the course—part of being a woman. We live in a society in which women are told to suck it up and endure pain that interferes with every aspect of their daily lives.
Women learn from a young age to hide their pain away because they must be overreacting and to feign headaches and stomach pains, migraines and food poisoning. More than 1 million women mask period pain sick days every year, because they feel unable to tell their boss the true reason. The systemic normalisation of symptoms means that women do not solicit medical help when they need it. Indeed, studies have shown that less than half of women with severe reproductive health conditions seek help.
The lack of specialist endometriosis services at Ipswich hospital is symbolic of how women’s pain has historically been deprioritised. Unsurprisingly, gynaecology has the largest waiting list of any specialty for working-age adults. As of January 2026, more than half a million women were waiting for gynaecological care. When specialist services are left to a postcode lottery, care for women in places such as Ipswich becomes even further out of reach. It deepens health inequalities, delays treatment and adds unnecessary barriers to accessing essential services.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. An estimated 75,000 women in Northern Ireland are living with endometriosis, with an average wait of seven to eight years for diagnosis. Does the hon. Member agree that it is vital that national clinical guidelines are properly implemented and that every hospital trust should have a designated endometriosis lead clinician?
Jack Abbott
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and completely agree with him. I have focused much of my speech on the lack of specialist care in Ipswich, but the postcode lottery is affecting people and communities across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend on his incredibly powerful argument. I also commend Monica and other women here today. Women in my constituency have told me that the pain they experienced was described as “normal and expected” by health professionals. I welcome the Department of Health and Social Care’s commitment to renew the women’s health strategy to tackle inequalities in care. Does my hon. Friend agree that any such strategy should include a commitment to provide the right resources, training and funding? Although there is no cure, women deserve the best possible care.
Jack Abbott
I thank my hon. Friend and could not agree more.
For women with endometriosis who may have already waited years for a GP even to mention the word, and who have already been utterly failed by institutionalised and deeply structural medical misogyny, this is a complete dereliction of duty. The human cost of inaction is devastating. Untreated endometriosis can have an untold impact on someone’s life, including on their education, career, relationships, fertility and mental health: 98% of respondents to Endometriosis UK’s most recent survey said the condition affected their mental health and 63% that there was a significant impact.
Women’s lives are put on hold and even changed for ever. They are our neighbours, colleagues, friends, families, partners, girlfriends, wives, mothers and daughters. We all know women who are suffering and struggling to access care right now. In Ipswich, those lives are further disrupted by unnecessary travel for specialist services that should be available locally.
When we came into government, we pledged never again to neglect women’s health. Honouring that commitment is a moral necessity. We have made significant strides since coming into office, with waiting lists for gynaecology care falling for the first time in years. The updated women’s health strategy has the capacity to make an enormous difference. The Government are investing in research on diagnosis, treatment and pain management, with a new research programme on pain management for endometriosis starting this month.
Endometriosis will be prioritised under the new virtual hospital NHS Online, meaning women will be able to access specialist expertise online much more quickly. If that commitment is to mean anything to women in Ipswich and across the country, however, it must also include equitable access to specialist endometriosis services. National strategies, research investment and virtual hospitals are all welcome and necessary, but digital access cannot replace talking to a specialist face to face. Women in Ipswich need that local provision of specialists.
We have somehow allowed a culture to develop where women living in pain is seen as acceptable—as something normal to be expected. That should never have been allowed to happen, but we finally have a Government who are taking women’s health seriously and a Minister who has championed this for many years. That should give us all hope, because we owe it to my constituents here today and to all women who have spent years in excruciating, debilitating pain, who have been ignored and belittled, and who have suffered alone. We cannot let the next generation of women with endometriosis be failed in the same way. They all deserve better, but without specialist care in our communities where people live, that would be impossible.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) for securing this vital debate, and the public who are attending in the Gallery.
“I believe you have endometriosis.” When Ami heard those words, she broke down in tears, not because she was scared but because, after 22 long years of unbelievable pain—of being dismissed or told, “It’s your weight,” or, “You are too stressed”—someone finally believed her. In January this year, she had surgery, which confirmed that she had endometriosis. It had progressed so far that both her fallopian tubes were blocked. She is now permanently infertile. Just like that, her dream of starting her own family was over, not because she did not try or because nothing was wrong, but because she was ignored and dismissed. Understandably, that is something that she can never forgive or forget.
Identifying endometriosis is complex, but Ami and too many other women have been utterly failed by our health service. I have one constituent who was so routinely misdiagnosed that it was implied she just had a sexually transmitted infection. Olivia has been waiting in limbo for six months at a time to find out if she can get a diagnosis appointment anywhere in Somerset.
It is a disgrace that women feel that their voice is not enough when it comes to their own health. It is obvious that awareness of endometriosis is far too low among the public and healthcare professionals. Women are waiting far too long to get access to diagnosis and treatment services.
I have two asks for the Minister on behalf of Ami, Olivia and many other women in Yeovil who have gone through the unthinkable. First, will she work with experts and patients to develop better public health messaging, awareness campaigns and greater training for primary healthcare professionals on endometriosis? Secondly, will she meet Ami and others to discuss their cases and explore how the NHS can not only learn from them but formally apologise and offer redress?
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), who shows that it is not necessary to be suffering from endometriosis to be an endo warrior. We champion it because it affects everyone—people in the workplace, our mothers, our sisters and our friends—so I am very grateful that he has brought this debate to the House. I know he has had to try a few times to secure it.
I have not suffered from endometriosis myself, but I have come here to speak about my brave constituent Sanju Pal, who is in the Public Gallery. After six years of fighting a legal battle, she won a landmark case against her former employer for unfair dismissal at the employment appeal tribunal in London. I am proud to say that her case sets a legal precedent for endometriosis to be considered a disability under the Equality Act 2010. I hope Members will bear with me as I tell her remarkable story. The truth is that not everyone should have to fight a legal battle for six years to get their just desserts, but Sanju—a Camden girl—managed that.
In 2018, Sanju was diagnosed with severe endometriosis. She had large fluid-filled cysts on both ovaries, which required an immediate operation. She returned to work a month later in severe pain. She could barely walk and had heavy bleeding because she had pushed herself too much to make promotion to senior manager. She took evidence to HR and told them how much pain she was in, and she was ignored. After three months of a phased return to work, she was sacked without warning. She was told to leave the building and not to contact anyone else. She had worked there for 10 years, and she was told to just walk out the door without telling anyone where she was going and why she had been sacked.
Sanju was sacked on a technicality: she was not ready for promotion within a required timeframe. It is known as an “up or out” policy, and it is used by many corporates. Employees can be dismissed if managers feel that they cannot be promoted within a certain timeframe. The termination letter Sanju received within minutes of the meeting she had did not actually state any reasons for her dismissal. It did not inform her about the right to appeal or refer to the policy that was being followed. She took it to an internal tribunal, where the High Court later found that the panel had completely disregarded the impact statement she had written for the meeting. The internal tribunal ruled that Sanju had not proved that her illness had an ongoing substantial effect on her daily life and stated that many women with endometriosis had no symptoms or mild symptoms, so it could not be taken seriously.
The tribunal initially rejected Sanju’s claim of disability discrimination and lacked any understanding of the physical impact of endometriosis on a woman’s body. She appealed that decision, and the High Court eventually ruled that she was unfairly dismissed from her job without her employer following a fair capability procedure or providing reasonable adjustments for her in her workplace after she was disabled by a condition over which she had no choice. Since her unfair dismissal in 2019, employers must follow the judgment on considering endometriosis as a disability and have to provide reasonable adjustments in the workplace.
I am very proud of my constituent’s tireless campaigning, but I go back to what I said: not everyone should have to go through the mental trauma that Sanju endured for six whole years while she fought this battle, and I do not expect them to. Workplaces should provide reasonable adjustments. It is shocking to me that not a single gynaecological condition is included in the disability guidance for the Equality Act and that although endometriosis can be classified as a disability, it is not automatically recognised as such. That basic change could have saved my constituent time, effort, mental anguish and the anxiety that she told me crippled her life for so long.
Countless other women across the country who are disabled by endometriosis are not given reasonable adjustments in the workplace. For example, in 2024, a Barclays banking analyst was required to work up to 48 hours a week while suffering from endometriosis because her line manager refused to allow any reasonable adjustments at her workplace. She told me that she now lives in Romania with her parents because she cannot afford the medical treatment and is unable to work because of that ordeal. One in 10 women suffer from endometriosis and 69% of sufferers say that they face discrimination at work. Cases like that are too common.
Women should not be forced to go to tribunal just to get the rights they deserve. That is why I want to push the Minister, who has been championing women’s rights for as long as I have known her, which is a very long time. Women should be given specific workplace conditions and the right to reasonable adjustments in their workplace. Endometriosis should be listed under the recurring and fluctuating impairments in the guidance for the Equality Act so that employers actually understand their legal duty to provide reasonable adjustments for women.
Beyond those important changes to the workplace, there is more for the Government to do to ensure that women suffering from this terrible condition get the rights they deserve. For a start, we urgently need better data on the women diagnosed with endometriosis in the UK. The statistic I quoted of one in 10 women having endometriosis, which many people will have read, is from studies in 2009. Indulge me for a second, Mr Dowd, while I talk about what happened 17 years ago. That was before we knew what coronavirus was. It was before Brexit, when we were still in the European Union. It was before my children started saying “six-seven” at every opportunity. It was before I had to go to the hairdresser every week to dye my hair. Surely we need an update to the data to find out what is happening to women now. We cannot rely on statistics for women’s health from 2009. We are better than that as a Parliament.
Only when we truly understand the scale of the issue can we adequately tackle it. If we do not have the right data, we will not be able to tackle it. The provision of services for endometriosis needs to be strategically planned, and it has to have location data. As a London MP, I know the advantages that exist in London. We have to look outside London so that this does not become a postcode lottery for women. [Interruption.] There was a cheer there because most London MPs do not say that, but I thought I would say it. We need to have a greater understanding of the parts of the country that have greater need.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
With what the hon. Member has just said about having a greater understanding, does she agree that, while we all have to play a role, the British Medical Association could help by ensuring that the many GPs across the United Kingdom have a greater awareness and understanding of the need?
Tulip Siddiq
I agree with the hon. Member. One of the things that has struck me is how few people actually understand what the condition is. I was having a conversation with someone who I would say is a fairly well-informed man, and he said to me, “I thought it was just a heavy period.” He said that because no one had ever talked to him about it. Medical professionals need to have a better understanding, but we need to have a better understanding generally of women’s health conditions overall.
Does the Minister have plans to improve the data collection of women with endometriosis, and, if she does, how does she intend to utilise the data that comes forward? There is a lot more that I could say about the training in the Department for Work and Pensions on assessing disability benefits for women with endometriosis. There should also be a mandate that employers have a gynaecological health policy and human resources training.
There are others who want to speak, so I will round up by saying that the fact that only 11% of employers in the UK have a menstrual health policy is a shocking statistic. For me, it highlights that there is widespread discrimination against women with these health conditions. For as long as our employment rights ignore the gynaecological conditions of millions of British women, the injustice will continue. I applaud Sanju for her legal battle, but I do see it not as just a victory for her. It is a victory for countless women who are suffering and have not had the ability to go through that legal battle.
I have not touched on the fact—although it will be obvious to many people—that I am from an ethnic minority background. Growing up in the household that I did, I never heard the words “menopause” or “endometriosis”. It is not that women around me did not suffer from those conditions; there was a stigma attached to them and it was taboo to talk about women’s health problems. In 2026 we have got to tackle that, and ensure that women from south Asian backgrounds talk to their daughters about it. They must tell them, “If you are suffering, please don’t suffer in silence, because this isn’t something to be ashamed of.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is obviously a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) for leading today’s debate on this crucial issue. Support for women’s gynaecology services is so important. I know from speaking to many ladies, and indeed nurses, back home in Northern Ireland that endometriosis services in particular are suffering drastically. The conversation about that must be had now. It is a conversation that has been had a few times in Westminster Hall, as well as on the Floor of the House through questions.
It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. She is earning her money today, as this is the second debate she has responded to. It is a genuine pleasure. I know the Minister has pursued this topic over a number of years as an MP, but now she has the opportunity to respond to the requests from the hon. Member for Ipswich and from me, and I look forward to her response.
Endometriosis is a chronic and often debilitating condition affecting around one in 10 women of reproductive age, yet it remains widely underdiagnosed and clinically misunderstood. In Northern Ireland, many women face long waiting times for diagnosis and treatment, limited access to specialist services, and significant pressures within gynaecology pathways. As a result of all that, patients often endure years of pain and uncertainty, as well as disruption to their daily lives, work, education and family life in general.
I have spoken with numerous young people about this over the years, and have personal experience of it from the women in my life. When my wife and I got married, the doctor told Sandra that, “If you have a baby quickly, everything will clear up.” Well, no it did not—and three babies later, it still had not cleared up. I am not better than anybody else, but I have some knowledge of what it is like for a woman to deal with that every day.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I really value the hon. Member’s contribution, which has been heartfelt and personal. Does he agree that Endo Warriors Northern Ireland deserves credit and acknowledgment for the work that it has done for the women across Northern Ireland who are impacted by this postcode lottery?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady speaks well, on behalf of not only her own constituents but all constituents and ladies across Northern Ireland.
My mother also had various problems with endometriosis over the years, and one of my staff members—a young girl who got married just over a year ago—has had what were probably the worst problems with endometriosis that I had ever seen. Obviously, as her employer, I tried to be as sympathetic as I could so that she could have a few days off work, as she had to go to hospital and for appointments—it was endless. We always encouraged her to get married, and she met the right fella and did so. We hope that the situation will change for her.
The personal experiences of women show the huge, wide-scale issues around birth control. At as young an age as 14 or 15, girls are often prescribed birth control to deal with painful periods, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) will be aware, given her intervention. The issues often slip under the radar without further investigation, meaning that the same women find themselves worse than ever in their mid-20’s, with undiagnosed endometriosis alongside possible fertility issues, of which the hon. Member for Ipswich gave some examples. Given that conditions such as endometriosis are so widely known to be underdiagnosed at the earlier stages, it is beyond me why more has not been done to ensure that the problems are investigated as early as possible. That shortfall for us in Northern Ireland, and what I suspect is the shortfall everywhere across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, needs to be addressed.
We also see issues around the waiting lists, in the indeterminable wait to try to find out what is wrong, and to get surgical treatment for it. The waiting time in Northern Ireland is 18 months. That forces women to use their savings or money that they do not have to go private, as living with the condition is described as unbearable—I know just how unbearable it was for the young lady on my staff, my wife and my mother.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I understand exactly what the hon. Member is saying about the waits; the average waiting time for a diagnosis has now gone up to nine years and four months. Where I am from in Cornwall, an endo café has been set up. I went to it once, and it was heartbreaking to be told so many stories about waits for surgeries and diagnoses. One issue that they raised was that we have only one specialist endometriosis nurse in Cornwall. Does the hon. Member think that having more specialist nurses would help?
Jim Shannon
My friend and colleague, the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), referred to that earlier in the debate. The hon. Lady underlines that point strongly, for which I thank her.
The situation in Northern Ireland is dire—in Northern Ireland, we use that word to describe many such services that are just not up to scratch. Specialist pathways and centres are more developed in other parts of the United Kingdom; although I was very sorry to hear from the hon. Lady that it is now a nine-year waiting time—is that correct?
Jim Shannon
My goodness—that is quite unbelievable. We tend to find that the situation on the mainland is better than back home in Northern Ireland. I fear that Northern Ireland has fallen far behind, and that little consideration is being given to the impact that that is having. The capital funding from the Department of Health in Northern Ireland does not go far enough to accommodate everything that we need. How many more women must suffer for how many more years before the scale of the issue is realised?
It is my duty, not only as my party’s spokesperson for health but because of my personal experiences over the years, to represent such issues as endometriosis services. It is no secret that more must be done: more engagement, more research and more resourcing. I look to the Minister and ask about the research being done—I will make a request similar to the one I made to her in the debate we had on sudden unexplained death in childhood this morning. Some advances are taking place, but it is questionable whether they will be expedited quickly enough to catch up everyone. I also strongly but politely ask the Minister to discuss the issue with Mike Nesbitt—the Northern Ireland Executive Minister who holds the health portfolio—in the hope that this time next year, in Endometriosis Action Month, we can come together again and that the situation will be better for all those thousands of women across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who deserve better treatment.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) for securing this important debate. I welcome to the House all the women in the Public Gallery.
I have also heard from many women in my constituency who have lived with the devastating impact of endometriosis. It is shocking that so many have had to endure years of pain, uncertainty, dismissal and a lack of access to timely diagnosis and specialist endometriosis services. According to the charity Endometriosis UK, it takes on average nine years and four months to receive a diagnosis of endometriosis in the UK—nearly a decade of a woman’s life blighted by debilitating pain, missed employment and educational opportunities, declining mental health, difficulties with fertility, and being told far too often that what they are experiencing is normal.
We know that one in 10 women are affected, yet awareness remains far too low among the public and healthcare professionals. The economic cost alone is estimated at £11 billion a year. Behind the statistics, however, are real people, real families and real suffering. My constituent Lucy, who is a teacher, told me that she has been suffering tremendously every month, unable to work on the first day of her cycle due to the pain and side effects. Every single month she has been left unable to stand, doubled over in pain, and with dizziness and vomiting. After nine years of debilitating pain, fertility issues, being refused treatment and being told that some people just suffer, she has finally had a laparoscopy, which revealed that she has endometriosis. She is hoping that she can now grow her family, but it should never have taken so long for a diagnosis.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I can reiterate that point; my partner Emma has severe endometriosis. She is regularly crippled—barely able to get off the sofa and in absolute agony. She has been told for years that this is normal and that there is nothing wrong. She had to fight repeatedly to get the diagnostic surgery that she needed, which confirmed that she has endometriosis. It is a very common story, and it is completely outrageous that people are told that crippling pain, meaning that they cannot get off the sofa, is just a normal cycle.
Liz Jarvis
I thank my hon. Friend for his important point. Women should not have to fight to get the treatment they need. I have also heard from Kelly, who told me:
“Every month I am in debilitating pain and it is soul destroying. I cannot take days off work every month and there is nothing I can do but suffer. It affects my work, relationships and is ruining my life.”
Then there is Lucy, who has worked in the NHS for 20 years and is now a clinical nurse specialist for endometriosis. She told me:
“I grew up during a time when endometriosis was never mentioned. I was told that periods are painful, so the monthly debilitating pain and heavy periods I experienced were normalised.”
She was finally diagnosed with endometriosis in her mid-30s.
Women should not have to put up with the pain of this debilitating disease, and I urge the Government to take urgent action to tackle the postcode lottery for endometriosis care, address gynaecological waiting lists, improve training and awareness among healthcare professionals, and ensure full implementation of NICE guidelines, with clear referral pathways, so that no woman has to suffer for years without answers or support.
I am sure the Minister agrees that addressing delays in diagnosis, gaps in care and inequalities in access are of the utmost importance. More broadly, this debate highlights a wider crisis in women’s healthcare—from the scandal of unsafe maternity units to the nearly 750,000 women currently on gynaecology waiting lists, over 30% of whom have waited for more than a year from referral to treatment. It must be addressed, because women are being failed and society suffers as a result.
I hope the Minister also agrees that access to mental healthcare should be expanded for women with endometriosis. Dismissed symptoms and diagnosis delays left 98% of respondents to an Endometriosis UK survey reporting an impact on their mental health, and 63% of respondents describing that impact as significant. I hope that the Minister will consider expanding mental healthcare provision to give the countless women dealing with the psychological toll of endometriosis the support that they need. We need a system that is fit for purpose, which validates women, takes their symptoms seriously and provides timely, compassionate and effective care. I do not think that that is too much to ask.
Alongside investment in the workforce, improved access to GPs, continuity of care and a step change in research to address painful conditions that women have suffered from for far too long without remedy, are all absolutely essential.
Ultimately, this debate is about delivering better outcomes and proper support for those affected by endometriosis. I hope that the Government will tackle this issue, showing clear leadership and transparency, to ensure that every woman with endometriosis has access to the right care at the right time.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) on bringing this important debate to this Chamber, and I thank all the women who have campaigned on this issue, especially those in the Public Gallery today, for their tireless work to make us all aware of this crippling condition.
In the UK, endometriosis now takes an average of almost 10 years to diagnose, leaving many women in terrible pain after repeated GP visits and long waits for referral. One of my staff members has endometriosis and with her permission I will share part of her story, because it reflects what too many women across the country still endure; indeed, we have heard many such stories in Westminster Hall today. Having a debate on the issue in this Chamber is not only about raising awareness but about taking away stigma, allowing women to really talk about what they experience, and not make them feel that they are making it all up.
For years, my staff member experienced pain so severe that she would sometimes lie on the bathroom floor shaking, nauseated and unsure whether or not she needed urgent medical help, yet she was too embarrassed to explain what was happening because it was connected to her period. She was told more than once by GPs that her symptoms could be caused by anxiety, or that perhaps she had a low pain tolerance. She began to doubt herself. Too often, pain linked to menstruation is minimised, normalised or treated as something that women should simply tolerate.
It was nearly a decade before my staff member received a diagnosis of endometriosis. She described repeated appointments, invasive tests and endless battles just to be referred for scans. It was only when a young female GP finally listened and believed her that things changed. When she finally received her diagnosis, she cried, not because she was frightened but because she was finally being believed. Even then, the diagnosis came with no explanation of what it meant for her future. There was no discussion of fertility and no real guidance on managing a chronic condition that had already shaped years of her life. As we have already heard today, her experience is not unusual, and I know there are many other similar stories out there.
Endometriosis UK’s latest report found that 39% of respondents had to visit their GP 10 or more times before their GP even suspected that they had endometriosis. Almost 50% of those attending hospitals with endometriosis were sent home without treatment. How shocking is it that nearly half of women who go to hospital because of endometriosis leave with no help whatsoever?
Endometriosis is a progressive condition. Delays in diagnosis and treatment can mean worsening pain, damage to organs such as the bowel or bladder, and for some women severe consequences for their fertility. Every year of delay allows the condition to progress, making treatment more complex and outcomes worse. Some women in their 20s are left facing hysterectomies; some require bowel surgery or even a stoma, because the condition has advanced unchecked. Also, diagnosis is significantly less likely for women of colour, for women born outside the UK and for women whose main language is not English.
However, delayed diagnosis is only one part of the problem. Access to treatment is also constrained by the wider crisis in gynaecology services. Over 500,000 women are now on gynaecology waiting lists, which have grown faster than the waiting lists for any other condition. Again, we should ask ourselves the question, why might that be?
While women sit on waiting lists, they continue trying to work through pain that is often invisible to others. My staff member described the awkwardness of explaining why she was unwell, because women’s health still faces so much stigma. That taboo has real consequences. Research suggests that 80% of women who take time off work because of period health issues do not tell their employers the real reason. Women are managing serious pain in silence because they fear embarrassment, disbelief or being seen as less capable than other employees.
An Office for National Statistics study published last year found that women diagnosed with endometriosis experienced lower earnings and reduced employment over time. Amelia, one of my Bath constituents, described to me living with symptoms since the age of 12. She described her struggles to manage a full-time job with the condition. Amelia asked one simple question: “If this was your daughter, what would you do?”
As the Government review the women’s health strategy, I hope Ministers will ensure that endometriosis is taken seriously. GP training must improve, and referral pathways must be faster to diagnose women quickly and then treat them without delay. Inequality of care must also be addressed. I urge the Government to commit to the Endometriosis UK target of reducing the average diagnosis time to one year or less by 2030 and moving diagnosis and treatment into the community. Let us not wait any longer. Let today be the day for change.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. She has been a doughty campaigner not only for children’s health but for women’s health over many years. I am pleased to see her in her place. I thank the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) for securing this important debate. We share a common goal because I have been applying for a Westminster Hall debate on endometriosis since I arrived in this place. I am delighted to see it finally happen.
Endometriosis was a word that I grew up with in my house, because my mum suffered with it and ended up having a full hysterectomy in her mid-30s. As a woman in her mid-30s, I am watching the cycle repeat, but with my friends. I have seen two of my closest friends being gaslit and for over a decade being told, “Maybe it’s IBS; maybe you are a bit of a hypochondriac; have you considered gluten intolerance? Could it be stress? How is your lifestyle?” Only now, after both of them, I am sad to say, suffered ectopic pregnancies, are they being taken seriously and endometriosis is being explored for both of them, which will explain the pain they have both been in for a decade—for one of them, two decades.
Of the constituents who have got in touch with me since I was elected, there was one mother who got in touch who had suffered from endometriosis. It took nine years to get her diagnosis and she said, “My daughter is now starting her periods and I am seeing the same thing repeat itself. She is showing the same symptoms that I had as a teenage girl. We go to doctors and I try to advocate and fight for her, but we are told, ‘Maybe she just has a low pain threshold. Have you considered putting her on birth control to ease the symptoms of her periods?’” That is heartbreaking for that mother. She is not fighting for herself any more; she is fighting for the next generation of young women, who need to get support as early as possible so that their diagnosis can be made and their treatment options explored as early as possible.
Wera Hobhouse
Does my hon. Friend agree that for a lot of these conditions it is vital to have more research? For example, there could be a genetic link that is not explained yet, and it would make it so much easier for daughters of women who had endometriosis to get much faster treatment and diagnosis. Research is a vital part of the picture.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend about research into gynaecological conditions. If we invested as much into women’s health as we have done over many decades into men’s health, maybe we would not have so many different types of Viagra and we might have a response to women’s health.
Clinicians, importantly, do not have to have specialist training in gynaecological conditions when they go through their training. It is not mandatory, so it is vital to ensure that such training is available and mandated for all clinicians, especially those in general practice, because the most important thing we can do as MPs is break down the barriers that our constituents face daily. Fixing the way we perceive endometriosis as a country is one of the things that we can do, so that we can look back on our time here and think about how we made a difference for women up and down the country.
I know the Minister shares my ambition to do better for all women, so I ask her: what are the Government doing to break down the barriers to earlier diagnosis for women suffering with gynaecological issues, especially endometriosis? Does she believe that there are benefits to having dedicated gynaecological wards in hospitals? In my local hospital, St Richard’s in Chichester, there is no specialist gynaecological ward; patients are put in different wards depending on which procedure they have had, which means that they are potentially not receiving the specialist aftercare they could be. Finally, does the Minister believe that all medical professionals should have mandated gynaecological training so that they can give support as early as possible to those who so desperately need it?
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) for securing this debate—the opportunity to raise the importance of this debilitating condition with the Minister today is extremely welcome. I welcome her to her place; I must say that the contributions today have all been excellent, and she has been given a significant to-do list, which I am sure she is equal to.
Endometriosis is estimated to affect 10% of women. It is a condition that brings chronic pain and worsening physical health and can pose a threat to fertility. It devastates lives and leaves many women excluded from education and employment.
Thanks to the tireless campaigning of groups such as Endometriosis UK, and of the women in the Public Gallery today—whom I welcome—many of us are increasingly aware of the condition. Despite those efforts, however, the average diagnosis time has steadily increased since 2020. As we have heard, it now takes an astounding nine years and four months on average for women just to get a diagnosis. That is unacceptable.
That shocking amount of time to get recognition of the condition is indicative of the wider issue of institutional misogyny and the dismissal of women’s pain. On average, endometriosis patients also wait three and a half years from first noticing symptoms before seeking medical help, largely due to the normalisation of severe period pain.
Awareness of endometriosis among the public and healthcare professionals is still too low. Some 82% of patients have reported being told by their healthcare practitioners, prior to diagnosis, that they were making a fuss, or that their symptoms were normal. That is a recurring theme in women’s health. When I was involved in the all-party parliamentary group on birth trauma in the previous Parliament, we heard appalling testimony from women who had suffered serious injury giving birth only to be told, when they went to their GP afterwards, “What do you expect? You have just had a baby.” Many of them were in fact seriously injured. That institutionalised acceptance that women should suffer is something we need to address. I hope the Government are going to take that seriously—I am sure they are.
The nationwide tales are echoed by cases that I have heard from my own constituents. Lucy first got in touch with me in 2024, having already experienced years of debilitating pain that was dismissed and left undiagnosed. It was eventually confirmed to be endometriosis, but she struggled to get appropriate support on the NHS. She has told me of the grave impact that the pain has had on her quality of life, including missing out on education. Following an exhausting journey of many healthcare appointments, she is still suffering and is instead learning to manage the pain herself—yet, inspiringly, although she still lives with debilitating problems, she has now returned to the university studies that were broken off six years ago due to the pain.
I want to mention the different but related condition of polycystic ovary syndrome. Another constituent, Bethany, was left waiting months for an appointment after being diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome at 18. Following scores of appointment cancellations and administrative errors, Bethany decided to take action herself, setting up the Cysters Circle, a group that regularly meets around the constituency to support women and girls with conditions such as endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome.
I commend the hard work and fortitude of women such as Bethany and Lucy in campaigning for awareness of these conditions and providing the space where women can support each other—but they have to do so because of the barriers and woeful lack of support they experienced from the healthcare system. We must do more to raise awareness of these conditions and transform the quality of women’s healthcare across the country.
The failure of endometriosis diagnoses in primary care settings is adding even more pressure to our hospitals and forcing women to suffer for longer than necessary. Women often have to present multiple times to NHS services before getting the help they need. Prior to diagnosis, more than half of women are forced to go to A&E due to their symptoms.
As well as investing in tackling NHS waiting times for gynaecological services, we urge the Government to implement public health messaging, awareness campaigns and greater training for primary healthcare professionals. They should work with regulators and professional bodies to strengthen expectations on endometriosis education and awareness. Existing NICE guidelines must be fully implemented to establish clear, standardised referral pathways when women arrive at their GP appointment.
The experience of women trying to access endometriosis services reflects how our NHS suffered under the Conservatives, leading to some appalling outcomes in women’s health. Most maternity units are not deemed sufficiently safe; thousands of women have suffered a miscarriage without referral to the appropriate NHS services; waits for breast, ovarian and other genealogical cancers are unacceptably high; and, as we have seen with endometriosis, millions of women continue to suffer in appalling pain as they languish on waiting lists.
It is alarming that, in the face of those issues, the Government have discarded the target of having a women’s health hub in every part of the country. That decision undermines the effectiveness of the women’s health strategy. I hope the Minister will recommit to implementing those health hubs. Women’s health services are often too fragmented and difficult to access; removing the requirement for those hubs could lead to closures that would hurt access for women in need of care, and shows the wrong priorities.
The Liberal Democrats would give everyone the right to see a GP within seven days, including access to a named GP for patients with long-term conditions to ensure continuity of care. That would ensure that women suffering from long-term gynaecological conditions were listened to and got the support that they need.
The normalisation of women’s pain must stop. We must ensure that our health system fully supports those suffering with long-term gynaecological conditions so that women such as Lucy and Bethany, and the women in the Public Gallery today, are not left to battle through pain alone.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Hon. Members have share powerful and distressing stories and experiences from their constituents. They are typified by Monica and I pay tribute to her for coming here to explain her story.
We must recognise the reality faced by many women and girls living with endometriosis. For too many, it means years of pain and possibly being dismissed, and it definitely means lives put on hold. From a GP’s perspective, the diagnosis is frequently delayed because symptoms overlap with other conditions such as fibroids, adenomyosis, irritable bowel syndrome, PCOS or pelvic inflammatory disease.
However, this debate is really about access, and there is a risk that current changes will make access worse, not better. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) is a stalwart for raising that point as a central issue. The last Government drastically increased testing. They rolled out 161 community diagnostic centres across the country, which carried out ultrasounds, MRI and CT scans, and blood tests. That has helped with diagnosis by ruling in endometriosis and, equally importantly, ruling it out. That is not to mention the elective surgical hubs, 48 of which were delivering gynaecological procedures by March 2024. Those were important steps, but capacity remains constrained.
The first women’s health strategy, which committed to reducing diagnostic times for endometriosis, was also published in 2022. That strategy is now due to be renewed. In March 2026, the Women and Equalities Committee published a report from its inquiry into the menstrual health of girls and young women, which states that women’s health has not been “sufficiently prioritised” in recent proposed reforms to the healthcare system. The Government’s plan to renew the women’s health strategy is an opportunity to do so. Will the Minster confirm that those recommendations will be considered, and confirm when the renewed women’s health strategy will be published?
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
The points my hon. Friend makes, as a clinician and an MP, are very important. Eleanor, my constituent from East Grinstead, has faced dismissal and delay. She has multiple issues, including pelvic congestion, which she says have ripped her life apart. Will my hon. Friend talk about the impact on A&E if that health strategy does not work? Far too many women see their symptoms as normal and extreme pain is dismissed too easily, which can lead to A&E trips.
Dr Evans
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising her constituent’s case; Eleanor must be suffering, and the aim is to try to get more people into primary care so they can get the support that they need. That view is shared by both sides of this House and that leftward shift into primary prevention would be helpful. Access will be crucial, which is why some of the Government’s changes to that access—which I will touch on later—are concerning.
Women’s health hubs were intended to improve access to care for menstrual problems. They were rolled out by the last Government with £25 million of investment and 39 out of 42 were in place. However, after Labour came in, it removed the national targets in January 2025, leading to an article from the Health Service Journal in April 2025 that stated:
“Most integrated care systems lack a women’s health hub offering full services—contrary to government claims—according to research seen by HSJ.”
It is not clear whether those numbers have improved and what the situation now looks like. I ask the Minister to provide any updates she has on those women’s health hubs, how they are functioning and whether they are fully operational; if she does not have that information—I know she is a new Minister—I would be happy to receive a letter on that.
That leads on to Endometriosis UK pointing out that there have been shortages in trained clinicians and diagnostic specialists. We know that as we expand community diagnostic centres, that will be really important. Under the last Government, there was a workforce plan. We have heard talk of a workforce plan, but it has been delayed multiple times by the Government. I wonder whether there is a date for when that will be finalised, because it is really important.
Finally, the heart of this debate is access to primary care. In a debate on endometriosis at the start of this month, the Minister for Secondary Care said:
“We have introduced Jess’s rule, which requires GPs to rethink diagnoses for their patients.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 1068WH.]
That rightly encourages GPs to rethink the diagnosis and refer when needed, but at the same time, every referral will now have to be routed through advice and guidance. In effect, it is moving to a single point of access, with a system explicitly aimed at diverting a significant proportion of referrals back to GPs. The new advice and guidance are aiming for about 25% of GP referrals to be diverted back to GPs for “10 high volume specialities”—of which gynaecology will be one—meaning one in four referrals will be bounced back under the neighbourhood health framework released 17 March.
On the one hand, GPs are told to refer; on the other hand, the system is designed to send those patients back, which risks patients being kept on waiting lists and away from secondary and specialist care. That really matters for endometriosis. It is a perfect test case, and the new NICE guideline is crystal clear. Recommendation 1.1.3 states:
“Gynaecology services for women with suspected or confirmed endometriosis should have access to: a gynaecologist with expertise in diagnosing and managing endometriosis, including training and skills in laparoscopic surgery; a gynaecology specialist nurse with expertise in endometriosis; a multidisciplinary pain management service; a healthcare professional with an interest in gynaecological imaging and fertility services.”
All those services are gatekept as secondary care. Someone might have a normal scan in primary care, primary care treatments might fail and a GP might know that they will need to be referred to a specialist—yet they will not be able to get access. Women’s waits could become longer, not shorter. I have tabled multiple parliamentary questions on advice and guidance and have received only holding answers, despite the changes coming in on 1 April.
I ask the Minister three questions. First, does she accept that mandating advice and guidance risks delaying referral? Secondly, how will this system avoid conflicting with Jess’s rule? Thirdly, will GPs retain the ability to refer directly into secondary care when clinically necessary?
Endometriosis is already hard enough to diagnose and treat; for patients, it is harder still. If access is to improve, the Government must set out clearly how this new system will work. If they cannot do that, they risk making access worse, rather than better—and that is something none of us wants to see.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) on securing this very important debate. I am honoured to respond to it on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care, who unfortunately cannot be here today—this area of policy would normally fall under her portfolio.
I want to start by thanking Monica for sharing her story with us today through her MP and—as we heard—friend, and for being with us today in the Public Gallery, along with a large number of women who are suffering from this most painful and debilitating condition. Monica’s distressing experience highlights that we still have more work to do to ensure that all women with endometriosis can access the care they need.
As we have heard, for too many years women with endometriosis have felt unheard or dismissed and have been left to cope alone. We recognise the wide impact the condition has on education, work, family life and wellbeing, as well as on mental health, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) said, and we acknowledge that that is unacceptable.
This year’s Endometriosis Awareness Month theme is “endometriosis doesn’t wait”. That highlights the urgent need to reduce diagnosis times, improve care and address the impact of this debilitating condition. The Government are not waiting: we have already taken action to ensure that women with endometriosis have access to the services that they need. Many women spend years seeking answers, as we have heard today, being misdiagnosed, having symptoms minimised or being passed from service to service. The experience highlighted by all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and by Endometriosis UK’s recent report underlines why earlier diagnosis and consistent, compassionate care must be central to our approach.
That is why we have introduced Jess’s rule, requiring GPs to reconsider diagnosis where symptoms persist, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) mentioned. We are also rolling out Martha’s rule, giving in-patients in acute hospitals in England the ability to initiate a rapid review of their case by someone outside their immediate care team. Those measures will help ensure that women’s concerns are not dismissed.
Dr Evans
Those were the words that the Minister’s colleague read out in the previous debate, but I have no gripes about the Department saying the same thing. My question is about Jess’s rule and its interaction when there is a single point of referral. There will be a rub between GPs who say that someone needs to be seen because they might have a diagnosis of endometriosis and the system saying that those patients will be bounced back. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what that rule will look like in practice, because endometriosis is a good example to demonstrate it.
Mrs Hodgson
I was going to come on to what the hon. Gentleman said about that, as well as his request for an update on women’s health hubs. I will take the opportunity to write to him about that update and his specific question on how referrals will work. I am aware that colleagues have raised issues with referrals and, as the hon. Gentleman says, endometriosis will be a good example of whether that system is working as it should. I do not have the answer to hand, but I commit to writing to him on that.
We are also expanding access to diagnostic services. Community diagnostic centres are being rolled out countrywide for women on gynaecological pathways. Last month, 106 centres offered out-of-hours appointments so that women could get vital tests around work and caring responsibilities.
We are modernising how specialist care is delivered. In September, we announced the new online hospital NHS Online, which will be unconstrained by geographical boundaries. It will better align clinical capacity with patient demand so that patients will be seen and triaged faster. Earlier this year, we confirmed that menstrual problems, often a sign of conditions such as endometriosis, will be among the first nine conditions available for referral from 2027. Details are being worked through ahead of next year’s launch. Additionally, we are supporting integrated care boards to expand women’s health services at neighbourhood level, building on the successful pilot of women’s health hubs, so that good practice is spread and services are improved everywhere.
NHS England is currently updating the service specification for severe endometriosis, which will improve the standards of care for women with severe endometriosis by ensuring specialist endometriosis services have access to the most up-to-date evidence and advice. That will be published in due course.
Mims Davies
The Minister is being very generous in giving way, and I wish her extremely well in her new post. On the point of the reconstruction of how services work, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans): could the Minister undertake to do work, for people like my constituent Eleanor, so that there is a reduction in A&E visits because the other services are working? It is in the interests of the integrated care board to deliver these changes.
Mrs Hodgson
Yes—I or my colleague in the Department will undertake to look at that and ensure the hon. Lady receives a response.
In response to questions on data and research raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), the Department, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, has commissioned several studies focused on endometriosis diagnosis, treatment and patient experience. At present, the NIHR is funding six active research awards, totalling an investment of approximately £7.8 million. That includes a new £2.3 million award on the effectiveness of pain management for endometriosis, starting this month.
In response to the hon. Member for Strangford asking the Department to engage with health Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive to discuss any learnings, best practice and areas to improve, I commit to do that. That is a great suggestion.
The hon. Member for Bath asked me about the Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into reproductive health conditions. I am grateful for the work that Committee is doing and welcome its report on that important topic. The Department will be issuing an official response to the report’s recommendations in due course.
Research has already led to new treatments being made available, including NICE approval of two pills to treat endometriosis, relugolix and linzagolix—oh, to have the skill of a doctor in pronouncing these complicated drug names! Those drugs are estimated to help around 1,000 women with severe endometriosis for whom other treatment options have not been effective.
No one should have to put up with chronic pain, which is one of the most common symptoms of endometriosis. The renewed women’s health strategy is under development, so I cannot say exactly what will be included, but the published strategy will set out the actions we are taking to improve women’s experiences, including around pain. As part of our engagement informing the renewal of that strategy, we held a roundtable on women’s experiences of pain, chaired by Baroness Merron and attended by women with lived experience and by expert organisations. That roundtable is informing our work to renew the strategy.
Better care also depends on better understanding. Improving public and healthcare professionals’ awareness of endometriosis will reduce the stigma, of which a number of Members spoke, and will ensure that symptoms are recognised rather than normalised or dismissed. In response to the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate about DWP training for assessors, I commit to write to the DWP to make that very point.
In response to the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), the General Medical Council has strengthened women’s health representation in training. Since last year it has required UK medical graduates to pass the medical licensing assessment, encouraging a better understanding of common women’s health problems. That assessment includes topics on women’s health, including endometriosis.
Women’s health is also built into the Royal College of General Practitioners’ curriculum for trainee GPs, which brings together educational resources and clinical guidance to support primary care teams. Clinical guidance has been strengthened, too: NICE updated its endometriosis guidelines in 2024 to support more consistent decision making and faster routes to specialist input. NICE is working with the NHS to ensure the adoption of this best practice for endometriosis care, including access to approved medicines.
Research indicates that women’s experiences of healthcare are not uniform, as we have heard, and particularly that outcomes can vary sharply between different communities. Ethnically diverse women with endometriosis can encounter additional hurdles in getting a diagnosis and appropriate support. We will not accept those disparities as inevitable. Our ambition is for a fairer Britain, where people live well for longer and spend less time in ill health, and where women, whatever their background, can rely on high-quality care.
Tulip Siddiq
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) has just appeared, and under parliamentary conventions is not allowed to intervene, so I rise to say that she is hosting a screening of a BAFTA-winning film about endometriosis and the experiences of women in the Jubilee Room at 4.30 pm, if anyone is interested.
Mrs Hodgson
That was an excellent intervention, I have to say; I am glad that we will all be out of here in time to go and enjoy that. For the ladies and gentlemen in the Gallery, do not worry: it is free entry and no invite is needed. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) for all she does on women’s health. She has led the way, more than most in Parliament, on the issue in her time here. That is recognised, and I thank her for it.
We are hopefully shifting the centre of gravity of care from hospitals to communities, with neighbourhood services designed around local need. Earlier this month, we published a neighbourhood health framework, setting out three reform agendas for ICBs, local authorities and civil society to deliver the aims of neighbourhood health. We have done this to improve services for people who need routine healthcare; to improve proactive care, including maintaining and developing access to women’s health services; and to deliver better alternatives to hospital care.
Adam Dance
Ami is at home watching, and thanks everyone for speaking, but one of the things she said would help her is continuity in seeing the same GP. As we heard earlier, it took 22 years for her to be diagnosed. The other issue she faces is that she cannot have children, and raising the limit for fertility treatment would be helpful. Will the Minister arrange to meet Ami with me?
Mrs Hodgson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the details of Ami’s case to us. Waiting 22 years for a diagnosis is shocking, and I suppose it would have been very difficult to have continuity of care over such a long time, but I take on board the point that he makes. When we—myself included—go to the GP, we often see a different person every time. As I said, this is not my brief, so I will feed his request for a meeting back to the Minister for Secondary Care. I cannot promise on her behalf, but we have heard his request.
The framework I was just outlining provides clarity and consistency, supporting joined-up partnership between ICBs and local authorities, working together to develop locally led neighbourhood health plans. This will hopefully address some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) about continuity of care.
Since coming into office, this Government have delivered over 5 million extra appointments in our first year; reduced the numbers on gynaecological waiting lists by over 24,000 women; and given women easier access to the morning-after pill, free of charge. A lot done; a lot more to do. We have made strong progress in turning the commitments in the last Government’s women’s health strategy, which the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth highlighted, into tangible action. Our renewed strategy will set out how this Government are taking further steps to improve women’s health as we deliver the 10-year health plan. It will address gaps from the 2022 strategy, and go further to create a system that listens to women, tackles health inequalities and makes progress on conditions such as endometriosis.
Renewing the strategy will help identify and remove enduring barriers to high-quality care, such as long waits for diagnosis, and will ensure professionals listen and respond to women’s needs. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich for bringing forward this important debate, and all hon. Members for sharing so many of their constituents’ stories. I give special thanks to Monica and all the women who are in the Public Gallery to bear witness and push us to do more. We have heard them, and I commit to doing what I can to ensure that their efforts have not been in vain.
Jack Abbott
I thank the Minister for her detailed speech. I look forward to working with her over the coming months and years on these important issues. I thank everybody who has contributed and shared not just the experiences of their constituents—as awful and harrowing as they often are—but some deeply personal stories. It is not often in this Chamber that we have the time to do so, and it was welcome that we were able to today.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) for plugging the film showing next door—I was also just about to do that. It is called “This is Endometriosis” and it starts at 4.30 pm. It is free of charge, although I do not know whether the Minister is going to be on the doors herself. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) for hosting us there.
I give final thanks to all the women who have joined us today in the Public Gallery. I thank Monica Thomas for her fearless advocacy for so many women locally. Faye Ramsey has collected nearly 100 stories from women who have been badly failed for so long locally, and she is also pushing for greater education in schools and far better practice in the workplace—I thank Faye for all of her work.
I also thank Zoe Wright, Evie Lapworth, Evie Niblock, Siana Lynch, Kelly Harris-Flatt, Sanju, and Monica’s partner, Aaron. They should all be incredibly proud of their advocacy for so many women locally. I know that they, like me, will not be satisfied by just shining a light on the issue; they want to shift the dial too. I will stand side by side with them, as will many other Members, to ensure that every woman has access to the services that they need, ultimately changing lives for the better.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered access to endometriosis services.
Reproductive Coercion
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Natalie Fleet will move the motion and the Minister will respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. We are going to vote shortly; I will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes for the first vote, and for another 10 minutes if there is another.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the identification and prosecution of reproductive coercion.
We have all heard the narrative about the devious woman who gets pregnant to get what she wants: “She’s got pregnant to trap him. She’s after his money.” That was what I heard on loop from my community—
Natalie Fleet
We have all heard the narrative—the one where the devious woman gets pregnant to trap the man: “She’s only after his money. She just wants to trap him.” That was what I heard on loop when I was impregnated as a child. If anyone questioned why he, an older man in a position of power, got a 15-year-old girl pregnant, I did not hear them.
I have also never heard any woman saying, “He did this to trap me.” It is not something that we say or acknowledge, even when it is really clear that that is what is happening. That is why it is so important—in the public interest, even—that the story of Olivia Nervo is heard.
Liv’s story exposes a form of domestic abuse that our legal system in the UK still struggles to recognise. Liv and her twin sister, Mim, are incredibly successful. They are Grammy-award-winning DJs who come from Australia, but they have made their home here when they are not touring the nightclubs of the world. Liv’s ex-partner is a very wealthy and prominent New Zealand businessman. They were in love and living their best lives, and they decided to start a family. He flew around the world to ensure that they were together when she was most fertile. They wanted a baby and were not leaving it to chance.
Six months into what Liv believed was a planned pregnancy with the man she wanted to build a family with, she discovered that her partner, Matthew Pringle, had multiple parallel lives. Their fairytale was a sham. As well as being in a relationship with Liv, Pringle was involved in a relationship with another woman, with whom he already had a child. The other woman was also pregnant. There was another woman with whom Pringle was in a serious relationship. In fact, there were multiple women and children in deliberately created overlapping family structures, each woman without knowledge of the others.
Pringle admitted that he had deceived Liv because he knew that she would leave if he told her the truth and he wanted a baby with her. He said that he would have considered telling her about the other women and children only after their child was born. Liv had no opportunity to give informed consent to the pregnancy, because she was lied to and deceived for years. His confession to her that he knew that she would leave is significant. It demonstrates that he understood that knowing the truth would have affected Liv’s decision to have a baby with him. That is reproductive coercion. It is about control over a woman’s body, her choices and her future.
Pringle refused to confirm with Liv any details about his life when she confronted him. He has instead used the court and legal system to silence, intimidate and isolate her and their child. He used non-disclosure agreements, legal threats and the family court to keep Liv’s silence about him being the father of their child. She could not have any contact with his family without prior consent and she was forbidden to make any public reference to him.
The restrictions were tied to a financial payment that could be withdrawn, and that she would have to repay, if she breached the terms. Every action that Pringle took was a power play. He continually demonstrated that their child’s welfare was of little importance to him. He did not even meet their daughter until she was four. He played games with the legal system without repercussions. His control over Liv’s life via the courts went on and on.
During legal proceedings, Liv raised the ongoing pattern of Pringle’s manipulative, controlling behaviour, but she always felt that the courts treated her as the problem. His patterns of behaviour included concealing other children, or siblings, from the court and its professionals; promising involvement, but failing to attend more than half of court-ordered contact; refusing to sign passport paperwork, obstructing their child’s identity; failing to contribute to education costs despite claiming that he would; refusing to complete court-directed life-story work for his child; linking backdated child support to an estrangement contract and conditions of confidentiality for him; and finally withdrawing from proceedings at the eleventh hour, leaving Liv with overwhelming legal costs. His behaviour was all about having control over Liv’s life. It was always about power—it was never about parenthood.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is telling an incredibly powerful story about reproductive coercion and, in particular, the role of family courts. Does she agree that this issue, this case and all the matters that it brings to light would be perfect for the review of family courts that Baroness Levitt has just announced? Baroness Levitt has stated that she feels women have been victimised by the ways family courts operate, so does my hon. Friend agree that this is exactly the sort of issue that the review ought to be looking at?
Natalie Fleet
Absolutely; I think that this is something that we need to shine a light on however we can. Far too many women are traumatised by family courts in this way—the situation is absolutely ripe for intervention.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this issue. She has strength of character, strength of personality and commitment to these subjects; it is always a pleasure to come along and hear her express her viewpoint, and I congratulate her. Just to be helpful to her—I did speak to her beforehand—she may only now be aware that in Northern Ireland, conviction on indictment for domestic abuse and coercive control can lead to up to 14 years’ imprisonment, while in England and Wales the same offence receives just five years’ imprisonment. Does she agree that coercive control demands its own legislation—equally applied, with equal severity— across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Natalie Fleet
I absolutely agree; the hon. Member makes very good points that I did not know about. The more we can talk about this issue, the better, and making it a stand-alone offence is absolutely the right thing to do.
It is easy to dismiss Liv’s as a story of extreme wealth, power and faraway places, but the reason I raised it, and the reason it is so important, is that so many women will see this story as theirs. If we do an internet search about reproductive coercion, the stories are there. Liv has shared her story on social media, and women have commented underneath saying, “This happened to me.” Women are having their bodies controlled by men: some forced to get pregnant, others forced to have an abortion. Both are examples of reproductive coercion—deliberate attempts to dictate a woman’s reproductive choices or interfere with her reproductive autonomy.
A recent poll of 1,000 women showed that 50%—half of them—had experienced some sort of reproductive coercion. It is happening to women we know, every day. A third of those women had felt pressured to have sex without contraception, 10% had had their contraception sabotaged and 15% had been forced to terminate a pregnancy that they wanted to keep.
The principle of reproductive coercion is recognised in law. If someone knowingly passes on a sexually transmitted disease, it is assault. If a condom is removed without consent—known as stealthing—it is rape. However, that principle has not been applied in the Nervo case, and that case is not an isolated one. Reproductive coercion is always about patterns of controlling behaviour, not just one act, which is why there is inconsistency in the application of the law. If our courts are presented with clear evidence of coercive behaviour that has resulted in pregnancy, yet decline to recognise or name it, we are left with a gap not just in terminology, but in protection.
Reproductive coercion is covered by both the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the Serious Crime Act 2015. Statutory guidance for the Domestic Abuse Act states that abuse within a family set-up can include
“reproductive coercion (and as part of this, forced abortion).”
According to the statutory guidance, reproductive coercion can involve
“restricting a partner’s access to birth control…refusing to use a birth control method…deception regarding the use of birth control including falsely claiming to be using contraception…forcing a partner to get an abortion, IVF or other related procedure; or denying access to such procedures.”
The Serious Crime Act details similar guidance and gives the same examples. The maximum penalty for the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship, including reproductive coercion, is five years in prison. In the year ending March 2025, nearly 50,000 cases of coercive control were recorded by police in England and Wales, yet reproductive coercion remains unprosecuted—not because it is not happening, but because the Crown Prosecution Service does not record that it is. The term reproductive coercion now exists in guidance and policy, but it has no clear home in law.
What are we asking for? First, we want an acknowledgment that cases like Liv’s occur and need exposing in the public interest. As lawyers have said:
“Legal reform in the area of sexual deception is not straightforward, either legally or in social terms. Indeed, the law is unlikely to move forward in a meaningful way until the wider public debate on such issues is also able to progress and mature.”
That is not enough. We need the offence to be seen in the eyes of the law. While I have spoken about reproductive coercion being mentioned in the statutory guidance for two of our laws, in the CPS’s policy, in safeguarding manuals and in a few judgments, we want to see it given a place on the statute book. There needs to be a clear route for investigating it as a crime, charging offenders and protecting victims.
The question before us is not whether reproductive coercion exists—we know that it does—but whether our systems are prepared to recognise it where there is evidence. When a condom is removed without consent, it is recognised as rape; when a disease is knowingly transmitted, it is assault; but when a woman is deliberately impregnated through deception and control, the abuse is not clearly named, prosecuted or safeguarded against.
Liv has described reproductive coercion as our wombs being hijacked, our futures being derailed with our children ultimately the victims, and our nervous system and trust in the world shot. There are cases like Liv’s where the evidence is present, and yet it is still not being named. That must change. My ask of the Government is for clearer recognition of reproductive coercion in the law. We need greater awareness and training to ensure that coercive behaviours—particularly those involving deception and reproductive autonomy—are properly understood. We need to ensure that patterns of behaviour are examined, not dismissed, and that individuals who raise legitimate concerns are not penalised for doing so. No woman should hear the words, “I was going to tell you after you had the baby,” and have that dismissed as something that does not require recognition. Without recognition, coercion cannot be addressed.
No change has ever happened via the state alone. As important as my previous asks were, my final ask is to women—women in the Public Gallery and women out there listening to this debate. If there is any element of what has been said today that is happening to you, reach out. You are not alone. You are surrounded by women going through exactly the same, not calling it out, feeling fear and shame, and feeling like they cannot speak. We regain control by speaking out and reaching out. That is how Liv and I connected in the first place.
Liv and Mim got in touch after hearing me on “Woman’s Hour”. I remember that interview vividly. I thought I was going to faint beforehand. I hugged the show runner, and that gave me the strength to carry on. The presenter was so lovely, and I spoke up despite being full of fear and shame. That shame never belonged to me, but I needed to undo a lifetime of society telling me that it did. When I spoke up, women heard me—women I had never met or crossed paths with. I met them and found out that one of them had been traumatised in ways that I had never even thought of. They are now speaking out too, and that has power.
Every time somebody speaks out about abuse—abuse that happens regularly, and abuse that happens equally as much but we have never heard of, as it is better hidden—we are heard by somebody who can support us or by women we have never even met who have been through the same or other forms of abuse that also need shouting about. For too long, we as women have been condemned to silence, and silence is where abuse thrives. If we instead use our voices, speak out and say, “This is not okay,” allow others to believe us and support us, and encourage survivors to come together—because nothing achieves change like an army of angry women—we can come together and force that much-needed change.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for bringing forward this really important debate. To echo the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), she always uses her voice in this place to amplify the voices of those who have been silenced. I am truly in awe of her; I find her an inspiration.
This is an important debate. It matters because controlling or coercive behaviour is one of the most harmful, least visible and most misunderstood forms of domestic abuse. It causes deep and lasting harm, yet is so often difficult to recognise, disclose and even evidence, both for victims and the professionals who are meant to support them. Before turning to the substance, I acknowledge the lived experience that has helped bring the issue into sharper focus. I understand that the survivors and campaigners Olivia and Mim Nervo have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and other parliamentarians in the Chamber to raise awareness of reproductive coercion and post-separation abuse. I am so grateful that lived experiences have helped prompt this debate.
I also put on record my personal thanks to Olivia and Mim for meeting me today. Olivia’s story is so moving. What she has been through is horrific beyond measure, and I sincerely thank her for speaking out, because undoubtedly she will have helped many other women who are sadly in the same position. It takes courage to speak out in that way and campaign for change. However, I must be clear about one boundary: I cannot comment on individual cases, court decisions, or any ongoing investigations. That is not for lack of concern—quite the opposite—but about respecting the independence and integrity of our justice system. I can, however, speak directly to the system issues that the debate raises.
As we have heard, reproductive coercion is a form of controlling or coercive behaviour. It involves using power and control to interfere with a person’s reproductive autonomy—something that should belong to the individual alone. The statutory guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour already recognises reproductive coercion, and includes behaviour such as restricting access to contraception, refusing to use contraception, forcing pregnancy, deception about contraception, or forcing or denying access to abortion, IVF or any other reproductive procedure.
Reproductive choice is a basic human right. We understand the long-term emotional, psychological and sometimes physical harm that this abuse, or the denial of this right, can cause. We also recognise how difficult it can be for victims to identify and disclose this type of abuse, particularly when it occurs within an intimate relationship or alongside any other form of control. This is not about isolated incidents. Reproductive coercion is often part of a wider pattern of coercive control, which could also include emotional, economic, sexual or physical abuse.
To understand reproductive coercion, we must first understand how coercive control-type abuse operates. It is about domination, fear, and the gradual erosion of someone’s autonomy. It includes isolating someone from friends and family, depriving them of basic needs, and enforcing degrading rules monitoring movements, controlling finances or taking control over everyday decisions. Sadly, that is not an exhaustive list, because abuse adapts to the victim’s circumstances. Victims may not recognise what is happening to them as abuse until the pattern becomes clear, sometimes years later. That complexity places a responsibility on us all to ensure that our systems are equipped to recognise patterns, not just incidents.
Controlling or coercive behaviour has been a criminal offence since 2015, under the Serious Crime Act 2015. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 strengthened the framework by explicitly recognising controlling or coercive behaviour as domestic abuse, and by extending the offence to ex-partners and family members who do not live together.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her positive response to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). The Minister obviously understands the issue very clearly. In my earlier intervention, I gave the example of Northern Ireland, where the sentence for coercive behaviour is 14 years. Over here on the mainland, in England and Wales, the sentence is only five years. Would the Minister and the Government consider strengthening the sentence to make it similar to that in Northern Ireland, ensuring that the time fits the crime?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the distinction in the sentencing for this crime in Northern Ireland. In England and Wales, the sentence is a maximum of five years, but as I have said, the crime normally comes alongside other forms of abuse, for which the CPS will look to charge and seek the highest sentence. Sentencing is an independent judicial matter—it is for the judge to determine—but as I have said, coercive behaviour is part of a pattern, and we need to get the framework right for agencies so that they can support victims and survivors.
The changes that were made were vital. They recognise the reality of post-separation abuse, and abuse by family members outside the household. They offer protection to victims who continue to experience coercive control long after a relationship has ended. Although I cannot comment on any individual case, it is right to reflect on the system-level issues that have been raised by campaigners here today. The concerns shared with the Department by many survivors include the impact of prolonged family court proceedings, post-separation abuse continuing through legal processes, and the distress caused by long delays and uncertainty in criminal investigations into coercive control.
There are also serious questions about how mechanisms that are intended to support confidence in the justice system, such as transparency and privacy provisions, can in some circumstances be experienced as silencing or controlling. Those concerns underline a central point: our justice system must never become a tool through which victims are abused even further. It must be there to protect victims and not compound harm. To echo the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), I totally agree that this is something that Baroness Levitt, the Minister in the other place, will look at in relation to family court reform.
This debate sits squarely within the Government’s wider mission to tackle violence against women and girls. The scale of violence against women and girls in this country is intolerable. The Government are treating it as a national emergency, with a clear ambition to halve the levels within a decade. Our “Freedom from violence and abuse: a cross-government strategy”, published in December, sets out how we will prevent abuse, pursue perpetrators and support victims. Addressing controlling or coercive behaviour, including reproductive coercion, is central to delivering that ambition.
Since controlling or coercive behaviour became a criminal offence in 2015, the police and the CPS have been working hard to improve how they recognise and respond to it. Those trends are improving year on year: last year, police recorded more than 54,000 offences and CPS prosecutions have gone up by 38% compared with the previous year, to more than 1,500 defendants prosecuted. However, we recognise that more needs to be done about understanding controlling or coercive behaviour, which has evolved significantly since the statutory guidance was last published in 2023. That is why the Government have committed to updating the guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour by the end of this year.
The updated guidance will reflect the latest policy and practice, including clearer recognition of reproductive coercion. This is about supporting frontline professionals—police, prosecutors, health professionals and others—to identify abuse early, gather evidence more effectively and support victims through the criminal justice process.
More than anything, education must be central to prevention. Through relationships, sex and health education, we will help children and young people understand healthy relationships, consent and controlling behaviour from an early age. We are backing that with practical support for schools and parents. We are investing in teacher training, bringing in external expertise when needed and tackling harmful behaviours, such as teenage relationship abuse.
In health settings, women are rightly routinely asked about domestic abuse in private, during antenatal care, for example. If abuse is disclosed, women should be offered support, help with safety planning and access to specialist services. Abortion providers are required to be trained to spot signs of coercion or abuse and respond appropriately. We are also strengthening how health professionals respond, through the violence against women and girls strategy, through improved safeguarding training, and with the steps to safety programme in general practice.
Supporting victims to recover and rebuild their lives from abuse is a core priority. More than £1 billion is being invested over the next three years to support victims of violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse survivors. That includes funding for safe accommodation, advocacy, counselling and specialist services. In particular, my Department is increasing funding for victim support services year on year from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery. In total, the Ministry of Justice will invest £550 million in victim support services over the next three years of the spending review period.
This debate highlights why controlling or coercive behaviour, and reproductive coercion in particular, must be taken seriously at every level. Reproductive coercion is coercive control and domestic abuse. Addressing it is essential if we are to deliver our ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.
I again acknowledge and place on record my sincere and incredible gratitude to the survivors and campaigners whose experience has brought urgency and clarity to this issue. We will continue to work across Government, and with all of you and with our partners, on this guidance and our practice to ensure that our system accurately reflects the reality of this abuse, so that we can deliver justice and safety for victims.
Question put and agreed to.
Women’s Safety in Rural Areas
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of planning on women’s safety in rural areas.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I secured this debate because I think the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has made an oversight; I hope it is a genuine oversight and that MHCLG is willing to rectify it. I am genuinely delighted that the Minister for Housing and Planning is here to respond, as I have been trying to contact him about this issue for some time, with no reply from his Department. I am confident that when he hears about the issues at first hand, he will be keen to act.
I want to start by paying tribute to my constituent Holly, who was the catalyst for this whole discussion. Holly lives in a village in my constituency and was flashed not once but three times by the same man while out walking in the countryside. When Holly came to see me, it was in a spirit of outrage that this had happened to her, and with a determination that we should do something about it.
UN Women UK has found that 71% of women have experienced sexual harassment in public spaces. Most of them never report it—not because it did not happen but because they believe nothing will be done. That alone should give us pause.
When the House has debates about women’s safety and place, we often talk about the same issues—quite rightly—that women face when they are out and about. Do they take the longer, well-lit route? Do they run before dawn, or wait until it is light? Do they walk home, or pay for a taxi they cannot afford? Do they have a phone signal if something goes wrong?
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Will my hon. Friend join me in celebrating the work that Sergeant Roseanna Green does to address the challenges presented when planning overlooks women’s safety? Her Walk and Talk intervention pilot in Somerset allows women who are over 18 to go on a walk with a female police officer to highlight local areas where they feel unsafe, including by identifying areas for CCTV, lighting improvement and increased police patrols.
Anna Sabine
That sounds like an excellent scheme. We have a similar one in Frome that I commend to the House.
In rural areas, most of the questions I just asked do not even apply. There may not be street lighting, there are no taxis and, as in swathes of my constituency, there is no mobile phone signal.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
My hon. Friend talks about appropriate lighting. I am a keen cyclist, as are lots of women in rural areas, and 59% of women who cycle say they are really worried about their journeys and have huge safety concerns as a result. Last October, Langport cycling club took part in a glow ride to raise awareness of the need for enhanced levels of safety and visibility for women, particularly when they are cycling at night. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must update the design guidance to include stronger standards for appropriate lighting in rural areas, to improve women’s safety?
Anna Sabine
Certainly. That sounds excellent and I will come to lots of nerdy points about design guidance in due course.
My constituency of Frome and East Somerset is, by any measure, a beautiful part of England. It is also a place where the challenges I am describing are felt with particular intensity. Inspired by Holly, last autumn I launched a survey to hear directly from women in my constituency about how safe they feel. Their responses were sobering. Women wrote about being followed on dark country lanes that had no street lighting; about waiting for buses on isolated roads with no shelter, no CCTV and no way of summoning help; about giving up running and cycling all together, not because they lacked the inclination but because they simply did not feel safe doing so; and about the constant, exhausting vigilance required just to get home.
Coincidentally, earlier this year I was contacted separately by a brilliant urban designer called Natasha, who drew my attention to the fact that the Government have set out an excellent strategy to combat violence against women and girls, and a national planning policy framework, but at the moment the two things make no reference to each other, which is a shocking oversight.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. In rural constituencies such as mine and the hon. Lady’s, large stretches of unlit roads, pathways and open land, often bordered by dark fields, can create a real sense of vulnerability. Does the hon. Lady agree that future developments or planning proposals in such areas must take into account safe, well-lit corridors, especially when it comes to transport links, to ensure that women feel safe commuting to where they need to be in areas that are historically dark and isolated?
Anna Sabine
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I will talk about lighting in due course.
In her book “Invisible Women”, Caroline Criado-Perez documents how the built environment has historically been designed around a default that is male, and how data on street use, transport planning and public space has been gathered without disaggregating by sex. The result is infrastructure that works reasonably well for men and imposes a hidden cost of time, money, anxiety and constrained freedom on women. That cost is not inevitable. It is a design choice, and it can be designed out.
Women are four times more likely to experience sexual assault than men, and more than twice as likely to experience stalking. Many such offences happen not in the home but in public spaces—on paths, at bus stops, in car parks and on the routes between places. They happen disproportionately in spaces that are poorly lit, poorly overlooked and poorly served by transport.
The consequences extend far beyond the incidents themselves. Girls’ loss of freedom in public space is directly and measurably linked to poor mental health. Women who feel unsafe curtail their physical activity, social lives and working patterns. Violence against women and girls costs hundreds of lives a year, alongside widespread and serious harm that ripples outwards into health services, the economy and the fabric of communities.
To circle back to my opening point, we know what works, but the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government seems determined not to implement it. On 16 December 2025, the Government published the revised national planning policy framework, and just two days later they published their violence against women and girls strategy, rightly declaring VAWG a national emergency and committing to a whole-of-society approach to prevention. Those two documents should have been in conversation with each other, but they were not.
The revised NPPF contains no reference whatsoever to women, girls, gendered safety or violence against women in the built environment—not one. Chapter 8, on promoting healthy and safe communities, discusses safety, health and crime, but does so in entirely gender-blind terms, despite overwhelming evidence that safety is not experienced equally by all people in all spaces. A chapter about healthy and safe communities which does not acknowledge that safety is not experienced equally is not, with respect, a chapter about healthy and safe communities. It is a chapter about healthy and safe communities for some people.
In January I wrote to both the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Minister for Safeguarding to raise the issue directly. I have yet to receive a substantive response from either of them, but when The Guardian asked MHCLG for comment, the response received was frankly jaw-dropping. MHCLG said:
“The NPPF is a planning document. It sets out guidelines for housebuilding and planning in England. The VAWG strategy is about protecting women and girls from violence and misogyny.”
The Department said it was
“unclear as to why anyone would expect the two things to be combined”.
That tells us that, alarmingly, the people responsible for designing our spaces and places apparently do not understand, despite huge bodies of evidence, why planning with women in mind might be relevant or useful. That raises serious concerns not just about the policy position but about the Department’s basic understanding of the relationship between planning and women’s lives.
What makes that omission particularly hard to defend is that it was not an accident. The previous Government explicitly raised this issue in the 2022 NPPF consultation, asking whether greater emphasis should be placed on making women and girls feel safe in public places. Responses were received, but nothing changed in the December 2025 revision, under the current Government. I want to be precise about that means: MHCLG was asked whether it should do better on this issue, received evidence it should and chose not to act. That is not an oversight; it is a decision.
International best practice in gender-responsive planning is really well established: clear sight lines and natural surveillance; active street frontages that keep eyes on the street; thoughtful lighting design—not simply more but better lights, placed in the right locations; and safe, well-connected public transport routes that do not leave women stranded after dark.
Make Space for Girls, the UK campaign that has done forensic and compelling work on how public space is designed for teenagers, has shown that the spaces we build for young people—the parks, play areas and recreational spaces—are overwhelmingly designed with boys in mind. The default is a multi-use games area: a hard, caged, male-dominated space that girls report, in study after study, feeling excluded from and unsafe in. Girls do not lack interest in outdoor space; they lack outdoor spaces that were designed with them in mind. The consequence is that girls retreat indoors earlier, exercise less and lose the freedom of movement that is so fundamental to adolescent development and mental health. This is not a minor amenity issue; it is a public health issue—and it starts with planning.
The principles are well established, but without explicit inclusion in national policy, they remain optional. As a result, women’s safety in public space is a postcode lottery—and nowhere is that lottery more consequential than in rural areas where the baseline is already so much lower.
The omission also creates a tension with the Government’s international commitments. UK infrastructure policy is explicitly aligned with the UN’s sustainable development goals, including SDG 5.2, on eliminating violence against women and girls, and SDG 11.7, on safe and inclusive public spaces explicitly for women and girls. The NPPF discusses the safety and design quality of green space at length, but does not mention either of those commitments.
A further tension is emerging that I do not think has received sufficient attention—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) alluded to it. Nature recovery and biodiversity policies are rightly being pursued with increasing ambition, with green corridors, rewilded verges and, in some cases, reduced lighting to support wildlife. Those are good objectives, but in some instances they are pursued without adequate consideration of what they mean for women’s safety. A dark, overgrown footpath may be an excellent habitat, but it may also be a route that women no longer feel able to use. We should not have to choose between environmental policy and women’s safety. Without gender-responsive planning guidance, that tension will not be managed; it will simply produce worse outcomes by default. The NPPF is not a neutral document; it is a statement of priorities, and right now it does not include women’s safety among them.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech about how we build in this country and the considerations we need to make. In my constituency, we have a large-scale development called Minerva Heights that was planned to be built in phases. Lighting down St Paul’s Road, which connects phase 1 to other centralised communities, was meant to be delivered before phase 2 was built out, but phase 2 is not yet coming because phase 1 homes cannot be sold. I have been contacted by many constituents who feel trapped in their community and unable to engage in other areas because they have no way of moving around the building that has already been done. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is why we need an infrastructure-first approach that comes with lighting delivered before the homes are built?
Anna Sabine
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We need an infrastructure-first approach that also has women and girls’ safety in mind.
I hope with all sincerity that the MHCLG’s official view is not the one that was set out by whoever gave that comment to The Guardian. I hope the Labour Government aspire not just to match but to exceed the standards of the previous Government when it comes to the safety and wellbeing of women. I also hope the Minister will commit today to taking steps towards putting VAWG at the heart of the NPPF. That would have a genuinely transformative effect on women’s lives in the UK.
Along with a series of experts in urban design and planning, I am calling on the Government to commission an independent review—a serious, systematic review of violence against women and girls and the built environment. It must be a review with teeth that establishes an authoritative evidence base, that examines the structural gaps between the VAWG strategy and planning policy, and that produces recommendations that require developers and planners to treat women’s safety as a fundamental component of design, not an optional extra. I am sure the Minister will be pleased that all this is included in a second letter that I will send to him today.
Alongside that, I urge the Government to take the following specific steps without delay: to amend the NPPF to explicitly require the consideration of women and girls’ safety, particularly in chapters 8 and 12, so that local authorities have a clear national mandate to act; to update the national design guide and national model design code to include substantive guidance on designing for women’s safety, drawing on the international best practice that already exists and is well evidenced; to require major developments to demonstrate how they contribute to SDGs 5.2 and 11.7—commitments the Government have already made on the world stage; and to introduce gender impact assessments for large-scale developments as a standard part of the planning process.
I also urge the Government to look seriously at gender budgeting as a tool for local authorities when they design streets, parks and public spaces. Gender budgeting does not mean ringfencing money for women; it means asking at the point of allocation, “Who benefits from this spending? Is the distribution equitable?” Vienna, Helsinki and Seoul have all used gender budgeting in the design of public space to reveal and correct the systemic underfunding of spaces that women and girls actually use. It is a practical, evidence-based mechanism, and it is entirely compatible with the fiscal constraints that local authorities are operating under. We should be using it here.
Finally, I hope the Minister will ensure that MHCLG is formally integrated into cross-Government delivery of the VAWG strategy. A whole-of-society approach that excludes the Department responsible for shaping the physical environment is not, in any meaningful sense, a whole-of-society approach—it is a strategy with a very large hole in it. The Government’s ambition to halve violence against women and girls within a decade is genuinely welcome, but ambition without structural delivery mechanisms will not achieve it. Right now, the NPPF—the primary lever for shaping how this country is built—contains nothing that would materially help to deliver it. That gap must be addressed if the strategy is to be credible.
The women who responded to my survey in Frome and East Somerset were not asking for the extraordinary. They were not asking for anything that other countries have not already delivered. They were asking to walk home safely, to go for a run, to catch a bus without calculating the risk, and to move through their own communities with the same unconsidered freedom that most men take entirely for granted. This is not a radical demand; it is a basic one, and the tools to deliver it in planning policy, design guidance and cross-Government strategy are well within our grasp. I urge the Minister to act. The evidence is there, the need is clear, and the gap in policy is glaring and, as I have shown today, entirely without justification. Let us work together to close it.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing this debate and making a powerful, well evidenced and entirely reasonable case for women and girls’ interests to be taken better into account in planning.
The violence against women and girls strategy, published in December 2025, describes planning and design as “critical tools” in women’s safety. Part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry, commissioned after the murder of Sarah Everard, called for women’s safety to be embedded into the planning of public spaces, yet the updated national planning policy framework, published by the same Government in the same month, does not mention women or girls once—not in chapter 8 on safe communities, nor anywhere else.
My hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset and I wrote to the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Safeguarding Minister about that omission. When the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government was asked, a spokesperson told The Guardian it was “unclear” why the two issues should be combined in any way. If the Government do not understand how women’s safety ties in with planning new spaces, we have a very serious problem.
The previous Conservative Government at least acknowledged that link when they consulted in 2022 on whether the NPPF should do more to keep women and girls safe. They did nothing about it, but they asked the question, which got it on the agenda. The Government appear to have one Department denying that a connection exists, while another Department explicitly acknowledges planning as a critical tool. That is unfortunately a case in point in the Government’s wider approach to communities and consultation. Rather than trusting local people to shape the places they live in, the direction of travel, whether by accident or by design—I look forward to the Minister telling me that this is not the direction of travel—seems to be towards centralisation and away from community voices.
There are several examples of that. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will see the Secretary of State removing decisions from local councillors on planning applications, in a move that I believe infantilises local councillors. A new direction, confirmed by the Ministry’s document published only yesterday, will prevent councillors from deciding on significant applications unless they first ask for the Minister’s permission. The Government have withdrawn funding for neighbourhood planning support services, the very mechanism through which communities can influence the design of their built environment.
The Government have also stripped much of the community and consultation policy out of the new draft national planning policy framework. The word “community” has been deleted no fewer than 35 times and the word “consultation” has been deleted 10 times. Without funding, most town and parish councils simply cannot review or update their plans. If gendered safety is not in the NPPF, overstretched local authorities cannot address it, because they are too underfunded to do anything that is not mandatory. These omissions from the NPPF do not only fail women at the national level; they give others licence to ignore the issue entirely.
In my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, parishioners in Kingston St Mary have raised with me the lack of pedestrian routes into Taunton. Walking along a narrow country road with no pavements is the only option, and women in the village find it unsafe. Cyclists too are affected. The parish council passed on one comment to me from a resident who said that cycling into Taunton should be easy, not life-threatening, on the Kingston Road. It is too dangerous to commute on a bike. The parish council also asked me particularly, unprompted by me, to raise the removal of funding for neighbourhood plans by this Government.
Walking along roads without footpaths is unsafe for everyone, but for women, especially after dark, it is not merely inconvenient; it restricts their freedom. Women in our communities deserve to enjoy the same confidence moving around our cities, towns and villages as anyone else. The local planning policy could and should be the mechanism to deliver that, consulting local communities to understand the priorities that need to be addressed. But communities need the policy backing and the tools and resources to make it happen, and the Government seem to be taking those away.
There are of course trade-offs that arise from design choices. Street lighting improves safety but contributes to light pollution. Green corridors are ecologically valuable but can create spaces that feel unsafe. Dense planting improves biodiversity but can reduce sight lines. Those are all trade-offs, but central Government overreach is not the answer. Local decision making informed by community nous is the answer. That would give women and others a say in the outcomes that matter in their local environments. Those are precisely what community-led planning is for.
Liberal Democrats call on the Government to amend the NPPF to explicitly require consideration for women’s and girls’ safety, particularly in chapter 8; to update the national design guide and national model design code to include clear guidance on designing for women’s safety; and to restore funding for neighbourhood plans so that communities have the means to implement the solutions that work best for them.
Community involvement matters, and planning has everything to do with women’s safety, whatever the quotes in The Guardian said. I hope the Minister will explain how community voices, particularly those of women, will be heard in planning.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and to take part in this debate about the impact of planning on women’s safety in rural areas. Any concern about the safety of women and girls in their local communities is, of course, of real importance, and I welcome the opportunity to examine the issue from the context of the planning system. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing the debate. Let me start by setting out why this debate is important, because the safety of women and girls should be a whole Government effort and of concern to the whole of society. It is relevant to consider the context at the outset.
In July 2024, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing described the problem of violence against women and girls as a national emergency, making up just under 20% of all recorded crime in England and Wales. Data has shown that in rural areas, convictions for domestic abuse are less likely, and victims in rural areas are subject to domestic abuse for 25% longer than those in urban areas, and are half as likely to report it.
It is clear that a strong disparity exists between the safety of women in urban locations and those in rural locations—I appreciate the value of this aspect of today’s debate. I have no doubt that the Government share the police chiefs’ concern. Despite that, the Government’s “Freedom from violence and abuse: a cross-government strategy” mentions rural locations just once. I suspect that is unintentional, but would welcome confirmation from the Minister in a few moments.
When we think about safety, we often focus on laws, policing or personal responsibility. That is entirely understandable, but one of the most powerful tools we have is something perhaps less obvious and the subject of this debate: planning. The way we design and organise rural spaces, roads, transport systems, lighting, housing and community services can significantly shape how safe women and girls feel and actually are. It is important that women and girls feel safe in the built environment around them, and that choices are made to ensure that safety can be upheld. That is why it is noteworthy that the Government have said:
“Design and planning are critical tools in achieving this.”
The planning system may at first seem a somewhat unrelated aspect of Government policy in the context of women’s safety, but as the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset emphasised in her speech, that assumption is wide of the mark. Through the planning system, both central and local Government can shape the built environment around women and girls to provide the infrastructure necessary to make rural streets, hamlets, villages and towns safe places for local people in general, and local women and girls in particular. For example, we know that well-lit streets, accessible transport and thoughtful design can work towards reducing violence and opportunities for harm.
Those examples do not guarantee women’s and girls’ safety. It is of considerable regret that so many women and girls do not feel safe on our streets, despite efforts made locally and centrally by figures of authority. But the changes that such planning choices can lead to in making women and girls feel safer in rural communities are none the less of great importance. That is clearly why the Government have announced that they will
“update national design guidance to reflect a VAWG perspective, ensuring that safety considerations inform how public spaces are designed.”
I hope the Minister will update us in a few minutes’ time on the progress regarding that pledge. What specific changes will be made and when?
In addition, the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Transport launched a consultation regarding the third cycling and walking investment strategy recently. In that consultation, the Minister’s colleagues noted:
“Investment in well-lit, safe, high-quality walking, wheeling and cycling routes increases feelings of personal safety, as well as improving road safety”.
The Government are yet to release their response to the consultation, which closed in November 2025. I hope the Minister will confirm that he will investigate how that pledge can be enacted, and what impact it will have on rural areas and the women and girls who live within them.
On rural issues specifically, I have already spoken about better lighting and creating safer spaces, but rural areas face a multitude of other issues that can actively work against the protection of women and girls. Technology and communication infrastructure are key parts of modern planning. Access to mobile networks and emergency services can literally be lifesaving in rural areas, but, according to a report from the House of Lords, although the situation is improving, rural areas often suffer from much worse access to the internet and worse phone coverage than urban areas.
In January 2024, the proportion of rural premises with access to gigabit-capable broadband was only 47%, compared with 84% of premises in urban areas. Around 5% of premises in rural areas were not able to access a decent broadband service at all, compared with just 1% in urban areas. Access to efficient broadband and speedy ways to contact key agencies in emergencies, including the police, would intuitively seem to be an important part of increasing the safety of women and girls in rural areas.
The lack of public transport in rural areas can force women and girls to take longer, less safe routes home. Given that, as I already mentioned, rural areas tend to be less well-lit and are often less heavily populated, the increased risk to women and girls caused by the lack of public transport is obvious.
In the planning system as a whole, there is a difficult balance between more effective regulation and making the system not just work for everyone, but actively support everyone in all aspects of life. It is clear that it will require a whole-Government approach to get that right. Planning alone is not a complete solution; it must work, as the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset said, alongside other agencies, such as education, community engagement and strong legal protections. Without good planning, even the best policies can fall short if they attempt to work in isolation.
The safety of women and girls must be improved and protected with a holistic and multi-departmental approach. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing this debate, and I thank the other hon. Members who have participated this afternoon for their contributions. On the subject of the hon. Lady’s letter, prior to this debate my office did look into what has happened. I think that, because it was addressed to both me and a Minister in the Home Office, it has been lost. However, I can assure her that she will receive a detailed response in fairly short order.
I will begin by reaffirming that tackling violence against women and girls is a top priority for the Labour Government, and our mission to halve it within a decade is already under way. As hon. Members have referenced, in December we published “Freedom from violence and abuse”, which is a transformative cross-Government strategy to accomplish that mission.
The strategy sets out the Government’s vision and the proposed concrete actions to prevent violence and abuse, pursue perpetrators and support victims. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), said, it recognises that we must take a whole-of-society approach to tackling violence against women and girls. It recognises that we must work across Government, public services and wider society to achieve meaningful and lasting change.
An example of the cross-Government work that is taking place to build a safer society for women and girls is the ongoing work of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on women’s safety in rural areas. Last year, it sought evidence from rural areas on support services and delivery methods that work best in rural contexts. DEFRA is working across Government to understand the findings of that evidence and to inform future work. That will address the disparities in the provision of support so that every victim, whether they are in a city or a rural village, can access the help that they need.
There are examples across other Government Departments. For example, the Home Office is working with the Department for Transport to ensure that considerations of violence against women and girls are embedded into planning and transport guidance so that public places are welcoming and secure for women. On the shadow Minister’s point, I am more than happy to ask DFT colleagues to provide an answer as to when we can expect a response to the consultation that he referenced.
Turning to matters for which I am responsible as the Minister for Housing and Planning, my Department is clear that women and girls must feel safe and be safe in all environments, including shared and open spaces such as streets, parks, transport hubs and public buildings. Planning and urban design are critical tools to that end for enhancing women’s safety. While the VAWG strategy should not be combined with the national planning policy framework, it is relevant to it and has informed the drafting of it. In chapter 12 of the framework, concerning well-designed places, the existing NPPF sets out that the planning system should
“create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users…and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.”
As hon. Members are aware, the Government recently consulted on a new NPPF. The proposals in it are intended to reinforce the message that developments should create places that are safe and inclusive, including for women and girls. I draw the attention of hon. Members to a number of specific policies in the draft framework that are relevant to design, transport and public safety. Our proposed policy on the key principles for well-designed places sets out that, in relation to public spaces, development proposals should:
“Include spaces that are safe, secure, inclusive, accessible for all ages and abilities and which facilitate and encourage social interaction, play and healthy lifestyles”.
Our proposed policy on street design, access and parking sets out that development proposals should:
“Make sure that the arrangement of streets and other routes help to create places that are safe, inclusive and attractive for all users”.
There is also a specific policy in the draft framework on maintaining public safety and security, which sets out:
“Development proposals should anticipate and address possible malicious threats and other hazards…in relation to…Occupiers and users, by identifying potential safety risks and proportionate mitigation opportunities which can be addressed through the design of the scheme. This applies especially in relation to…addressing crime, or the fear of crime”.
I have noted the calls from a range of individuals and organisations, including the hon. Members for Frome and East Somerset and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), to ensure that the framework more explicitly recognises the importance of a focus on the needs of women and girls and their safety when considering development proposals, whether that be in a rural or urban context; calls that the framework explicitly reference the VAWG strategy; and some of the other requests that have been made today. As hon. Members are aware, the consultation on a new NPPF closed on 10 March. My officials and I are considering all the feedback received, including in relation to this issue, and I will treat the arguments made today as an informal extension of that process. We will publish an updated NPPF in due course.
As hon. Members are hopefully aware, the NPPF is supported by a range of planning practice guidance. That is really important because the purpose of PPG is to support the implementation of national planning policy. The VAWG action plan contained within the strategy published in December included, as has been referenced, a specific commitment for the Government to update national design guidance to reflect a violence against women and girls perspective, ensuring that safety considerations inform how public spaces are designed.
In January 2026, we published updated design and placemaking PPG in draft. That consolidated document is intended to replace existing design guidance, including the national design guide and national model design code. Hon. Members will, I trust, welcome that the draft guidance that went out to consultation not only demonstrates the Government’s commitment to well-designed places but includes specific references to considering the safety of women and girls in the design of public spaces and streets. For example, paragraph 150 makes it clear that:
“Security features should be designed to support the safety of women and girls.”
The consultation on the draft guidance has now closed. Again, my officials and I are analysing the responses received and will publish the final version in due course. When the final PPG is published, policy DP3 in the draft NPPF proposes that the principles of that PPG should apply and inform applications in the absence of local policies, guides, codes or master plans. Those local tools can do the job if a local area has put the guides in place, or applied a specific master plan to a specific development, but in the absence of those we are proposing that the national PPG would apply through proposed policy DP3 in the draft NPPF.
I thank again the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for giving the House a chance to debate these important matters. I assure her and other hon. Members that I will reflect on the points raised in the debate in advance of setting out the Government’s final position on the NPPF and design and placemaking PPG.
Anna Sabine
I thank the Minister for his constructive response. It always seems to me that the Government are blessed with many feisty and brilliant female politicians trying to make sure that VAWG is rightly pushed up the political agenda. Given that we live in an environment that historically has been largely designed by and for men, I feel quite strongly that if we can manage to get a mention of the safety and wellbeing of women and girls into the NPPF it will genuinely make a difference to the way in which local authorities and other bodies treat planning, and consider it as a group.
There is often a joke that it feels as if a little more attention is paid to bats’ wellbeing than to women and girls’ wellbeing. I would love for that to change. I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, and I thank the Minister for his comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of planning on women’s safety in rural areas.
Written Statements
Late Payments Consultation: Government Response
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
This Government believe that business is the driver of growth and wealth everywhere across Britain. A thriving private sector is the single most powerful engine for improving livelihoods and places. The UK has some of the best, most innovative businesses in the world, and the most talented leaders and entrepreneurs of any nation.
In turbulent times, this Government are backing business with a deliberately more active state that is going further than previous Governments to back businesses, tackling reforms that previous Governments neglected, and prioritising the strongest reforms in decades to get more cash in the bank sooner for Britain’s small businesses.
The role of business in the Britain we are building is not just to plug gaps in the finances left by the last Government. Only with a thriving private sector can we change the country for the better. We will be more interventionist than our predecessors in backing the British business community to build and scale great companies.
In that context, today we are publishing the Government response to the late payments consultation which ran from 23 July to 31 October 2025.
In the response, we set out the measures we will take forward to tackle the scourge of late payments, forming the most ambitious reforms in over 25 years and giving the UK the strongest legislative framework on late payments in the G7. These measures will help deliver on the Government ambition to make the UK the best place in the world to start, run, and grow a business.
Late payments cost the UK economy £11 billion each year and lead to the closure of 38 UK businesses every day. On average, each business owner affected by late payments wastes 86 hours each year chasing invoices, amounting to a staggering total of 133 million hours across UK businesses. This hurts productivity, damages supply chains and erodes cash flow.
The impact of the status quo is clear: wasted time and wasted resources, and too many businesses that struggle to pay their hard-working employees on time and invest for the future. Our measures tackle this problem head-on, driving productivity and investment, and freeing up cash so that businesses can survive, thrive, and grow.
The consultation received more than 850 responses from across the UK. We are grateful for the interest, time, and expertise that stakeholders have put in to help us get this right.
The proposals within the consultation received strong support. Respondents overwhelmingly agreed with the importance of paying smaller businesses quickly and on time. We will strengthen the powers of the small business commissioner, giving them powers to investigate, fine and adjudicate. We will introduce strong maximum payment terms of 60 days, mandatory interest on late payments, a time limit for disputes and increased board level scrutiny. We also propose to prohibit the deduction of retentions in construction contracts but, given the ambition of the policy, we will consult further on the impact of this measure before taking a final decision on implementation.
This Government will continue to work with businesses and organisations across the UK economy to make these reforms a success. These changes will complement the efforts of the vast majority of UK businesses already committed to excellent payment practice, and through arming smaller businesses against the scourge of late payments, improve productivity and cash flow.
We will make sure that small businesses are paid on time, every time.
[HCWS1436]
Switzerland Enhanced Free Trade Agreement Negotiations: Round 10
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The 10th round of negotiations on an enhanced free trade agreement with Switzerland took place in Geneva between 9 and 13 March 2026.
The round followed the Secretary of State for Business and Trade’s meeting with his counterpart, Federal Councillor Guy Parmelin, in January 2026 at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Strengthening the UK’s partnership with Switzerland reflects the UK Government’s commitment to economic growth with our 10th largest trading partner, a relationship worth £49.0 billion in the four quarters ending Q3 2025.
In 2020 our trading relationship with Switzerland supported 130,000 UK services jobs across finance, consultancy and legal sectors services, transport, and other key sectors:
https://data-explorer.oecd.org
However, the current UK-Swiss trade agreement, signed in 2019 and based largely on an EU-Swiss agreement from 1972, focuses mainly on goods. It does not include services, investment, digital or data, even though services account for over 60% of UK trade with Switzerland. Switzerland is the UK’s sixth largest export market for services:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/uktotaltradeallcountriesseasonallyadjusted
The enhanced FTA aims to provide long-term certainty for UK services firms, locking in access to the Swiss market, ensuring the free flow of data and securing business travel arrangements on a permanent basis.
The latest round saw progress in a number of areas:
Services and Investment
Sessions took place on services and investment, with discussions focused on market access, including financial services.
Telecoms
Discussions were held on a telecommunications chapter, with progress made across a number of areas to minimise barriers and support increased trade and connectivity.
Digital
Further discussions were held on digital trade. Negotiations will continue with the aim of delivering robust outcomes for businesses in important areas, including preventing data localisation, as well as on the topics of source code and cryptography.
Intellectual Property
Negotiations continued on intellectual property rights with the aim of agreeing a comprehensive framework for the protection of intellectual property.
Goods
Discussions continued on goods market access.
Next steps on FTA negotiations
The Government will only ever sign a trade agreement that aligns with the UK’s national interests, upholding our high standards across a range of sectors, alongside protections for the national health service. Ministers will continue to update Parliament on the progress of negotiations.
[HCWS1435]
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor: Response to Humble Address Motion
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
I am updating the House on the Government’s work to comply with the Humble Address relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, approved on 24 February 2026, and on the steps being taken to identify and prepare the relevant material.
The Department for Business and Trade is leading the Government response. We are committed to complying fully with Parliament’s request while avoiding the publication of information that could prejudice the live Thames Valley police investigation into Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s conduct in public office. A dedicated team has been established to co-ordinate this work across the Department and Whitehall.
From 1976 to 2001 the Duke of Kent served as vice-chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board and later British Trade International. In this role he was part of the senior leadership of the UK’s official trade-promotion body and conducted more than 60 overseas visits to promote trade. Initial searches confirm that it was agreed that Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, on retiring from the Navy, would continue to support the late Queen in her duties and take on a specific role created for him reflecting the Royal Family’s long-standing involvement in trade promotion. The role was unpaid, but British Trade International paid for his travel and related expenses. Mr Mountbatten-Windsor did not take over the Duke of Kent’s board role.
We have begun searching historical departmental records and have commissioned parallel searches in other Departments, in particular the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Cabinet Office. We have established a process with the Cabinet Office and Thames Valley police to ensure that any material released does not prejudice the police investigation.
Mr Mountbatten-Windsor took up his role as special representative for trade and investment in October 2001. At that time, Government work on exports and investment was led by British Trade International, reporting jointly to the Department for Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The records from this period are largely paper-based. Subsequent machinery of Government changes—including the formation of UK Trade & Investment in 2003, its merger into the Department for International Trade in 2016, and the creation of the Department for Business and Trade in 2023—mean that relevant records span multiple legacy bodies and formats. We are working through these complexities in order to comply with the Humble Address.
I understand and share colleagues’ desire for relevant information to be provided to Parliament as quickly as possible. I will continue to keep the House updated on progress.
[HCWS1439]
Devolved Governments: 2025-26 Funding
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
In addition to changes in devolved Government funding at supplementary estimates 2025-26, and in line with the statement of funding policy, the Welsh Government have chosen to draw down £285.901 million in resource DEL (excluding depreciation), £53.395 million in capital DEL (general) and £10.704 million in capital DEL (financial transactions) from the Wales reserve in 2025-26. This is in line with the funding arrangements set out in the Welsh Government’s fiscal framework. £ million Welsh Government Scottish Government Northern Ireland Executive Resource DEL (excluding depreciation) 18,420.286 41,568.082 16,894.052 Capital DEL (general) 3,348.033 6,415.194 2,206.792 Capital DEL (financial transactions) 89.669 156.851 54.409 Total DEL 21,857.988 48,140.127 19,155.253
There have been further changes to devolved Government funding due to the application of the Barnett formula that were processed after the finalisation of supplementary estimates 2025-26. In 2025-26 these have resulted in changes of:
-£0.208 million resource DEL (excluding depreciation) and £2.890 million capital DEL (general) for the Welsh Government
-£0.344 million resource DEL (excluding depreciation) and £0.188 million capital DEL (general) for the Scottish Government
-£0.468 million capital DEL (general) and -£0.921 million capital DEL (financial transactions) for the Northern Ireland Executive in 2025-26.
The Northern Ireland Executive will also carry forward an increase of £0.078 million capital DEL (general) and defer a -£0.145 million resource DEL (excluding depreciation) reduction to 2026-27.
The Welsh Government will also return £11.790 million resource DEL (excluding depreciation).
Revised 2025-26 devolved Government funding is as follows:
[HCWS1441]
Defence Diplomacy Strategy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence (Lord Coaker) has made the following written ministerial statement.
In the strategic defence review published in June 2025, the Government committed to bring forward a defence diplomacy strategy. Today, we fulfil that commitment.
The full strategy is necessarily classified, due to its assessments of the UK’s interests. The public summary published and placed in the Library of the House today sets out the concrete actions the Ministry of Defence will take, alongside other Government Departments to deliver the strategy.
Our world has changed. The threats we face are more serious and less predictable than at any time since the cold war. In this new era, our first defence diplomacy strategy lays the foundation for UK defence to be more deliberate, targeted and coherent in deepening our international relationships with allies and partners. It is backed by the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, and sets out how diplomacy will support the delivery of the SDR’s priorities to make the UK more secure at home and strong abroad.
At a time when Europe has been rightly challenged to step up to meet the security demands in its own region, and in the face of growing Russian aggression, the primary focus of our defence diplomacy is on supporting our commitment to NATO.
Since coming into office 20 months ago, we have secured strategic agreements with Germany, France and Norway, all of which strengthen our national security and make defence an engine for growth at home. We have also galvanised international support for Ukraine. Since February 2025, the UK has stepped up to co-chair the Ukraine defence contact group with Germany—the international forum for providing military equipment to Ukraine. And we co-lead the coalition of the willing with France to help secure a lasting peace in Ukraine.
“NATO first” does not mean NATO only. Security in the Euro-Atlantic is indivisible from security in the middle east and Indo-Pacific. The UK is fully committed to working with our global allies and partners on shared defence priorities.
This new strategy provides a framework for how defence will work across Government and with allies and international partners to do that via diplomacy.
It focuses effort on the UK’s most critical objectives, ensuring better departmental prioritisation and value for money for the taxpayer. For the first time, it puts growth at the heart of defence diplomacy, by encouraging investment in British-based businesses British exports and the procurement of British-made defence equipment by our partners. The strategy embeds lessons from our recent successes—including the biggest fighter jet deal in a generation with Turkey, Britain’s biggest ever warship deal, signed with Norway, and our industrial co-operation with Germany—and ensures we apply them consistently across defence to deliver British jobs and growth.
It will also improve how the Department uses data and AI insights to support decision and policymaking, and equip our staff with better tools and training to build deeper regional expertise.
It sets out how we will train and develop our defence attachés and international-facing personnel by introducing enhanced training and distinct career streams to build deeper regional expertise. We will align the allocation of places on our world-class military education courses to our international prioritisation, ensuring they will have the greatest effect. We will also leverage our international alumni networks for sustained engagement and broaden opportunities for UK personnel to access international training programmes. Our newly established Defence Section London will support the 102 foreign defence sections accredited in the UK, improving co-ordination across the overseas defence network.
We will continue to use ceremonial opportunities to showcase our values, culture and history, recognising the British military’s long and proud record of excellence.
Delivery of the strategy will be monitored through departmental governance at ministerial and official levels to ensure that every pound of public investment delivers maximum strategic value.
I am placing a copy of the defence diplomacy strategy public summary in the Library of the House, and I look forward to updating this House on progress. Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2026-03-24/HCWS1440/
[HCWS1440]
Solar and Wind: Bills and Clean Energy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
Today the Government are announcing a package of clean energy measures, making solar panels more accessible and trialling a new way to deliver discounted power from wind. These measures will help to cut energy bills, reduce carbon emissions, and support energy security by making the UK less reliant on imported fossil fuels.
First, we are driving to make plug-in solar panels available to buy in the UK within months. These panels are cheaper than traditional rooftop solar panels and do not require professional installation, making solar power a more accessible option for flat owners and renters.
Secondly, the Government are publishing the future homes standard, which will include solar panels on new houses in England by default. The future homes standard will also see homes built with low-carbon heating such as heat pumps and heat networks.
Thirdly, we are committing to consult on changes to the smart export guarantee. This will look at how we can make it quicker and simpler for households and businesses to get paid for the electricity they export to the grid, and to get the best value from their clean power.
Fourthly, the Government are publishing a call for evidence on their £5 billion warm homes fund, which was announced in the warm homes plan earlier this year. The warm homes fund includes £1.7 billion for a new consumer loans scheme to support home upgrades including installation of solar panels. This call for evidence will explore options for using the remaining £3.3 billion, and includes solar as a key area of focus.
Finally, a new trial offering discounted power for households and businesses in constrained areas near wind turbines—expected predominantly in Scotland and the east of England—will begin this winter. Wind farms are currently paid to switch off their turbines when there is not enough capacity on the grid to transport wind generation to where demand is. This trial will instead allow companies to offer this “wasted wind” cheaply or for free to consumers of participating energy suppliers or flexibility service providers who live or operate their business in grid constrained areas when it is cheaper than turning off turbines. The trial will be funded by up to £20 million and delivered jointly by UK Research and Innovation and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. It will invite energy suppliers and other flexibility service providers to put forward offers for consumers that deliver discounted power.
Measures will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows to enable the Government to make this change permanently based on the results of the trial. This legislation will allow final consumption levies, which are policy costs that consumers pay for through their bills, to be removed from energy usage by consumers near to wind turbines at times when they are generating abundant wind power that would otherwise need to be turned off.
Relying on imported fossil fuels puts our energy security at risk. We are addressing that through our clean energy superpower mission, and this package of measures is one example. We are building a future energy system that is both secure and clean while also ensuring consumers will save money on their energy bills by bolstering cheap renewable energy.
[HCWS1444]
General Medical Council Legislative Framework: Reform
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Today, we are launching a consultation for the General Medical Council that aims to bring healthcare professional regulation into the 21st century.
The consultation will provide a basis on which to tackle inefficiencies, slow processes, and bureaucratic barriers to change, thereby enabling faster, fairer and more forward-looking regulation. This is necessary for more effective protection of patients and the public.
For years there have been frequent calls from regulators, professions, and the public to make healthcare professional regulation more modern and efficient. These were reflected in recommendations by the Law Commission in 2014 and further substantiated by responses to the regulating healthcare professionals, protecting the public, policy consultation in 2021.
The principal objectives of the draft General Medical Council Order 2026 are:
To introduce a modern and agile regulatory framework for medical practitioners, physician associates and anaesthesia associates in the United Kingdom.
The GMC will be able to consult and amend its rules more efficiently as these will no longer require Privy Council approval. This will allow GMC to respond to external events in a timely manner which should lead to swifter and stronger public protection.
To provide the GMC with enhanced flexibility to set standards for education and training in different forms, for example formal teaching or digital learning and settings for example, clinical settings or community based settings, which will ensure high quality for all educators and learners.
To provide a duty on the GMC to hold a single register, rather than multiple registers as it does currently. The register will be clearly divided into parts for each profession the GMC regulates. This will make it easier for the public and patients to find and understand registration information about the GMC’s registrants.
To reform registration powers so the GMC can amend requirements flexibly, ensuring swifter adaptations to workforce needs and regulatory developments.
To overhaul the fitness to practise process to make it swifter, fairer and less adversarial, thereby strengthening public protection and improving the experience for all parties involved. This will further support the work GMC has already done to eliminate bias in its fitness to practice processes.
To establish a framework which may be used for future reforms to the other healthcare professional regulators, enabling faster and more consistent cross-regulator outcomes.
The proposed legislation also delivers several review recommendations which pertain to healthcare professional regulation.
The noble Lord Mann’s review into antisemitism and other forms of racism in the NHS recommends implementing a number of measures to strengthen the safeguards relating to healthcare professional regulation.
These include the GMC retaining its existing right to appeal fitness to practise panel decisions to the courts, strengthening the powers of the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care by permitting them to require information from regulators, strengthening the PSA’s appeal rights, and allowing the PSA to request that specific fitness-to-practise decisions made by case examiners are revised. These measures will strengthen the oversight of the regulatory system and demonstrate the Government commitment to stamping out racism and discrimination at all levels of the healthcare system. Work is under way to finalise a range of further recommendations from the Mann review, which will be shared in due course.
The consultation also seeks views on recommendations 1 and 9 of the Leng review which recommended that the roles of “Physician Associate” and “Anaesthesia Associate” be re-named “Physician Assistant” and “Physician Assistant in Anaesthesia”, respectively, to ensure clarity for patients.
The proposed UK-wide changes laid out in the consultation are crucial in ensuring the GMC is fit for purpose and can ensure protection of the public to the best of its ability.
[HCWS1443]
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures: 1 December 2025 to 28 February 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of their TPIM powers under the Act during that period. TPIM notices in force (as of 28 February 2026) 2 Number of new TPIM notices served (during this period) 0 TPIM notices in respect of British citizens (as of 28 February 2026) 2 TPIM notices extended (during the reporting period) 0 TPIM notices revoked (during the reporting period) 0 TPIM notices expired (during reporting period) 0 TPIM notices revived (during the reporting period) 0 Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices (during the reporting period) 0 Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused (during the reporting period) 0 The number of subjects relocated under TPIM legislation (during the reporting period) 1
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The TPIM Review Group (TRG) keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. TRG meetings were convened on 3 and 5 March 2026.
[HCWS1438]
Local Government Best Value: Nottingham, Croydon, Warrington and Woking
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
This Government are committed to taking the action necessary to fix the foundations of local government. Today, I am updating the House on the steps we are taking to support four councils to recover and reform: Nottingham city council, the London borough of Croydon, Warrington borough council and Woking borough council.
Nottingham city council
On 4 February, I informed the House that the Secretary of State is satisfied, having considered the fourth report from the Nottingham commissioners, and other information, that the council has made significant improvement in many aspects of its operation and is now meeting its best value duty across most, but not all, themes. I proposed an ongoing intervention package to provide support to the council to ensure that momentum is maintained and that remaining challenges are addressed by reforming critical public services. I invited the council and others to provide representations by 11 February.
The Secretary of State received two representations which he has carefully considered. He remains satisfied that the council is not yet meeting its best value duty in relation to continuous improvement, and service delivery. The Secretary of State has concluded that it is both necessary and expedient for him to exercise powers in the Local Government Act 1999 as I proposed. Today, he has issued directions under section 15(5) of the 1999 Act to implement the proposed intervention package.
The package, taking effect from today and due to be in place until 30 September 2027, comprises specific actions the council is required to take, and appoints ministerial envoys to support the council and oversee the improvement work. The Secretary of State has today appointed Sharon Kemp OBE as ministerial envoy. He is confident that her extensive knowledge and experience will help the council to build further on the improvements already under way. A second envoy appointment will be made in due course. The envoys will report to the Secretary of State after six months.
The intervention package represents a de-escalation of the previous arrangements, reflecting the substantial progress the council has made to date and the strength of its leadership. It is designed to build on and reinforce that progress, enabling the council to continue driving its own improvement with the necessary support from the ministerial envoys.
In summary, the directions issued today require the council to:
Work with the ministerial envoys to establish a continuous improvement committee with appropriate membership, including external leads for adults social care and children’s services.
Work with the ministerial envoys to prepare a continuous improvement plan within three months, and respond promptly and in public to any committee recommendations on the plan and its implementation.
Continue to work with other councils in the Nottinghamshire area for unitary local government.
Co-operate with the ministerial envoys and provide assistance and access to them as set out in the directions and required to deliver improvement.
Pay the ministerial envoys’ reasonable expenses and such fees as he determines.
The Secretary of State has reduced the number of days of support the ministerial envoys can provide compared to commissioners, with a maximum of 75 days each per year, reducing the level of oversight and the cost to the council.
The Secretary of State will review the directions and the ministerial envoys’ roles after 12 months, to ensure that Nottingham has the support required to accelerate recovery and protect the public purse. Subject to clear and sustained evidence of improvement, the intervention may be de-escalated further ahead of the expiration of the directions.
I would like to place on record my thanks to Sharon Kemp OBE, Tony McArdle OBE, and Margaret Lee OBE for their invaluable work in supporting the council on its reform and recovery since February 2024.
I remain committed to working in partnership with Nottingham city council and colleagues across Government to test how public service reform can drive Nottingham’s recovery, including developing an innovative targeted support offer alongside the statutory intervention, to deliver the best possible outcomes for residents.
London borough of Croydon
The London borough of Croydon has been in intervention since January 2021, and commissioners were appointed in July 2025.
I have today published the commissioners’ first progress report, received in February this year, alongside my response. I am pleased that the commissioner team have established a constructive working relationship with the council, and it is encouraging that the political and corporate leadership have committed to addressing the serious challenges that Croydon continues to face. It is right that the council recognises that there are more steps it can take at a local level to transform its services and operation and improve its financial sustainability to help it move out of best value failure. Delivery of the council’s transformation plan and associated savings is now essential to help move Croydon away from an unsustainable reliance on exceptional financial support. It is now vital that both members and officers drive forward at pace the necessary changes to help return longer-term financial sustainability to Croydon and improved service delivery for residents. I am confident that the support and oversight of commissioners will help to place the council on a stronger footing for the future.
I look forward to receiving the commissioners’ next report in the summer, after the local and mayoral elections in May, and I will keep the House updated on progress.
Warrington borough council
Warrington borough council has been in intervention since July 2025, involving a team of ministerial envoys working with the council to oversee and support the required improvement work. The expectation is for the council to drive its own improvement with the support, challenge and advice from the ministerial envoys, some of whom have powers to exercise council functions that are treated as held in reserve.
Today I have published the ministerial envoys’ first report, received in February, which identifies early progress in a number of key areas. It is encouraging to hear that the envoys’ advice has been welcomed, that key leadership appointments have been made, and that steps are being undertaken to improve governance arrangements.
The council will need to maintain this open approach as the scale of the challenge is becoming clear through this early stage of the intervention. The envoys’ report clearly sets out the council’s sobering financial situation, including a significant structural deficit, major commercial liabilities, and a £130 million four-year budget gap. Addressing these issues will require the council to overhaul its past approach to transformation to improve its efficiency and the services that residents deserve.
I look forward to receiving the envoys’ next report later this year, once key appointments at the council are more established and it has further strengthened its capacity to lead the recovery work with the envoys’ guidance and oversight. I expect the council to maintain a sustained focus on delivering the improvement and recovery plan and the fundamental transformation needed to strengthen financial sustainability.
Warrington’s improvement is essential not only for the council itself but also for the wider region, given its critical role in devolution and the establishment of the Cheshire and Warrington combined authority.
Woking borough council
Woking borough council has been in intervention since May 2023. I have today published the commissioners’ sixth progress report, received in February this year, alongside my response. I welcome commissioners’ assessment that the council remains committed to delivering its improvement and recovery plan and that progress continues to be made across governance, finance and transformation.
I recognise that the council faces continued challenges as it recovers from failure and welcome the progress that has been made in delivering the asset rationalisation programme. This, alongside our unprecedented commitment to repay £500 million of the council’s debt in 2026-27 as a first tranche of support, will be crucial to reducing Woking’s unsupported debt and providing value for money for taxpayers.
The council will be abolished in April 2027 as part of local government reorganisation in Surrey. I am grateful for commissioners’ focus on readying the council for reorganisation, and the collaborative work undertaken so far with local partners to ensure an effective handover. I am clear that transition readiness will be of the utmost importance for the final year of intervention.
Conclusion
I recognise the serious challenges facing councils under best value intervention, including in some cases the need to address substantial debt burdens. I am committed to working with these councils to ensure they are delivering the high standards that local residents rightly expect. My Department will continue to take action to support improvement where needed, alongside targeted financial support and reform of the system itself, to secure sustainable recovery across the local government sector.
I will deposit in the House Library copies of the documents referred to, which have been published on gov.uk today. I will update the House in due course.
[HCWS1442]
Future Homes and Buildings Standards
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I wish to update the House on the publication of the Government response to the 2023 future homes and buildings standards consultation and the laying of a statutory instrument today to implement the policy resulting from this consultation.
Improving the energy efficiency of our buildings and reducing carbon emissions is challenging but essential. The 2021 amendments to the Building Regulations 2010, which increased the standards in parts L and F and introduced part O, were a good first step. But the future homes and buildings standards, which we are confirming today and laying the statutory instrument to implement, will ensure new homes and buildings in England will have good quality building fabric and, crucially, be fitted with low-carbon heating such as heat pumps. They will be “zero carbon ready” meaning they will naturally become zero carbon over time, as the electricity grid fully decarbonises, without the need for any retrofitting. This policy will help the UK avoid the more volatile price increases of fossil fuels, drive down energy bills for households, and support our goal of reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
The future homes and buildings standards consultation
The future homes and buildings standards consultation received over 2,000 responses, providing invaluable technical insights. We have carefully reviewed all of the feedback and worked hard to ensure the essential technical details are right to deliver a robust and workable standard.
The Government response to the future homes and buildings standards consultation confirms that, with implementation starting from 2027, the standards will make sure new homes and non-domestic buildings are future-proofed with low-carbon heating and high levels of energy efficiency. The future homes standard will ensure new homes emit, on average, at least 75% less carbon than 2013 standards homes, and will see solar panels installed in the majority of new homes, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and strengthening energy security. This could help save families hundreds of pounds a year.
Our ambition for on-site renewable electricity generation, such as solar, has meant we have developed a new approach to how we require this technology in the future homes standard. Our statutory instrument amends the Building Regulations to add in a new legislative functional requirement for on-site renewable electricity generation for new dwellings, which will ensure grid-connected new homes contribute towards clean energy and help manage peak demand. We have balanced this ambition with flexibility for developers constructing buildings where solar is not suitable, and appropriate exemptions for situations where installation may not be feasible, including higher-risk buildings. Higher-risk buildings, such as blocks of flats, often have limited roof space proportionate to the overall size of the building, with little available space for large equipment such as communal heating system components. Given this limited roof space, any benefit derived from requiring solar on the roof would be minimal when split across each individual flat. Residents of higher-risk buildings will continue to benefit from high levels of energy efficiency, supporting improved comfort and energy performance once homes are occupied.
The future buildings standard, which sets the performance standards for new non-domestic buildings such as offices, schools and warehouses, will also mean new non-domestic buildings feature high fabric standards, low-carbon heating, and other elements such as efficient lighting, better heat recovery, and solar panels (unless the building is a higher-risk building). This will ensure new non-domestic buildings are zero carbon ready, will lower energy use and emissions, and protect occupants from more volatile price increases due to reliance on fossil fuels.
The consultation response also includes the response to the call for evidence on part O of the Building Regulations, which came into force in June 2022. Part O requires new residential buildings to be designed and built to mitigate the risk of overheating, helping our country adapt to climate change and protecting people in their homes. The call for evidence collected input from house builders with first-hand experience of applying these requirements. Based on this feedback, the Government have decided to proceed with a comprehensive technical review of approved document O to consider how it could best be improved. The review will consider stakeholder concerns, including reviewing the adoption of the updated CIBSE TM59 for the dynamic method, exploring improvements to the simplified method and reviewing the noise and security guidance in approved document O. The review will also consider issues relating to overlaps with other parts of the Building Regulations and the use of weather files.
I am placing a copy of the Government response to the 2023 future homes and buildings standards consultation in the Library of the House.
Implementation of the future homes and buildings standards
The policies set out in the Government response to the future homes and buildings standards consultation form the policy for the 2026 changes to the Building Regulations.
Alongside publication of the Government response to the future homes and buildings standards consultation on 24 March 2026, I have laid a statutory instrument to implement the amendments to the Building Regulations, and I have published new statutory guidance.
Transitional arrangements have been established to provide clarity during the implementation of these amendments. These standards will come into force from 24 March 2027 for non-higher-risk building work, accompanied by a 12-month transition period. For higher-risk buildings, the amended regulations will be effective from 24 September 2027 in recognition of the greater complexity and length of the building control process making the standard arrangements unsuitable. Where a valid gateway 2 application has been submitted prior to this date, completion may proceed under the 2021 part L standards, except where such application is rejected or lapses. Full details are set out in the consultation response and statutory instrument.
Implementing these standards marks a pivotal step for the sector in our pursuit of net zero. It sets out a clear route towards delivering homes and buildings that are prepared for the future in their enhanced energy efficiency, low-carbon heating, and improved protection against overheating. This approach supports the transition to a cleaner, greener built environment, ensuring new homes are zero carbon ready and resilient to the impacts of climate change.
[HCWS1445]
Mobile and Fixed Telecoms Modernisation Charters and Protocols
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Lloyd of Effra, the Minister for Digital Economy.
The Government secured agreement yesterday from the telecoms industry to further protect customers and to prevent disruption to critical national infrastructure services during telecoms modernisation programmes via the 2G switch-off charter and the fixed telecoms modernisation charter. These charters and additional guidance for communication providers, network operators and wholesalers have been developed in response to and in anticipation of essential work led by industry to modernise the UK’s digital infrastructure.
Modernising the UK’s telecommunications infrastructure supports economic growth. Households and businesses will be able to benefit from much faster download and upload speeds, improved network security, greater reliability and resilience, better call quality, and lower latency (faster responsiveness). In addition, some telecoms companies are finding it difficult to source certain spare parts required to maintain or repair connections as the parts are no longer made. Decommissioned parts are being used to maintain the remaining networks.
Modernising mobile networks
All four 3G networks have now been safely switched off, with the last operator switching off in early 2026. Spectrum released from retiring 3G is now being re-purposed to improve 4G and 5G connectivity, which is now widely available across the UK. Mobile network operators are now turning to switching off 2G networks which was first announced in 2021. These 2G networks are used for a number of critical services and support customers who require additional support, including those with older 2G-only mobile phones—of which there are around two million—as well as personal telecare alarms, so it is imperative that their migration to 4G or 5G networks is done safely.
Mobile operators, as signatories of the new 2G switch-off charter, have therefore made significant commitments to ensure a safe and smooth switch-off of 2G migration for everyone. These include contacting affected customers well in advance of switching off a 2G network or service, using multiple and different means of communications, trialling switching-off 2G in different geographic areas before starting a nationwide switch-off, verifying that 4G and-or 5G coverage is present prior to switching off 2G, and maintaining access to all forms of emergency services. Mobile phones that are 2G only ceased to be sold at scale over a decade ago in the mid-2010s. The remaining 2G-only mobile phone users will receive multiple messages asking them to upgrade to a new device in advance of 2G being switched off by each network in 2029, 2030 and by 2033. Government have and continue to engage with local authorities and telecare providers about the closure of mobile networks.
Modernising fixed networks
Fixed networks are also being upgraded. This includes the upgrade of analogue copper landlines, the public switched telephone network, to the digital voice over internet protocol, also known as the PSTN migration. This is an essential upgrade as older networks are ageing and deteriorating, and people are missing out on the benefits of newer, better technologies. There are also expected to be significant closures of telephone exchanges in the coming years, as these will no longer be required for running modernised networks. Similar to the switch-off of the 2G mobile network, there are customers who are reliant on their landlines and old copper-based services, including those who use telecare devices.
In November 2024, the Government secured agreements from the telecoms industry to protect vulnerable people and critical services during the PSTN migration via the non-voluntary migration checklist and critical national infrastructure charter. These have ensured safety is at the forefront of the PSTN migration, protecting customers who require additional support—including during changes to their telecoms services—and critical infrastructure. As of 31 December 2025, only 3.6 million PSTN lines remained operational. This is down from 6.5 million at the end of 2024 and 35.2 million at the network’s peak in 2000.
Industry and Government are committed to learning the lessons from the PSTN migration for future fixed telecoms modernisations. Therefore, the industry commitments that previously only applied to the PSTN migration have been extended to all fixed modernisations. This includes the fixed telecoms modernisation charter, critical national infrastructure charter, and the non-voluntary migration checklist.
Supporting everyone through the migrations
In addition to these updated documents, signatories have agreed to two final engagement protocols. These protocols are a backstop to address situations where a small number of customers do not engage with communication providers despite repeated attempts to contact them in order to modernise their service. Communication providers, and, separately, network operators and wholesalers, have agreed additional safeguards to protect customers, while enabling networks and services to be modernised before they fail. This includes the commitment to contacting customers three times using at least two different channels that are suitable for their needs, using clear language about the proposed change to their service. The protocols provide a minimum time period for customers to respond of at least 30 days. There are also additional communications, time and safeguards for those needing additional support.
During the roundtable that I hosted yesterday, telecoms providers agreed that their first priority was always to protect customers. I also laid out the Government plan to work with industry to ensure the charter commitments are met and engage with sectors that rely on digital connectivity to ensure they upgrade their products and services.
[HCWS1437]